Can Math Prove My Innocence in a Traffic Ticket Case?

[davesnothere]

I hope this isn't considered a Homework Question, I apologize if so.

I saw a simular post for someone but 1, it lacked the variables I have and 2, I can't read it. lol

I sent the person who responded to that post a PM, but I am posting a thread just in case that user is no longer active.

I need help with Math. The reason for it is regarding Speed/Distance/Time, etc concerning a traffic ticket based on Bumper Pacing.

Basically I received a ticket from an officer. I estimate this officer had to travel x,xxx feet in xx.x second (xx.x mph average), but need data for x,xxx feet in xx.x seconds (xx.x mph).

I have the breakdown of his Acceleration 0-100 in 10mph increments.
I have the average deceleration. (ft/s2).
I have the distance to reach 110mph from 0mph.
I have the distance to reach 100mph from 0mph.
I have the time/speed it takes to reach a Quarter Mile.

I have a raw GPS output of my vehicle reaching the accused speed, in x feet, x seconds from x mph (I had just entered the expressway).

I know how long it takes my car to reach the accused speed, if it had been true the officer had x feet and x seconds to pace me (assuming he was guessed my speed as soon as I reached accused speed and paced me).

I estimate he was 750 to 1,000 behind me when I first entered the expressway.

I am needing some help to defend my case. I blanked out most of the information in the event the Prosecution happens to come across it so that can't continue to base their lies on my citation.

Basically would it even be possible to travel x amount of feet in the 20.8 seconds my car would have traveled it given the numbers available for the vehicle he was driving, and a detailed statement stating the facts at 2 distances.

 

[berkeman]

I hope this isn't considered a Homework Question, I apologize if so.

I saw a simular post for someone but 1, it lacked the variables I have and 2, I can't read it. lol

I sent the person who responded to that post a PM, but I am posting a thread just in case that user is no longer active.

I need help with Math. The reason for it is regarding Speed/Distance/Time, etc concerning a traffic ticket based on Bumper Pacing.

Basically I received a ticket from an officer. I estimate this officer had to travel x,xxx feet in xx.x second (xx.x mph average), but need data for x,xxx feet in xx.x seconds (xx.x mph).

I have the breakdown of his Acceleration 0-100 in 10mph increments.
I have the average deceleration. (ft/s2).
I have the distance to reach 110mph from 0mph.
I have the distance to reach 100mph from 0mph.
I have the time/speed it takes to reach a Quarter Mile.

I have a raw GPS output of my vehicle reaching the accused speed, in x feet, x seconds from x mph (I had just entered the expressway).

I know how long it takes my car to reach the accused speed, if it had been true the officer had x feet and x seconds to pace me (assuming he was guessed my speed as soon as I reached accused speed and paced me).

I estimate he was 750 to 1,000 behind me when I first entered the expressway.

I am needing some help to defend my case. I blanked out most of the information in the event the Prosecution happens to come across it so that can't continue to base their lies on my citation.

Basically would it even be possible to travel x amount of feet in the 20.8 seconds my car would have traveled it given the numbers available for the vehicle he was driving, and a detailed statement stating the facts at 2 distances.

IMO, it's going to be tough for you to get out of the ticket this way. What was the speed listed on the ticket, and what was the speed limit?

I believe that the judge would want an expert to testify about this, not just calculations that you've done (even with help). You'd need some qualified expert witness to go with you to court, and even then you might still lose.

 

[davesnothere]

IMO, it's going to be tough for you to get out of the ticket this way. What was the speed listed on the ticket, and what was the speed limit?

I believe that the judge would want an expert to testify about this, not just calculations that you've done (even with help). You'd need some qualified expert witness to go with you to court, and even then you might still lose.

Ticket 68mph, limit 50mph. 1,700 feet from point I entered at 15mph to point I was pulled over. He was 1,000 feet behind me.

The type of defense is standard with this type of case (based on evidence I have read with how to fight said case)

The data I have so far is basic math, if they can't understand basic math from a high school dropout we are all doomed.

I would still like to present it if anyone can help me.

 

[davesnothere]

Also, he didn't use Radar, which is strange considering he had over 20 seconds to determine my speed via radar.

 

[AlephZero]

Remember "they" don't have to prove you were doing 68mph. They only have to prove you were doing more than 50.

I'm naturally a cynic so I assume what really happened was that you pulled onto the freeway, floored the gas pedal, and never even saw "his" car till the blue lights and sirens started. Proving me wrong would probably be quite a challenge even with some professional help.

If you did see his car well enough to have a good estimate of how far behind he was and how fast he was going, you also need to explain why those facts didn't affect the way you were driving...

 

[davesnothere]

Remember "they" don't have to prove you were doing 68mph. They only have to prove you were doing more than 50.

I'm naturally a cynic so I assume what really happened was that you pulled onto the freeway, floored the gas pedal, and never even saw "his" car till the blue lights and sirens started. Proving me wrong would probably be quite a challenge even with some professional help.

It's easy to prove, the fact his car can't travel 2,700 feet in 20.8 seconds, and yes, I did do exactly what you stated, then hit my cruise control at 50mph, which is exactly why bumper pacing tickets are crap.

The problem is assuming the judge will believe whether or not it is or isn't possible based on the fact of the evidence I have. 90mph average starting at 50mph in a car that takes 13.19 second to even reach 90mph, and 25 seconds to reach 110mph from 50mph. It's obviously impossible as to average 90mph when it takes 2/3 the time just to reach the MPH you have to average, aside from the fact it takes over 20.8 seconds to reach the speed required to average out the velocity to 90mph.

