Bike cops with moving radar...

[Matt]

.

[Jane Honda]

Matt, sorry to hear about your unfortunate run in with the "Man". Did you receive a citation or just a warning? I dont have a clue as to what kind of radar the officers in question use, but I saw that Rebel posted a good read on how to try and beat a radar ticket. maybe this will help. >>>CLICKY<<< (http://209.188.31.14/b3126168c6f2765a1e6d199c01257e30/other/5400Pay_No_Fine.pdf)

Good luck.

[kneedragger26]

Interesting you mention that.....

When I was overseas I couldnt care less how fast I was going and usually matched my MPH with their KPH. :yes:

With this thing I try to see where I am sitting with the flow of traffic. Now I am reading 72 MPH in a 55 MPH zone and pacing traffic. I slow down to a speedo reading of 65 MPH and everybodys passing me.
I think the friggin thing is about 5 MPH off. Anybody else notice this?

:thinking:

By the way. What did they get you at and was it in the "forbidden" zone? (City):confused:

[Matt]

Thanks for that link Mike....I'll definatly look that over. And yes, he did give me a ticket. He said his radar showed me going 86mph, but the highest my speedo ever said at the time was 70. And, there was a car right in front of me, and several right in front of him (he was heading in the opposite dirction as me, out on Baily Hill, around mile post 4 or 5). I know radar can be pretty inacurate...not to mention moving radar. But, I just didn't know if they were using any type of laser moving radar these days.

[Jane Honda]

Hey matt, here is another great read for you to look over that is kinda similar to your situation....

On March 3, 1990 I received a ticket for doing 54 mph in a posted 40 mph zone on Willow in Signal Hill. I did not spend a lot of time worrying about this particular ticket because:


I knew that I had a valid Basic Speed Law (http://www.helpigotaticket.com/speed/basic.html) defense.
The officer noted (in writing at the bottom of the ticket) that he had warned me about following too close (proof that he had the other car on the radar, not mine).


The Judge Pro Tem, Debra Findley, would not recognize the legitimacy of either of my defenses, and found me guilty. This, combined with five other bad decisions I had seen her make that morning caused me to say, as I left the courtroom, "I think there's been reasonable doubt presented in a number of cases this morning. I think you are an extremely poor judge." (from the transcript)

When I ran into Ms. Findley about five weeks later at the Strawberry Music Festival, I had the opportunity to tell her exactly why I thought she had erred in each case. Do not even begin to doubt that I took advantage of the opportunity. She ended the discussion of the cases with her statement, "Yes, but if the officer takes the time to write the ticket, I assume you have to be guilty." I had never heard any lawyer ever say anything so contemptuous of the fundamental concept of Justice in this country: You are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I informed Ms. Findley that I had appealled her decision in my case. She replied, "That's your privilege." I responded, "No. That's my right."

I knew that I had a fair chance of proving that the case had rested on the radar reading of the other car's speed.

I got the transcript of the trial when I returned from my vacation. I noticed in reviewing it that the officer testified that the survey had been conducted on April 23, 1990, over six weeks after the date of the alleged violation. The survey must be conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation. If the survey is either too old or too new, it is out of the date range required and not admissible.

My Opening Brief for my Appeal listed four points:

There was reasonable doubt that I had actually violated the Basic Speed Law.
There was proof that the officer had a different car than mine on his radar.
The survey was not admissible per CVC 40802(b) (now changed to 40802(a)(2); see below) because it was conducted after the citation was issued.
The LA County D.A.'s Response Brief conceded the case on the third point and requested that the lower court be reversed. The Superior Court noted their request and reversed Judge Pro Tem Findley.



Oh, and the fourth point was:

"IGNORANCE OF THE LAW -- While I realize that ignorance of the law is no excuse, I find the Judge Pro Tem's ignorance of the law inexcusable."
Neither the D.A.'s office nor the Superior Court challenged that point

And here is another good one...

I have used these questions to successfully defend myself against Basic Speed Law charges (including 67 on a 45 on radar -- and yes, the 45 was justified by the survey).

This will require you to print out the sections of the Vehicle Code and have them for the officer to read. I have included them at the appropriate points here so all you need to do is cut and paste.

