dave_xb12r
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 19, 2008
- Messages
- 6,470
You may have seen it on facebook, but I didn't want to brag on here until I knew I beat the ticket legitimately and not by default. I called the court today to see if both officers on the ticket wrote in and sure enough they did. The judge actually sided with me. I did a "trial by written declaration" which allows me to fight it by mail. It took a lot of research, but it worked out well for me. Here is the my argument.
Citation Number KW-_____
Case Number TR-10-_____
Pursuant to California Vehicle Code (CVC) 40902, I respectfully submit this Trial By Written Declaration to the Court. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of CVC 22349 A.
As required, I enclosed a check for $211 of bail payment. Please refund $211 in the event the court finds me not guilty.
On Friday, January 29th, a cold overcast afternoon, I was riding my motorcycle north on HW101 approaching the HW101/HW129 interchange at a steady speed of 65mph in the right lane. I noticed that I was approaching a slow moving vehicle going no more than 60mph. As I approached, the vehicle began to break which caused me to feel the need to change lanes. I checked my blind spot, then checked my mirror and noticed a campaign colored Infinity SUV approaching at a high rate of speed a few hundred feet back. I quickly calculated the time it would take to get around the slow vehicle in comparison to how long it would take for the SUV to arrive in my "unsafe area". I decided I had time to go around, and I did. While going around, I noticed 2 CHP vehicles, one all white, and one black and white hiding on the banked on ramp about 1/4 mile head of my position. I confirmed my constant 65 mph speed, and continued. As I passed the interchange, the all white unit began to accelerate and merge into traffic. At that point, I figured that the officer was perusing the speeding SUV. Instead, he got behind me and pulled me over.
I was not speeding and I believe an error was made. I realize this is a Lidar ticket and Lidar units are rarely ever wrong, but I will prove without a doubt that the accused charge incorrect and the Lidar reading is not sufficient evidence.
I have a friend that is a CHP officer in a nearby area who I asked him to do a bit of research and find out which Lidar units are used by California CHP. These units are the Pro Laser III, LTI Ultralyte, LTI TruSpeed, Stalker LZ1. 3 out of the 4 units have a beam size of 3' wide at a distance of 1000'. The best unit that CHP utilizes, the LTI TrueSpeed has a beam size of 2.5' wide at a distance of 1000'. According to what Officer Birmingham wrote on my ticket, the distance that my accused speed was acquired was at a distance of 1621'. According to my lidar certified CHP officer friend, at 1621' it is almost impossible for a lidar to get an accurate reading of a motorcycle. The size of the beam even with the CHP's best Lidar unit, the LTI TrueSpeed, would have been 4 feet and .63 inches wide at the distance of 1621 feet. With their standard Lidar units, the beam size would be 4 feet 10.3 inches at 1621 feet.
My motorcycle, a 2007 Buell Firebolt, is a sport bike with a fairing width of 18 inches at it widest point. Like mentioned before, it was a cold day, so I was crouched down behind the fairing to stay out of the wind. My question is, how could a Lidar unit with a beam width between 4 to 5 feet get an accurate measurement when 2.5 feet to 3.5 feet of light is passing me causing the Lidar to receive speed readings from cars behind me?
When I went to pass the braking vehicle, I noticed the speeding vehicle approaching from behind. From the CHP's point of view, I would have appeared to be speeding as I passed the slow moving vehicle when in reality, I was not. The officer operating the Lidar would have then given an estimated speed in his head at around 2000 feet of distance, acquired me as a target and pulled the trigger of his Lidar unit. By that time, I was at 1621 feet. At 2000 feet, is it really possible to estimate the speed of motorcycle? What he failed to notice was the actual speeder, the SUV approaching from behind which by line of sight would have appeared directly past my motorcycle. Being how motorcycles do not have front license plates, the most reflective surface for the laser to bounce off of would have definitely been the license plate behind my position on the SUV. Lidar units are not able to judge what you would like them to be targeting. The unit simply decides what the most reflective surface that the laser is bouncing off of, then calculates that speed. In my case, the most reflective surface would have been the plate behind me on the SUV.
I believe that this is a very unfortunate situation and I hope it does not reflect my driving behavior. As you can see, there is absolutely no way to be positive whether or not the accused charge is correct. Thank you for your understanding and I hope that you find me not guilty in the interest of justice.
If the court finds me guilty, I request a Trial de Novo.
In addition, please send me the “Decision and Notice of Decision” (TR-215) by mail.
Enclosed documents:
1. A page scanned from the Stalker lidar system manual showing beam width of over 4' 6"
2. A picture of my motorcycle in front of an SUV showing reflective light from a camera flash simulating what was most likely seen by the Lidar unit. Notice the license plate is much more reflective than the motorcycle, which is what would have caused the inaccurate reading.