Pretty simple for a high school dropout.

 

[davesnothere]

Remember "they" don't have to prove you were doing 68mph. They only have to prove you were doing more than 50.

I'm naturally a cynic so I assume what really happened was that you pulled onto the freeway, floored the gas pedal, and never even saw "his" car till the blue lights and sirens started. Proving me wrong would probably be quite a challenge even with some professional help.

If you did see his car well enough to have a good estimate of how far behind he was and how fast he was going, you also need to explain why those facts didn't affect the way you were driving...

And yes, "they" have to prove I was doing over 65mph. The area in which I was cited is an illegal speed trap, i.e. the 85th Percentile is above 53mph which makes the posted speed limit illegal, but that's here nor there. The only way they can prove I was going any rate of speed if it they were able to adequately pace my vehicle, which they couldn't do even when I was going 50mph as, again, he was too far away when I entered the expressway.

1,700 feet people... from the time I entered the expressway at 15mph (90 degree tight corner), to the point I saw lights.

Through discovery, I have determined he has admitted, also, that he only observed me for 1,700 feet and he was only 150 feet from my vehicle when he allegedly paced me. This makes it easy for me to compile data regarding my vehicles ability and cross reference it will the data I found on Ford Interceptors through the Michigan State Police Vehicle Review data available online. (google it).

 

[berkeman]

And yes, "they" have to prove I was doing over 65mph. The area in which I was cited is an illegal speed trap, i.e. the 85th Percentile is above 53mph which makes the posted speed limit illegal, but that's here nor there. The only way they can prove I was going any rate of speed if it they were able to adequately pace my vehicle, which they couldn't do even when I was going 50mph as, again, he was too far away when I entered the expressway.

1,700 feet people... from the time I entered the expressway at 15mph (90 degree tight corner), to the point I saw lights.

Through discovery, I have determined he has admitted, also, that he only observed me for 1,700 feet and he was only 150 feet from my vehicle when he allegedly paced me. This makes it easy for me to compile data regarding my vehicles ability and cross reference it will the data I found on Ford Interceptors through the Michigan State Police Vehicle Review data available online. (google it).

He doesn't have to pace you. There are other ways he can estimate your speed fairly accurately.

 

[davesnothere]

He doesn't have to pace you. There are other ways he can estimate your speed fairly accurately.

Not in this case. He was behind me, my car is black and it was pitch dark outside, there was no points of reference for him to determine speed, and again, he was a thousand feet behind me, I imagine if he truly could attempt to determine speed through the reference of points of reference, he wouldn't be doing so at 100mph

 

[dacruick]

i don't think you hit the cruise control at 50. mostly because the 85th percentile is above 50, so you would have to be the slowest on the road.

I still think you should argue it, your charge will probably be lessened.
It seems like your argument is decent.

 

[JaredJames]

And yes, "they" have to prove I was doing over 65mph.

They only need to prove you were over 50mph.

Personally, I find it amazing how people regularly come here and ask for help getting out of tickets.

I think your biggest problem will be convincing the court your numbers are accurate. You'd need some pretty strong evidence to prove the cops word wrong in this case. I'd have to agree with a previous post in you possibly needing an expert witness for this.

I don't know how it works where everyone else is, but in the UK you can receive a stronger punishment for contesting the charges unsuccessfully. So I'd be careful with that.

 

[davesnothere]

They only need to prove you were over 50mph.

Personally, I find it amazing how people regularly come here and ask for help getting out of tickets.

I think your biggest problem will be convincing the court your numbers are accurate. You'd need some pretty strong evidence to prove the cops word wrong in this case. I'd have to agree with a previous post in you possibly needing an expert witness for this.

I don't know how it works where everyone else is, but in the UK you can receive a stronger punishment for contesting the charges unsuccessfully. So I'd be careful with that.

Not sure how you can comment on how they do or do not have to do something, then continue on with stating you are not sure how they do things here.

No, they don't have to prove I was going over 50mph, again, the speed limit of 50mph is illegal in that area.

 

[davesnothere]

i don't think you hit the cruise control at 50. mostly because the 85th percentile is above 50, so you would have to be the slowest on the road.

Uhh, is that really you defense to not believing me? lol.

It's moot at this point, I received a copy of the witness statement and the Cop has perjured himself into a bigger ordeal then just giving a ticket under false pretenses. Whether I broke the law or not, which I didn't, doesn't matter. Whether he keeps his job for lieing does.

One thing to keep in mind, don't write done something was said when you aren't sure whether the conversation was recorded.

 

[JaredJames]

Not sure how you can comment on how they do or do not have to do something, then continue on with stating you are not sure how they do things here.

Because the part I am unsure about is unrelated to the part I am (crime yes, punishment no).

Like I said, in the UK it is worse to question it and lose. But, they only have to prove you were over the limit to beat you. That's what I'm sure of. The law says "if you go over 50mph you are in the wrong", they prove you are over 50, they win.

No, they don't have to prove I was going over 50mph, again, the speed limit of 50mph is illegal in that area.

The speed limit is the speed limit. You can claim it's illegal all you want, but until the law reflects this by changing it then it remains illegal to go above it.

I think the fact I can't walk around naked is wrong, I can give all the arguments I like (human rights etc) but until the law changes it's still illegal for me to do.

You've got me thinking now, how exactly can a speed limit be illegal? What are the arguments for that?

 

[berkeman]

One thing to keep in mind, don't write done something was said when you aren't sure whether the conversation was recorded.

Interesting. Also keep in mind that in some places it is illegal to record a conversation with someone without their knowledge and consent. Just be sure to check your local laws.