Happy Rider
Well-known member
Checkswrecks is correct, at least in California. Go sit in court and listen to an officer testify on a speed cite. The officer must testify that he/she visually estimated the speed and then used the radar / lidar to verify the estimation. This is to eliminate any false readings that might be displayed on the radar / lidar unit. Officers trained in the use of radar / lidar must demonstrate within 5 mph their ability to correctly estimate speed to be certified. Officer must recertify annually in speed estimation to remain current. It’s always good to request a discovery motion prior to your case and check for the following:
1. Officer has been radar certified and request copy of the certificate.
2. Officer has completed annual recertification in speed estimation.
3. Radar unit has been certified within 36 months.
4. Officer’s log of tuning fork calibration and internal unit test for the day in question.
5. Radar speed survey for the road if it is a prima facia speed, not a maximum speed.
All of this information is available if you ask prior to your court date. I have heard several people found guilty of speeding based on visually estimated speed without the use of radar / lidar. Most of these incidents were speeds that were well above the limit, like 55 in a 25 zone. Its doesn’t take much training to figure that one out. Of course it’s all up to the judge.
Visually estimated speed has been around for a long time. Prior to radar / lidar visually estimated speed and pacing was how speed was determined. It is not legal in California to use a stop watch over a known distance to determine speed (clocking). This is considered a speed trap. I don’t understand why this is wrong because it is a very accurate way of measuring speed.
1. Officer has been radar certified and request copy of the certificate.
2. Officer has completed annual recertification in speed estimation.
3. Radar unit has been certified within 36 months.
4. Officer’s log of tuning fork calibration and internal unit test for the day in question.
5. Radar speed survey for the road if it is a prima facia speed, not a maximum speed.
All of this information is available if you ask prior to your court date. I have heard several people found guilty of speeding based on visually estimated speed without the use of radar / lidar. Most of these incidents were speeds that were well above the limit, like 55 in a 25 zone. Its doesn’t take much training to figure that one out. Of course it’s all up to the judge.
Visually estimated speed has been around for a long time. Prior to radar / lidar visually estimated speed and pacing was how speed was determined. It is not legal in California to use a stop watch over a known distance to determine speed (clocking). This is considered a speed trap. I don’t understand why this is wrong because it is a very accurate way of measuring speed.
Last edited by a moderator: