I think the cop didn't use radar to caught you, it happen he just drove by and saw you was flying, therefore, he just guess your speed, that why he wrote you 64mph, my guess just go to court and fight that

Yea that's the plan. I beat ticket before from a estimating cop. I'll let y'all know the outcom

Trial by declaration is another way to contest a citation in Ca. Instead of fighting the ticket and actually showing up to court, with the trial by dec you fill out some forms explaining your side of the incident. The forms are then send to the officer where he has 30 days to respond. After he responds, the documents are reviewed by a judge and a decisions made. If the officer does not respond within 30 days, you win......

Tickets and F's are just a part of ownership. V-Spec is real. Pay and ease up in easily clocked zones.

There is also VASCAR, I know Mayland uses this!!! I think parts of Florida may still use it also. Also, on most tickets, it says what device or method was used to record your speed. What was checked or written?

You should no better than to speed in Aventura, those *******s have nothing better to do than to guard pot holes and catch speeders. Which is the same thing I can say about Coral Gables cops which is where i live.

Yeah I just looked it up. VASCAR is a completely reasonable way to visually estimate speed. Wait until car passes a fixed point. Start stopwatch. Stop stopwatch after car has passed fixed point #2 X distance from fixed point #1. Calculate average speed.

If that's what's meant by a police officer "visually estimating speed," then I haven no problem with this method.

But it's ludicrous to think that an officer merely saying "Oh I've had some training at guessing speeds of vehicles without explicitly computing average speed between two fixed points" can constitute sound evidence in a trial.

I'm sure it's admissible evidence, but I would fully expect such a testimony to be thrown out 100% of the time. Police would have unprecedented and unchecked power if visually estimating speed by nothing but "guessing based on experience" constituted sound (albeit "admissible") evidence.

Here's a relevant article where a federal appeals court completely through out a case that was based on an officer establishing probable cause to stop a vehicle after nothing more than "visually" guessing his speed -

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/38/3831.asp

I got popped for over 100 mph in my F. My trial is in March and hopefully my lawyer can get it down to a 1 point ticket.

Damn, in CA that will be tough... Wish you the best of luck....

Get ready to open up your wallet....

As Lobuxracer also said, there are actually 4 methods the police in CA can measure speed. Radar, Lidar, Pace method, and Visual Estimation. Most officers in CA are certified in Visual Estimation +/- 5 MPH of the vehicles actual speed and it is completely allowed in court. Some cops in CA are certified to +/- 2 MPH of a vehicles actual speed. But of course, they have to be certified in it. Just like use of Radar or Lidar. If the Pace method is used, the vehicle must also have an up to date calibration certificate....

Yep, in NC officers have to pass a visual estimation test within 5mph to be able to even be radar certified.

Why to some people think cops write tickets to make money? Although it's true the city gets a small amount for each ticket, a lot of the money goes to different programs to make our roads safer.

And sorry, but anyone who goes 85 in a 45 deserves a ticket! Just pay it and slow down!

In California this is called a "speed trap" and is illegal.

Very true.... I heard that cites only get like 3% of the citation... State of CA gets the rest of it... Cities make money from parking tickets, prop/sales tax, and other things.... Tickets to pay for anything.....