URGENT! Need spreadsheet for max MPH in GEAR...

[Jon K]

Preparing for my defense tomorrow in court and I can't find my link to the spreadsheet showing max mph in each gear. I had a sheet Alan S linked me to which had each gear ratio, diff ratio, tire size, and calculated max mph in each gear. Thanks.

[Paul in NZ]

do a ggogle search,i did and there are lots,most seem to be motorcycle related
google is your friend (http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=excel+gearing+spreadsheet&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=10&sa=N)

[632 Regal]

Good luck Jon, I hope the cop dont show and it gets pitched.

[Jon K]

he'll show - small as department.

Here is my defense -

I have yet to edit and organize it, it was typed up in WordPad lol. Excuse punctuation and spelling errors.





Good afternoon your honor,

In my defense to the ticket issued 9-16-06 at 11:20 PM on Rt. 309, I would like to point out several discrepancies in the stated scenario. Because this is my first speeding ticket while having driven this very car since I was 17 years old (now 21), I have never had any issue with obeying traffic regulators. Firstly, Officer Lawhead pressured my person at the location I was pulled over at as to what speed I had been going. After telling Officer Lawhead I was unsure of the speed because I was focusing on my driving due to the aggressively close vehicle behind me, Officer Lawhead told me he clocked me several times from 106, 110, to 112. Unsure of the device he used to clock me I did not question the accuracy of said speeds and remained cooperative with him. Officer Lawhead then approached my vehicle to write a fix-it-ticket for window tint. He returned to my vehicle with a speeding ticket indicating 106 in a 55 zone and a ticket for careless driving as a result.

The issue I have with said citation is that I do not believe the speed recorded as accurate. Officer Lawhead claimed to have timed both vehicles (which were not next to each other) at 106 mph over a distance of 463 feet which allotted 2.96 seconds - however, Officer Lawhead stated that he clocked the vehicle(s) multiple times over that speed. Upon investigation of the device used [tracker device - aka vascar] it is technically impossible for anyone to time a vehicle multiple times between points with unknown distances - sure he could clock a car once, but not twice or more unless he was in pursuit, which according to the ticket [miles followed: "-" ] and my witnessing of the event he was not. Therefore, Officer Lawhead would have had to meter 463 feet by eye in pitch black night as there are no street lights at this part of Rt. 309. Difficult to believe is any humans ability to gauge 463 feet; 150 yards; or 1.5 football fields, which even with correct perspective - whereas this portion of 309 is extremely hilly - would be quite difficult and inaccurate. Additionally, had Officer Lawhead a means to meter a vehicle multiple times with a Point A - Point B timing device the sum of duration could average 9 seconds (2.96 x ~3). Had my vehicle been traveling at a minimum of 106 mph for 9 seconds, I'd have traveled 0.0024 miles a second or 0.265 miles in 9 seconds. However, Officer Lawhead had signaled my vehicle and I had pulled over within ~0.35 (I had come to a stop in front of a residence but was instructed to pull ahead into the entrance to Highway Marine for a total distance of ~0.37miles) miles North of Officer Lawhead's position. It is unreasonable that a police vehicle or any road-going vehicle travel 0.35 miles in ~9 seconds from being parked (which would be an average of 145 mph sustained, which does not even consider accelerating to 145 mph).

Furthermore, the fine indicated on the ticket shows $117 which is a direct correlation to the speed traveled - $35 for the first 5 mph, and each additional mile per hour over the speed limit is $2 or a total of $127, not $117. The ticket therefore would indicate the vehicle had been cited a fine due for 99 in a 55 mph zone and not the alleged 106 in a 55 mph zone which raises question as to how Officer Lawhead officially metered my vehicle at 106 mph, as he would have it on display for his reference to confirm math. Furthermore, I do not believe Officer Lawhead timed my car as he clearly identified the tint on my car saying front and back tint was illegal and would have noticed that the car had 4 doors contrary to what he wrote on the ticket (BMW Coupe). I drive a 1992 BMW 525i which is, according to every insurance company, a full size family sedan and not a coupe by any definition of the word - though the other car, a Mitsubishi 3000GT is a coupe.

Thank you for taking all information into consideration.

Jonathan Kensy

[632 Regal]

Damn Jon, you are hired if you ever become an attorney. I didnt see any inconsistancies or spelling mishaps either. Your good to go.

[Paul in NZ]

i would ditch the last paragraph,i think youve made your point,the last paragraph makes it sound like youd be happy to accept 99MPH.I though tyou were going to say you thoughtt you had gone 70 mph because of the tailgater.See if you can come up with some sums which illustrate that if you were going 70 mph it would take x miles/x time for the officer(is that his real name?) to accellerate up to speed .clock you for x feet then pull you over.
Hope you succeed!

[pmlmotorsports]

I would love to be a fly on the wall in that court room.......too bad they don't allow cameras inside.

[632 Regal]

That would be great! We could see Jon work his magic.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in that court room.......too bad they don't allow cameras inside.

