To your point Missa: as most of you know, I've been in the auto industry for over 25 years. Each manufacturer puts out service manuals. One of those manufacturers had (haven't been there since 2002) a section in the manual showing manufacturer tolerances for all gauges. I specifically recall the tolerance for the speedometer was 10% high and 5% low as it was a question on a test when I was instructing. So, if the speedo is displaying 60, the manufacturer stated actual speed between 57-66 as being "acceptable".
Yep, thanks Lance and Jesse. That's what happens when you rely on a memory from 18 years ago on the fly.
.
You might get away with 60 in a 55 zone, but you can't get away with much around here
Nope, can't do that either. Too suspicious.
I would say if there is a limit that you are legally responsible for, and you have a piece of equipment that may or may not be capable of measuring your speed relative to that limit, then that might be one way to avoid exceeding that limit, yes. The law doesn't prohibit "exceeding the speed limit as measured by your speedometer whih may or may not be accurate depending on a variety of factors many of which you as the owner are responsible for yourself" it prohibits exceeding the speed limit.
Wow, really?
Prolly not, since I think the answer is almost certainly, "Way, WAY more accurate than necessary."
But I will stipulate that radar is pretty hard to beat in court these days.Because the legal issues are much more interesting
Here's one, which kind of goes to the heart of what Missa said a few posts back. Most are not aware that in most jurisdictions traffic violations do not require a requisite mental state to be proven. And in some they do not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt...a preponderance of the evidence is all that is required.
So, in theory, it does not matter if you intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently ran a stop sign or exceeded a speed limit, it only matters that you did, and in some places the prosecution only has to prove that it is more likely that you did than not.
Look, if we want to talk about practice, then OK, yes, most police officers don't write for only a few MPH above the speed limit, because yes, they have better things to do most of the time, and yes a judge (who drives too) would be hard to persuade even though the law pretty much puts strict liability on the driver. But that does not mean that it is not "legitimate" to enforce these things as the law is written. Otherwise the legislatures should write traffic codes that reflect these poor assumptions: "Exceeding a posted speed limit by more than 5 mph as recorded by the driver's speedometer is prohibited." "Violating a traffic control device is prohibited, unless the driver almost complies with its direction and is late for work."
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress x 3
Assault and Battery, trespass to chattels. Maybe throw in false imprisonment.
Yes. But the problem with those speeding limits is that nobody really respects them. It's hard, too, because they make little sense. On our 5 lane freeway here without traffic, I'm much safer going 90 than that guy in the 1990 pickup truck next to me going 65 is.
That's exactly the right way of looking at it IMO. My first concern is for myself and my passenger, not for the cop or anything else. I came across a van recently that had been stopped in the right lane of a bridge right after a 70 degree left turn. I was only able to avoid him because there was no traffic next to me. At 65 mph, the police car won't provide much of a barrier.