3. A copy of the ticket indicating Lidar distance of 1621'
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
-----------------------------------------
David Johnson
Citation Number KW-_____
Case Number TR-10-_____
Pursuant to California Vehicle Code (CVC) 40902, I respectfully submit this Trial By Written Declaration to the Court. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of CVC 22349 A.
As required, I enclosed a check for $211 of bail payment. Please refund $211 in the event the court finds me not guilty.
On Friday, January 29th, a cold overcast afternoon, I was riding my motorcycle north on HW101 approaching the HW101/HW129 interchange at a steady speed of 65mph in the right lane. I noticed that I was approaching a slow moving vehicle going no more than 60mph. As I approached, the vehicle began to break which caused me to feel the need to change lanes. I checked my blind spot, then checked my mirror and noticed a campaign colored Infinity SUV approaching at a high rate of speed a few hundred feet back. I quickly calculated the time it would take to get around the slow vehicle in comparison to how long it would take for the SUV to arrive in my "unsafe area". I decided I had time to go around, and I did. While going around, I noticed 2 CHP vehicles, one all white, and one black and white hiding on the banked on ramp about 1/4 mile head of my position. I confirmed my constant 65 mph speed, and continued. As I passed the interchange, the all white unit began to accelerate and merge into traffic. At that point, I figured that the officer was perusing the speeding SUV. Instead, he got behind me and pulled me over.
I was not speeding and I believe an error was made. I realize this is a Lidar ticket and Lidar units are rarely ever wrong, but I will prove without a doubt that the accused charge incorrect and the Lidar reading is not sufficient evidence.
I have a friend that is a CHP officer in a nearby area who I asked him to do a bit of research and find out which Lidar units are used by California CHP. These units are the Pro Laser III, LTI Ultralyte, LTI TruSpeed, Stalker LZ1. 3 out of the 4 units have a beam size of 3' wide at a distance of 1000'. The best unit that CHP utilizes, the LTI TrueSpeed has a beam size of 2.5' wide at a distance of 1000'. According to what Officer Birmingham wrote on my ticket, the distance that my accused speed was acquired was at a distance of 1621'. According to my lidar certified CHP officer friend, at 1621' it is almost impossible for a lidar to get an accurate reading of a motorcycle. The size of the beam even with the CHP's best Lidar unit, the LTI TrueSpeed, would have been 4 feet and .63 inches wide at the distance of 1621 feet. With their standard Lidar units, the beam size would be 4 feet 10.3 inches at 1621 feet.
My motorcycle, a 2007 Buell Firebolt, is a sport bike with a fairing width of 18 inches at it widest point. Like mentioned before, it was a cold day, so I was crouched down behind the fairing to stay out of the wind. My question is, how could a Lidar unit with a beam width between 4 to 5 feet get an accurate measurement when 2.5 feet to 3.5 feet of light is passing me causing the Lidar to receive speed readings from cars behind me?
When I went to pass the braking vehicle, I noticed the speeding vehicle approaching from behind. From the CHP's point of view, I would have appeared to be speeding as I passed the slow moving vehicle when in reality, I was not. The officer operating the Lidar would have then given an estimated speed in his head at around 2000 feet of distance, acquired me as a target and pulled the trigger of his Lidar unit. By that time, I was at 1621 feet. At 2000 feet, is it really possible to estimate the speed of motorcycle? What he failed to notice was the actual speeder, the SUV approaching from behind which by line of sight would have appeared directly past my motorcycle. Being how motorcycles do not have front license plates, the most reflective surface for the laser to bounce off of would have definitely been the license plate behind my position on the SUV. Lidar units are not able to judge what you would like them to be targeting. The unit simply decides what the most reflective surface that the laser is bouncing off of, then calculates that speed. In my case, the most reflective surface would have been the plate behind me on the SUV.
I believe that this is a very unfortunate situation and I hope it does not reflect my driving behavior. As you can see, there is absolutely no way to be positive whether or not the accused charge is correct. Thank you for your understanding and I hope that you find me not guilty in the interest of justice.
If the court finds me guilty, I request a Trial de Novo.
In addition, please send me the “Decision and Notice of Decision” (TR-215) by mail.
Enclosed documents:
1. A page scanned from the Stalker lidar system manual showing beam width of over 4' 6"
2. A picture of my motorcycle in front of an SUV showing reflective light from a camera flash simulating what was most likely seen by the Lidar unit. Notice the license plate is much more reflective than the motorcycle, which is what would have caused the inaccurate reading.
3. A copy of the ticket indicating Lidar distance of 1621'
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
-----------------------------------------
David Johnson