Having said all of that, here are the questions:
How far back was I when your radar first picked me up?
How far ahead of me was the closest car in front of me?
Was I in danger of hitting the closest car in front of me?
Was I in danger of hitting any other car?
As I recall, there were no pedestrians; is that correct?
(Alternatively: As I recall, there were no pedestrians in the roadway; is that correct?)
Did it look at any time like my car was out of control and about to leave the road?
What was the weather?
Was there anything inherently unsafe about the weather at the speed I was going?
What was the visibility?
Was there anything inherently unsafe about the visibility at the speed I was going?
What was the surface of the road?
Was there anything inherently unsafe about the surface of the road at the speed I was going?
What was the width of the road?
Was there anything inherently unsafe about the width of the road at the speed I was going?
You cited me with violation of Vehicle Code Section 22350, correct?
Could you please read 22350 for the court? 22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.
That section says nothing about a posted limit does it, Officer?
Could you please read this part of Section 22351(b) for the court? 22351.(b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful...
That sounds like I am guilty, but could you please read the rest of it -- the underlined part? 22351.(b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.
Does your testimony qualify as competent evidence?
Did you not testify that that there was nothing inherently unsafe about the weather at the speed I was going?
Did you not testify that that there was nothing inherently unsafe about the visibility at the speed I was going?
Did you not testify that that there was nothing inherently unsafe about the surface of the road at the speed I was going?
Did you not testify that that there was nothing inherently unsafe about the width of the road at the speed I was going?
Did you not testify that I was not in danger of hitting another car?
(I guess that takes care of the traffic condition.)
Did you not testify that I was not in danger of hitting a pedestrian?
Did you not testify that was in control of my vehicle and not in danger of leaving the road?
So what property could I possibly have endangered?
I ask you once again, does your testimony qualify as competent evidence?
Given your competent testimony as evidence of my speed as it relates to the conditions at the time and place of this alleged violation (not the average conditions covered in the survey, but the exact conditions you testified to – i.e., the conditions specified in 22351(b)), where is your case, Officer?
If you make it through question 14 without the officer bringing up anything negative, you have pretty much won your case. Once you get past question 20 the officer may try to change his or her testimony, in which case you challenge the officer's memory of the case and his or her competency as a witness for the prosecution.

[Matt]

Nice!! Thanks again Mike!! I'm definatly getting TONS of info to be able to fight this pretty good now. As long as they believe the radar can be innacurate I think I'll come out fairly good.

[Rebel]

Thanks Mike,
That second example's a good one.
I filed it away for a rainy day. :shooting: :copcarblo

[Jane Honda]

Thanks Mike,
That second example's a good one. I filed it away for a rainy day. :shooting::cop-car:
Thought maybe you could appreciate the NEW smiley Rebel...


:shooting: :copcarblo

[Rebel]

'splosions are cool!http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/2088/beavisbuttheadsg4.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[randySV650S]

Hey Kneedragger26, I'm not sure if this is true for all bikes and manufacturers, but some stock speedo's can read from 8-10% high of actual speed. The best way to test is to time yourself. Some highways have test sections, a mile long, marked off. Time yourself from the first to the second. You could probably mark off a section on a secluded road a half or even quarter mile and do all that math stuff and get your true mph. You have to maintain a constant, steady speed between marks to get an accurate measurement. You could try those radar trailers that are set up around town, if you can find one and who knows if they are accurate. Those machines are working for the boys in blue as well!!

[kneedragger26]

Thanks. I really am not up to measuring myself. Its one of those things that I would have to set up in my head and timing and blah, blah..... no, no.... Sounds like work, and I got enough of that.... My luck would be thats its perfectly correct anyway.... I just find the fastest vehicle in traffic and pace em. Or stealth mode slowly past everyone in a highway situation.
I just thought maybe its been encountered before and which way the speedo was wrong.

[rideboy5]

I had heard that a lot of the liter bikes and maybe some of the smaller ones have speedometers that lack accuracy. I've seen a device called a "Speed-o-Healer" that fixes the problem. I'don't know how it works exactly but there you go. I know mine is not accurate as well but I used my GPS which has a speedometer setting ( accutate to 1/10th mph) to calculate my difference.