[Michael999]

Wow nice work Jon, i hope they see whats going on here.
(am i the only one who giggled at the officers name :P)

[Macv]

Very well written. Seems you've put forth a lot of effort, I hope it comes out well in the end. Good Luck.

[ryan roopnarine]

IANAL

1. do you have that all memorized? if not, start cutting parts out right now.

2. i'm really not trying to be unduly critical about your defence, its obvious you put a lot of "yourself" into it. but the only way any judge i know would accept what you've written is if you subpoena the test records for the vascar unit, submit a copy of your registration (reflecting that you have a 4 dr car) as a declaration or however you wanna do it--to the court, and subpoena a copy of the window tint meter calibration (yes, i know its not "central" to your main concern). and do all of this RIGHT NOW. as in, skip school, get out of work, write subpoenas, get a friend to be your process server, drive down to wherever the "unit" the arresting officer works at, have your friend "serve" the officer or his superior the subpoena for the calibration records, deliver the declaration to the courthouse, and then go home and prepare. the use of a max speed table would have to be an article of evidence, and would likely have to be submitted both to the court and to the arresting officer as articles of evidence before they would let you refer to it in court. you can overnight this, or take it by hand right now. the officer might say that it is unreasonable to subpoena calibration recordsthe day before, but it is perfectly reasonable to a layman, or even a judge that a LEO going to testify in support of a speed violation would have that information with him. when he doesn't have it (and he won't, if you subpoena him today), you can start to mount an effective defence, and ask them to toss it.

again, i'm not a lawyer. i don't know how things work in PA, but all of the aforementioned should be applicable in some way. i'm not trying to be excessively critical of you at a sensitive time, but that is what i'd do if i were trying to mount the defence that you have typed out for us.



ps...almost any mathematics that you want to admit into court will have to be the testimony of an expert witness, or at very least, needs to have a textbook to back it up if you want to do it yourself. so if you want to use it, work the math out, then check out an appropriate math and physics text from the library. you should have posted this to us a couple of days (or a week ago) and people here could have helped you out.

[ryan roopnarine]

does the subpoena/summons say how long you are given for a trial? because if it is, the excerpt is too long for a 30 minute appearance (once you stumble and such) and you'll probably forget a good deal of it if you haven't already memorized it.

[Zackb911]

Doing 106+MPH on public roads? Am I the first one that thinks he should pay it? There is no way when the speedlimit is 55 that you are justified in doubling the speed limit. There is NO defense for that. In my opinion be glad you weren't ARRESTED on the spot, and just pay the ticket... In Mass that ticket would have cost you a whole lot more than $117

[Rus]

Doing 106+MPH on public roads? Am I the first one that thinks he should pay it? There is no way when the speedlimit is 55 that you are justified in doubling the speed limit. There is NO defense for that. In my opinion be glad you weren't ARRESTED on the spot, and just pay the ticket... In Mass that ticket would have cost you a whole lot more than $117

Perhaps reading this thread would be beneficial: Jon K's Ticket Thread (http://www.bimmer.info/forum/showthread.php?t=26014)

Best regards.

[Zackb911]

Perhaps reading this thread would be beneficial: Jon K's Ticket Thread (http://www.bimmer.info/forum/showthread.php?t=26014)

Best regards.

Still no excuse. Just because some guy is riding your ass doesn't mean you need to drop it down to third and go twice the legal speed limit...

[billy]

Perhaps reading this thread would be beneficial: Jon K's Ticket Thread (http://www.bimmer.info/forum/showthread.php?t=26014)

Best regards.

Its only 'beneficial' to the prosecution!
Jon states he was doing probably about 65mph, then 'floored' it and would then have us believe that he was then only doing 75 mph when stopped, ie flooring his supercharged BMW gained him 10MPH?

either we are being fed some horse shi* or his car needs tuning

[Evan]

ahhhh the sweet innocence of 21

i hope the judge is in a good mood...

[Alexlind123]

he'll show - small as department.

Here is my defense -

I have yet to edit and organize it, it was typed up in WordPad lol. Excuse punctuation and spelling errors.





Good afternoon your honor,

In my defense to the ticket issued 9-16-06 at 11:20 PM on Rt. 309, I would like to point out several discrepancies in the stated scenario. Because this is my first speeding ticket while having driven this very car since I was 17 years old (now 21), I have never had any issue with obeying traffic regulators. Firstly, Officer Lawhead pressured my person at the location I was pulled over at as to what speed I had been going. After telling Officer Lawhead I was unsure of the speed because I was focusing on my driving due to the aggressively close vehicle behind me, Officer Lawhead told me he clocked me several times from 106, 110, to 112. Unsure of the device he used to clock me I did not question the accuracy of said speeds and remained cooperative with him. Officer Lawhead then approached my vehicle to write a fix-it-ticket for window tint. He returned to my vehicle with a speeding ticket indicating 106 in a 55 zone and a ticket for careless driving as a result.

