Krin! You live in a 3rd world country

[Greebo]

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf ... timat.html

[Agrovale]

Sonuvabitch.  But then again this happened in Columbus.  AKA Redneck territory.  Bastards.

[Yichimet]

Well, Columbus itself isn't redneck territory. Get right outside the city, though...

[Abric]

California already does this.  For a CHP (California Highway Patrol) officer to give you a ticket without the aid of a speed gun.  When I was returning from my '04 deployment, we had a CHP officer ride the ship back from Hawaii to San Diego to give us seminars on traffic laws and driver safety.  He brought this same thing up during his speeding seminar, which surprised me that even after 6 years, I still remember it!

So, his story was that he pulled some guy over and that guy tried to fight this (giving him a ticket without the aid of a speed gun).  To refute it, the cop actually brought the judge out and taught him the basics of what he learnt in the school.  After about an hour or two, the judge was able to get people's speeds to within 5 mph of what they actually were doing.  The judge, of course, ruled in favor of the guy paying for the ticket.

PERSONALLY, we all speed and sometimes we get caught.  While I have no statistical data; the percentage of people who actually *do not* speed in America is probably so fucking low - it's reserved for old people who don't have the strength to push the pedal down and the legitimate crazy people who should never of got a license in the first place.  Cop caught you?  Chances are you deserved it ... and while there is no such thing as a perfect cop - I doubt crooked cops are looking to bust people for a 100 parking ticket.  No money in that, baby!

[Canaie]

Umm, no.  The only way to tell how fast a car is going without using radar is to follow them, match their speed, and then see how fast you're going.  That's been admissible as evidence for a while, but I don't think that is what the article is talking about.

[Frygyd]

There are a number of ways to tell how fast a vehicle is going without following it.  By watching how many seconds a vehicle travels between telephone poles and other tricks, etc.  I am sure that is what these police officers are taught.  And apparently from the ruling it is scientific enough to be admissable if the officer were trained in this manner.

[Greebo]

It would be possible to get a minimum speed, most likely, but not anything, as Abric says, more accurate than +/- 5 kph unless you were exact in your placement to allow for angles and you had a stop watch.

Now up here we have tiered speeding - over by 1-20 kph is so much per klick, 20-40 kph over is a different bracket and so forth. I can't see it being accurate enough to place you in one or the other if you are, in fact, round about the 20 kph mark.

[Abric]

Umm, no.  The only way to tell how fast a car is going without using radar is to follow them, match their speed, and then see how fast you're going.  That's been admissible as evidence for a while, but I don't think that is what the article is talking about.

Incorrect, good sir!  Just like some other folks said; it's all about mathematics.  If you know the difference between two points and the calculation of the amount of seconds it takes for an object to travel between those two points; you can figure out its speed in miles, kilometers, light years... whatever.

Now the value of that in court is the thing that seems to be up in the air (as per the article).  But then, that is the same thing about speed guns.  From my understanding, not all have a memory function.  Or, hell, do any?  If not ... I think I just found my way to MILLIONS!

[Pincus]

This reminds me of New Rome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Rome,_Ohio

[Canaie]

I guess that would work too.  But if you're going to use a stopwatch, then you might as well get a radar gun for a more accurate reading.