[Monkey Nutts]

Something else to consider, the factory "acceptable range" for speedo's is +/-5% which makes it even more difficult to gauge what your actual speed is. While this is the factory range, I have read numerous publications that indicate speedos are commonly off much more than the "acceptable range".


Also, the error in speedo's is not linear either i.e. 5% of 75 mphs is a lot different than 5% of 25 mph. While 5% is not much, plug in 10% or more and you are really starting to deviate away from the actual pace.

Anyways, my :2cents: :blah-blah

[Matt]

You'd think with the cost that you pay for new bikes, especially liter bikeshttp://eugenesportbike.com/forum/images/smilies/newsmilies/rolleyes.gif, they could come up with a more accurate type of speedo. Oh well, that's definatly something I'll have to keep in mind will check as soon as I get the chance.

[Xusia]

+/- 5%?!? Ha! In my experience, nearly every sportbike speedo is off by 6% - 8%, which would read ~70 when actually going 65. The easiest way I have found to see the difference is a GPS.

I have a speedo healer because I like my speedo to be accurate. I love it and would certainly buy one again.

Mike has some excellent points. I have also fought many tickets, so I am quite familiar with Oregon law. Unlike California law, there is no "I was driving a safe speed regardless of the speed limit" defense. If you exceed the posted speed, the law reads that is "prima facie evidence" of an unsafe speed. In other wors, exceeding the posted speed is in and of itself inherently unsafe - at least according to Oregon law.

You might have some luck challenging the speed survey, but I doubt it. I did that - and would have had the ticket thrown out in CA - but I was still found guilty. It was kinda funny though, they had to continue the trial because I was taking too much time (I even had case law), and at the next date they actually had THE Eugene traffic engineer testify against my defense. Good thing for the city when the trial was recessed the judge suggested to the officer that he obtain that expert testimony of a traffic engineer. <smart ass tone>I'm thinking it might be gross affront to the justice system to have the judge - who is supposed to be fair and impartial (yeah, right) - tell the prosecution how to win their case.

I could go on, but suffice it to say I had a solid legal defense and still lost. Chances are you will too, but you should still try. I try to waste as much of their time as I can.

Another route you can try is request a trial reschedule for a day that the officer is off. You can state a job related reason or really anything believable. You can find out what days the officer works by looking for any entries of his in the duty log (it's public information).

As for your original question, radar is very accurate when properly maintained and calibrated, AND there is legal precident for that. There are a few situations where radar can yield inaccurate readings, but you would have to prove such a situation existed and that is probably not possible. I think you are wasting your time to prove the radar was inaccurate. You are better off proving the reading was from another vehicle, challenging the speed survey, etc.

[kneedragger26]

Well, well, well.....
Not only did I find out that Im not crazy, and that doing 69 to 70 in a 55 zone WAS KEEPING UP WITH TRAFFIC PACE! I was doing 65 just like all of the other idiots. I dont really care, but I knew something was fishy and it was on the upper end of the speedo.
Thanks for the extra info on your court case. I am sure its opened a few more eyes than mine.

[Summer4ever]

***Another route you can try is request a trial reschedule for a day that the officer is off. You can state a job related reason or really anything believable. You can find out what days the officer works by looking for any entries of his in the duty log (it's public information).****


B.T.W...In Eugene, an officer is REQUIRED to go to court if it is scheduled or it results in the loss of his job, so the chance of him not showing is next to nil...PLUS, if he has to go to court on a day off he will get automatically get paid for 4 hours of OVERTIME for what usually amounts to a few minutes of his day...so you are actually doing them a favor. Just thought I'd pass that along.

[Xusia]

B.T.W...In Eugene, an officer is REQUIRED to go to court if it is scheduled or it results in the loss of his job, so the chance of him not showing is next to nil...PLUS, if he has to go to court on a day off he will get automatically get paid for 4 hours of OVERTIME for what usually amounts to a few minutes of his day...so you are actually doing them a favor. Just thought I'd pass that along.
They get paid?!? All the better. It costs the city more money. If everyone plead not guilty and had a trial, it would dramatically reduce the overall income from tickets and thereby their incentive for issuing them. I have a serious problem when it becomes about the money and not about actual safety issues. I can't honestly recall a single ticket I've gotten where I was actully doing something unsafe at the time - unless you count simply being on a bike as unsafe in and of itself! :wow8: Most all of them have been for 10-15mph over the limit in perfectly safe conditions.