The issue I have with said citation is that I do not believe the speed recorded as accurate. Officer Lawhead claimed to have timed both vehicles (which were not next to each other) at 106 mph over a distance of 463 feet which allotted 2.96 seconds - however, Officer Lawhead stated that he clocked the vehicle(s) multiple times over that speed. Upon investigation of the device used [tracker device - aka vascar] it is technically impossible for anyone to time a vehicle multiple times between points with unknown distances - sure he could clock a car once, but not twice or more unless he was in pursuit, which according to the ticket [miles followed: "-" ] and my witnessing of the event he was not. Therefore, Officer Lawhead would have had to meter 463 feet by eye in pitch black night as there are no street lights at this part of Rt. 309. Difficult to believe is any humans ability to gauge 463 feet; 150 yards; or 1.5 football fields, which even with correct perspective - whereas this portion of 309 is extremely hilly - would be quite difficult and inaccurate. Additionally, had Officer Lawhead a means to meter a vehicle multiple times with a Point A - Point B timing device the sum of duration could average 9 seconds (2.96 x ~3). Had my vehicle been traveling at a minimum of 106 mph for 9 seconds, I'd have traveled 0.0024 miles a second or 0.265 miles in 9 seconds. However, Officer Lawhead had signaled my vehicle and I had pulled over within ~0.35 (I had come to a stop in front of a residence but was instructed to pull ahead into the entrance to Highway Marine for a total distance of ~0.37miles) miles North of Officer Lawhead's position. It is unreasonable that a police vehicle or any road-going vehicle travel 0.35 miles in ~9 seconds from being parked (which would be an average of 145 mph sustained, which does not even consider accelerating to 145 mph).

Furthermore, the fine indicated on the ticket shows $117 which is a direct correlation to the speed traveled - $35 for the first 5 mph, and each additional mile per hour over the speed limit is $2 or a total of $127, not $117. The ticket therefore would indicate the vehicle had been cited a fine due for 99 in a 55 mph zone and not the alleged 106 in a 55 mph zone which raises question as to how Officer Lawhead officially metered my vehicle at 106 mph, as he would have it on display for his reference to confirm math. Furthermore, I do not believe Officer Lawhead timed my car as he clearly identified the tint on my car saying front and back tint was illegal and would have noticed that the car had 4 doors contrary to what he wrote on the ticket (BMW Coupe). I drive a 1992 BMW 525i which is, according to every insurance company, a full size family sedan and not a coupe by any definition of the word - though the other car, a Mitsubishi 3000GT is a coupe.

Thank you for taking all information into consideration.

Jonathan Kensy

I would cut out the last paragraph except for the coupe vs 4 door part. IMO, you should try to make the second paragraph alot shorter. You want the judge to be able to easily follow what you are saying, and remember it long enough to make a desicion. Also, when you say "officer lawhead pressured my person" it sounds like you might be attacking the officer's actions at that point, as well as being unnecessarily wordy and convoluted. Earlier, your main argument seemed to be the gearing issue, but you dont have anything about it here...

IMO, since you cant claim a speed you were going to dispute what the officer said, you dont have a chance in court. Without a speedometer reading, the judge has no way of knowing even how fast you think you were going, although the gearing thing may save you here.

In any case, you should probably make the whole thing shorter and cut out everything that isnt absolutely necessary.

[tdgard]

ahhhh the sweet innocence of 21

i hope the judge is in a good mood...

Yes indeed. I tried that when I was younger too. Never get more than the first couple of sentences out.

[Antrieb]

Why the hell were you going that fast with a car behind you anyway?

[Antrieb]

Never mind, I just read the thread ;)

[Booster]

Best of luck Jon. I'm twice your age +, and have seen my fair share of judges in my day.
I'm going to say unless you get in front of a judge your daddy has over for the occasional BBQ.....he'll read about 2 lines and size you up on attitude alone.You "gotta' pay to Play" on our free highways and byways. If your actually guilty of excess speed, have a attorney thats in bed with your court system deal with it and you'll only have to attend a defensive traffic class and no points assigned....meaning no insurance hike.Which in the big picture, is where you want to be.
I speed daily at some point. Less and less each year. I'll attribute this to getting smarter.lol.I still get nailed about every 3 years.
If you try to baffle them with too much info eg: BS...they'll cop an attitude and throw it all at you for spite.
I hope your lucky and it humbles you for a time.;)
Its all good.....Vinny

[SnakeyesTx]

That's a pretty clean arguement you have there, but you should give up on the Speeds per gear idea.

Any cop or judge will throw that out by saying "No one can prove what gear you were in but yourself." since no one else was in the car. Everything else might stick, but the speed by gear most likely won't hold a candle.

[632 Regal]

So whats the verdict? You been in jail all day or what?

[ryan roopnarine]

i'd be curious to see how admissable any kind of gear ratio to speed chart would be, since you haven't stipulated to the court that your vehicle is/isn't stock to begin with. aren't you already differing from the 2490 mL (or whatever it is) that it says on your registration?

[DaCan23]

Jon, don't you live in CT? Isnt over 85 MPH in CT, go directly to jail?

If this was in CT..... its total BS.... he wouldnt take you to jail, b/c that is mandatory court appearance w/ a lawyer on your side which would rip his ass apart....

Hopefully the judge will just throw it out on your clean record...