Photo radar system that is policing the streets is lying and faulty.

[harmonica]

I drove past one of those photo radar systems that has an LED that tells vehicles their speeds as they drove by. When I drove up to it and past it, I was driving 30 MPH, which is the speed limit. The LED read that I was driving 50 though. I double checked the speedometer after it said that and it read , on the needle exactly. Will I be ticketed based on that big of an inaccuracy?

I saw another one in another part of town so I decided to test it. The speed limit was 40 so I drove just under the limit and watching my speedometer, not going over. The LED read 47. So what do I do if I'm ticketed? I could prove to them there equipment is faulty, as I'm sure a lot of other drivers who drove past who were ticketed under the limit, will argue the same thing. Are a lot of photo radar systems that inaccurate?

[kazz]

Not sure about you lot in the US but the speed display boards are just that and are usually radar.

Our speed cameras don't display the speed at the site but on your speeding ticket and photo if you pay the $7.50 extra.

[mobrien316]

In Connecticut the police are required to have the radar units certified on a regular basis. When we appear in court on a speeding ticket we just have to show that the radar was "in cert" and the person unwisely fighting their ticket loses. Every time.

It sounds like the radar you drove by was not in cert, and therefore probably will not be used for issuing any tickets. If you make a polite call to your local PD to let them know about the issue they will likely address it.

[marinepilot]

Just wondering if you were the only vehicle on the road at the time you passed the radar units. They could have been picking up a vehicle behind you that WAS going those speeds, especially if it was bigger than your vehicle.

[retdetsgt]

If two different ones said you were going faster than your speedometer said, I'd get my speedometer checked. The odds of one being that far off are high, with two different ones it would astronomical.

Edited to add:

Do you have oversize tires on your vehicle? That will cause your speedometer to register a lower speed that you are actually traveling.

[Citicop]

I'm not sure how photo radar tickets hold up in court in the first place.

If I write a speeding ticket, I have to establish that the car appeared to be exceeding the speed limit based on my training and experience, and then the RADAR reading confirms that. I don't know how a photo and a printed speed from the unit would prove speeding beyond a reasonable doubt...

[retdetsgt]

If I write a speeding ticket, I have to establish that the car appeared to be exceeding the speed limit based on my training and experience, and then the RADAR reading confirms that. I don't know how a photo and a printed speed from the unit would prove speeding beyond a reasonable doubt...

The operator here still has to testify if it goes to trial. All photo radar units here are manned. Only photo red light are done w/o someone operating it.

[Citicop]

The operator here still has to testify if it goes to trial. All photo radar units here are manned. Only photo red light are done w/o someone operating it.

Got it. That makes sense. (We don't have them here, so I was confused...)

-Citicop.

[harmonica]

If two different ones said you were going faster than your speedometer said, I'd get my speedometer checked. The odds of one being that far off are high, with two different ones it would astronomical.

Edited to add:

Do you have oversize tires on your vehicle? That will cause your speedometer to register a lower speed that you are actually traveling.

I thought of that, and no I have a small car, with small tires. I looked at other cars while driving the speed limit. Some cars were driving the same as me, and some were driving faster. So if doesn't seem off at all compared to most speeds of other cars.

[harmonica]

In Connecticut the police are required to have the radar units certified on a regular basis. When we appear in court on a speeding ticket we just have to show that the radar was "in cert" and the person unwisely fighting their ticket loses. Every time.

It sounds like the radar you drove by was not in cert, and therefore probably will not be used for issuing any tickets. If you make a polite call to your local PD to let them know about the issue they will likely address it.

I see, but why would they bother to use them if they are not in cert?

[harmonica]

There was a vehicle ahead of me but as soon as it passed the LED, the speed changed when I approached it, so I assume it was my car, it was reading.

[scott715us]

The speed trailer we have has the same KA band RADAR that most patrol vehicles use. It's likely it was picking up something else. If the antenna is reading off by more than 1mph, it's normally taken out of service.

[kazz]

I'm not sure how photo radar tickets hold up in court in the first place.

If I write a speeding ticket, I have to establish that the car appeared to be exceeding the speed limit based on my training and experience, and then the RADAR reading confirms that. I don't know how a photo and a printed speed from the unit would prove speeding beyond a reasonable doubt...

Because here there's legislation that says its correct unless YOU prove it wrong.

[scott715us]

Because here there's legislation that says its correct unless YOU prove it wrong.

Different set of rules in Australia. If the speeding ticket is criminal in nature, photo speed cameras wouldn't fly. The state has to prove beyond a resonable doubt the person receiving the ticket was the driver, but more importantly, under the Constitution a defendant in a case has a right to confront his accuser. This can't be done unless someone is verifying identity of the driver before the criminal citation is issued. We have red-light cameras in a neighboring town, but it's a civil infraction and only a fine is imposed. It's a lesser standard of proof and not a criminal offense. That's the way they get around it here.

[retdetsgt]

Because here there's legislation that says its correct unless YOU prove it wrong.

Not in this country. We still have the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty. The evidence is weighed and a photo and radar reading is pretty damning, but there has never been any law that says the police are always right.

In fact, several years ago a reserve wrote my wife for driving 47 in a 25 right after she made a turn. The guy must have thought he was playing a video game instead of operating his radar (not photo radar) because there was no way her little Honda CRV could have gotten up to that speed even if she'd floored it, and she hadn't. She was found not guilty