[Summer4ever]

That would be nice if it would reduce the incentive to write them,:thinking: but my guess is that they would more likely raise ticket fines...and our taxes... and I pay enough of those already. If you truly feel you were written up unfairly...I say go for it, but when I speed, I know what the risks and penalties are, and I accept the consequenses of my actions. I believe I have been given more leeway when I'm on the sportbike. I have never gone past a cop doing 95+ MPH in a car and gotten away with it... but I have multiple times on the bike:shhh: ...(and yes, I'm sure it WILL catch up with me someday :tongue: ).

[Matt]

Unlike California law, there is no "I was driving a safe speed regardless of the speed limit" defense. If you exceed the posted speed, the law reads that is "prima facie evidence" of an unsafe speed. In other wors, exceeding the posted speed is in and of itself inherently unsafe - at least according to Oregon law.Actually, it does work like that here in Oregon too. I think it's ORS 811.100.


And, it was moving radar that I was originally talking about. If you do some research on the equipement they use, you'll see it is often times very inaccurate. This mostly has to do with the antenna not being adjusted or positioned correctly....but there's also a TON of factors that the officer has no control over, and cause the readings to be off.

[kneedragger26]

I see there is a lot of effort involved in fighting speeding tickets. Almost down to the point of every last detail. I guess this comes out because people realize the direct consequence of being caught doing something they know is "against the law". Speeding has a big effect on driving insurance too, and some people can barely afford insurance already.
It would be like someone breaking into my house to steal. I shoot them and they sue me. They were knowingly wrong for breaking in, but fight it because they were caught, and suffer direct consequences such as a hole in the leg...or worse. Its the "lets twist it around the other way" type attitude.
I am not saying that everyone that is caught is wrong, and I am not saying that the Oregon police have accurate equipment. I AM saying that the police have the power, and as soon as a person accepts this and does not play "outlaw" on a motorcycle, or find the right places on the streets(or roads) to do this, then things will take on a completely different perspective.
That is why I am extra careful in city areas. (Riding in a group helps a lot.) And I pay attention to my surroundings and do not do anything that would make me stand out in a crowd.
I remember just a couple of weeks ago where we were riding back from Cottage Grove and someone out front was popping wheelies in the left lane on I-5....... hmmmmm.....
If I get busted, then I will take everything into consideration before making a stand against the county or the state, but Im willing to bet that I would probably be wrong.

:moped: :copcarblo


jus my :2cents: on the whole thing.....

[Rebel]

Right or wrong, it's still us against them. http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/562/policecar22rb5.gif (http://imageshack.us)

No one buys a sport bike to always do 55 in a 55 zone., just like no one buys a ferrari to putt down the freeway in the slow lane.

[Xusia]

Actually, it does work like that here in Oregon too. I think it's ORS 811.100.

And, it was moving radar that I was originally talking about. If you do some research on the equipement they use, you'll see it is often times very inaccurate. This mostly has to do with the antenna not being adjusted or positioned correctly....but there's also a TON of factors that the officer has no control over, and cause the readings to be off.
Unfortunately, I'm quite familiar with 811.100. Can elaborate on what you found? I'd love to have a different angle with which to mount a defense.

[Xusia]

I see there is a lot of effort involved in fighting speeding tickets. Almost down to the point of every last detail. I guess this comes out because people realize the direct consequence of being caught doing something they know is "against the law". Speeding has a big effect on driving insurance too, and some people can barely afford insurance already.
It would be like someone breaking into my house to steal. I shoot them and they sue me. They were knowingly wrong for breaking in, but fight it because they were caught, and suffer direct consequences such as a hole in the leg...or worse. Its the "lets twist it around the other way" type attitude.
I am not saying that everyone that is caught is wrong, and I am not saying that the Oregon police have accurate equipment. I AM saying that the police have the power, and as soon as a person accepts this and does not play "outlaw" on a motorcycle, or find the right places on the streets(or roads) to do this, then things will take on a completely different perspective.
That is why I am extra careful in city areas. (Riding in a group helps a lot.) And I pay attention to my surroundings and do not do anything that would make me stand out in a crowd.
I remember just a couple of weeks ago where we were riding back from Cottage Grove and someone out front was popping wheelies in the left lane on I-5....... hmmmmm.....
If I get busted, then I will take everything into consideration before making a stand against the county or the state, but Im willing to bet that I would probably be wrong.
....
My sense of justice might be inclined to agree - *IF* I thought for even a FRACTION of a second that justice even entered the equation. The bottom line is that it's about the revenue and not about safety. I find that reprehensible and appalling. They even set the appeal system up to make it difficult for you. The police simply wait around for you to make any mistake - could range from a failure to signal to speeding to didn't come to a 100% complete stop - and cite you for it. They just want you to pay and shut up and go away. If you feel otherwise I have to believe you aren't truly paying attention and don't have all the facts.

