On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:06:54 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:23:07 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
I snipped nothing from that passage.


After reading it again I noticed that you also snipped part D from
that subsection, which requires proper calibration of all speed timing
devices, and declares that proof of such calibration "shall be
competent and prima facie evidence of those facts in every proceeding
in which a violation of this title is charged". So if there the device
has been calibrated as required under that part, there can be no legal
challenge of its accuracy.

The reason why this part is included is precisely as a result of such
legal challenges. People still challenge this though, as you might be
surprised at how many police departments allow their speedo cal's to
expire. For this reason, most of the cops that I know do not use
moving speedo timing as a means to catch speeders. They'd much rather
"stake out" a particular road and time people as they pass by. The
degree of violation is such that even when required to give 10 MPH
(Paragraph 3 devices) they still nab a good deal of speeders.


This is in direct contradiction to your
claim that "The courts have a history of throwing out speed citations
for small amounts, due to the potential for inaccuracies in both the
car speedometer and the speed measuring devices."

There's no contradiction. The fact that part "D" was created was a
result of that history of court challenges. I never said that every
challenge wins or that the percentages of those challenges who won
today is any greater than they were 20 years ago. But that "history"
does exist.



Sigh.

Tweedle-dum goes down for the count with his foot firmly planted in
his mouth, and in comes you to take up the cause. Did you two sign
some sort of a pact?

Are you now attempting to "spin" this as well?

The law is clear. In certain circumstances, the state of Pa. requires
that LEO's give AT LEAST a 5 MPH grace when running speed traps.

The greatest majority of speed traps are conducted with devices that
fall within the guidelines of paragraphs 2 and 3, and this rule
clearly applies


Are you through picking nits?

Dave
"Sandbagger"