*Whew* I looked fast, good thing I wasn't in - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

Synergy SATX · 06-03-2010, 08:52 PM

Ohio

Russo · 06-03-2010, 09:06 PM

Innocent until PROVEN guilt surpasses this... just as here in Louisiana they passed a law that says if you deny a blood alcohol test your license is revoked for 1 year, the 4th ammendment surpasses it, but most people don't know the Constitution..

Autobot · 06-04-2010, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synergy SATX

Ohio

Yeah I saw something on the news here that they can still write you a ticket if they feel you were driving too fast...the New Camaro looks fast sitting still so I guess we are all screwed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russo

Innocent until PROVEN guilt surpasses this... just as here in Louisiana they passed a law that says if you deny a blood alcohol test your license is revoked for 1 year, the 4th ammendment surpasses it, but most people don't know the Constitution..

In some cities around here if you refuse a breathalyzer they can get a court order to draw blood against your will to prove your guilty

CamaroSkooter · 06-04-2010, 07:41 AM

Yeah, this was posted here already, but that thread is getting kind of heated.

I can kind of understand both sides of the coin on this one. In the SAPD, there are many squad cars that don't have any radar equipment installed because they're not used by traffic enforcement officers. But if an officer observes an obvious speeding infraction, I'm fairly sure they are obligated to stop that individual. Now, Doug might be able to confirm or deny that for me, but it seems plausible to me.

And given the fact that visual estimation of speed was the only way to write tickets before radar was around makes me think the majority of the hooplah surrounding this just looks like little kids throwing temper tantrums really.

Now, with that being said, I fully agree that it doesn't seem logical for a traffic officer these days to be writing any speeding ticket based solely on visual estimation. They have the technology, why wouldn't they use it? In my above example, I would understand if the officer pulled over the speeding individual, but in that particular instance, it would make more sense to forgo the speeding charge and simply cite them for wreckless driving.

06-03-2010, 08:52 PM	#1
Synergy SATX Mike and Debbie Drives: 2014 Corvette Stingray 3LT Z51 Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: San Antonio TX Posts: 865 View My Garage	Whew I looked fast, good thing I wasn't in Ohio __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Official 1/8 Mile (V8) 2010+ Camaro Fast List	Merc	Dragstrip and Launch Techniques Discussion	763	08-12-2022 04:51 PM
WOW is this thing ever waking up!	zerox	5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions	10	04-07-2010 01:05 PM
Looked at 2002 Z-28	ernie22golf	4th Generation Camaros	4	07-19-2008 05:57 AM
GMHTP April 08 - A Thing Of Beauty	TAG UR IT	Camaro Photos \| Spyshots \| Video \| Media Gallery	7	02-28-2008 11:53 AM
Edmunds.com review of Holden Commodore... good info.	LSxcellent	General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion	6	07-23-2007 06:49 PM

06-03-2010, 09:06 PM	#2
Russo Unofficial Glass Tech Drives: 2014 Ford F150 FX2 Join Date: May 2009 Location: Raceland, LA Posts: 1,376	Innocent until PROVEN guilt surpasses this... just as here in Louisiana they passed a law that says if you deny a blood alcohol test your license is revoked for 1 year, the 4th ammendment surpasses it, but most people don't know the Constitution..

06-04-2010, 07:41 AM	#4
CamaroSkooter Retarded One-Legged Owl Drives: 2010 Black Camaro 2SS Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 9,745	Yeah, this was posted here already, but that thread is getting kind of heated. I can kind of understand both sides of the coin on this one. In the SAPD, there are many squad cars that don't have any radar equipment installed because they're not used by traffic enforcement officers. But if an officer observes an obvious speeding infraction, I'm fairly sure they are obligated to stop that individual. Now, Doug might be able to confirm or deny that for me, but it seems plausible to me. And given the fact that visual estimation of speed was the only way to write tickets before radar was around makes me think the majority of the hooplah surrounding this just looks like little kids throwing temper tantrums really. Now, with that being said, I fully agree that it doesn't seem logical for a traffic officer these days to be writing any speeding ticket based solely on visual estimation. They have the technology, why wouldn't they use it? In my above example, I would understand if the officer pulled over the speeding individual, but in that particular instance, it would make more sense to forgo the speeding charge and simply cite them for wreckless driving.