I accept the fact that I violate the law from time to time, nearly always outside the city limits, as you have indicated you do. It's still against the law out there and you are still "guilty" if caught. You don't, however, sound like someone who even though they violate the letter the law would do something that is likely to cause harm to yourself or others. Assuming that's true, do you deserve to get a ticket if caught? If you did get a ticket, would you just pay it because you violated the law?

I think the world would be a better place if tickets were reserved for situations where there was truly something that was unsafe or likely to cause harm to others (I'm an adult and I accept responsibility for my own well being - it is MY life, afterall). So I was doing 70 in borad daylight on the straight stretch of highway 20 when there was NO ONE else around - so what?!? Against the law? Yes. Unsafe and deserving of a ticket? Not in my book.

There's the other $.98! :rolleyes:

[Matt]

Unfortunately, I'm quite familiar with 811.100. Can elaborate on what you found? I'd love to have a different angle with which to mount a defense.Here's what I've found it to say. I could just be reading some parts wrong though:



SECTION 1. ORS 811.100:
811.100. (1) A person commits the offense of violating the
basic speed rule if the person drives a vehicle upon a highway at
a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard
to all of the following:
(a) The traffic.
(b) The surface and width of the highway.
(c) The hazard at intersections.
(d) Weather.
(e) Visibility.
(f) Any other conditions then existing.
{ + (2) Notwithstanding the factors considered under
subsection (1) of this section, a speed is not reasonable and
prudent and a person commits the offense of violating the basic
speed rule if the person drives a vehicle upon any highway except
for an interstate highway, as defined in ORS 377.710, at a speed
greater than the designated speed if the designated speed is less
than 55 miles per hour. + }
{ - (2) - } { + (3) + } The following apply to the offense
described in this section:
(a) The offense is as applicable on an alley as on any other
highway.
(b) Speeds that are prima facie evidence of violation of this
section are established by ORS 811.105.
(c) This section and ORS 811.105 establish limitation on speeds
that are in addition to speed limits established in ORS 811.111.
{ - (3) - } { + (4) + } Except as provided in subsection
{ - (4) - } { + (5) + } of this section, violation of the
basic speed rule by exceeding { + the speed specified in
subsection (2) of this section or by exceeding + }a designated
speed posted under ORS 810.180 is punishable as provided in ORS
811.109.
{ - (4) - } { + (5) + } The offense described in this
section, violating the basic speed rule, is a Class B traffic
violation if the person drives a vehicle upon a highway at a
speed that is not reasonable and prudent under the circumstances
described in subsection (1) of this section even though the speed
is lower than the appropriate speed specified in ORS 811.105 as
prima facie evidence of violation of the basic speed rule.
SECTION 2. { + The amendments to ORS 811.100 by section 1 of
this 2005 Act apply to offenses committed on or after the
effective date of this 2005 Act. + }
----------

Do you happen to know exactly what law talks about you HAVING to go the posted speed limit? Cause I've been searching like crazy but can't find anything. This is the closest to it that I've found.

[Xusia]

That's the text of 811.100. I read that as you are guilty if:
1. If are driving as a speed that is unsafe for the conditions.
2. You exceed the posted limit covered in 811.105 (which is evidence defacto of a speed that is unsafe regardless of the conditions).

They use the language "prima facie," in relation to evidence which I looked up just to ensure I had it right. Prima facie COULD be interpreted as I originally, but it could also be intereted to mean obvious unless proven otherwise.

Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/prima%20facie - It's an adjective as used in ORS) defines prima facie as:
1 : true, valid, or sufficient at first impression : APPARENT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/apparent) <the theory...gives a prima facie solution -- R. J. Butler>
2 : SELF-EVIDENT (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/self-evident)
3 : legally sufficient to establish a fact or a case unless disproved <prima facie evidence>

The "unless disproved" part says to me that if you can prove your speed was safe, you have a valid legal defense.

[kneedragger26]

You know, I am on your side more than you think. I just take in a larger picture then you are talking about. You are right. If someone is gunning for you, then most likely not matter what the situation was, you are going to get a ticket. What I am saying is the attractive habits of some individuals warrant a reason to get pulled over.

I am not pinpointing anyone or calling anyone an "outlaw". I am just as guilty as the next. What I am saying is that when there is a reason for being pulled over, (whatever it may be), it may be revenue, but I am willing to bet that the idiot that gets pulled over has something wrong, or did something stupid. I worked in countries with NO SPEED LIMIT and let me tell you, its been hard for me puttin along on the highway at 75..... Or pushing around 35 MPH corners at 70, but ready to let off the throttle, because who knows whats around the bend, but I am not the only person on the road, and considered just as responsible as you for my actions.
(I could tell you some stories........):rolleyes:
I would rather see a 80 MPH speed limit. I used to do 120 MPH and never even bat an eyelash.... and I was just getting started, but our society and the way they give out licenses like candy, its never going to happen.
If I got a ticket and felt that I was wronged, then I would fight it. I wouldnt expect much, but I would at least try.

And since you seem to think that I am against you and its all about you, then you can keep your 98 cents.

[Matt]

And since you seem to think that I am against you and its all about you, then you can keep your 98 cents.
Ummm, is that aimed towards me? I don't think you're "against me"...I was just simply questioning a few things to make sure I've got it all right. And ya, since I started the post I was trying to keep it aimed in a certain directionhttp://eugenesportbike.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif. I know I deserve a ticket for going 70 in a 55. I just don't deserve or want a ticket for going 86 in a 55, cause I know for a fact I wasn't and I know the speedo on a brand new production bike would not be off THAT far. That is all.

[kneedragger26]

Ummm, is that aimed towards me? I don't think you're "against me"...I was just simply questioning a few things to make sure I've got it all right. And ya, since I started the post I was trying to keep it aimed in a certain directionhttp://eugenesportbike.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif. I know I deserve a ticket for going 70 in a 55. I just don't deserve or want a ticket for going 86 in a 55, cause I know for a fact I wasn't and I know the speedo on a brand new production bike would not be off THAT far. That is all.
...Not you man. Read a few posts back....

[Xusia]

I don't think you are against me. I was the apparently mistaken impression you felt anyone who violated the letter of the law deserved a ticket. Obviously, that's not the case. My bad! :D

[parallax]

Hey there, it has been awhile since this post..did ya win or lose?..just curious cause i have been down this exact same senario...thnxs

[Matt]

Hey there, it has been awhile since this post..did ya win or lose?..just curious cause i have been down this exact same senario...thnxs

Well, I actually just keep rescheduling my court date cause I always seem to be busy on the days I'm supposed to go. I think I'm now scheduled for the 18th...and I'll most likely make it to that one. Then I'll let ya know how it goes.

I did plead not guilty...but that's it so far.

[orFZ6rider]

FIVE WORDS:

"If you play, you pay."

[Xusia]

WOW. so that's what it's like to live in a black & white world...

[ZXenigma]

Careful with challenging tickets. Judge Cynthia RAISED my fine $200. Cop didnt have radar or laser on me, but got a visual on us racing. So it was his word vs mine. Judge basically told me that his statement was as good as gods. Also, I've never owned a bike that didn't read 5-10% low. Next time I go to fight a ticket, I WILL get a lawyer. I've heard great results with legal representation and may cost less than the ticket. Vin

[tlrmike99]

Actually both my bikes show a higher indicated speed than what I am actually traveling, and I know both my buddies Honda's are the same way. My TLR is exactly 10% off. 50 on the speedo is actually 45. Just FYI.