uzj100

This stretch of 101 (Agoura, Calabasass) up through Ventura, Santa Barbara and the Gaviota pass area gets a lot of CHP attention. Seems to me there are more motors now--especially around Westlake north to Gaviota.

Was coming from the valley toward Ventura one night last summer at about 80 around 11PM. Saw a nice '63 split window 'Vette enter from Westlake Blvd going north also. I was in the far right, getting passed by everything and sped up a bit, as I wanted to get a closer look at the 'Vette. The guy in the 'Vette stood on it and I'm sure he must have gotten it up close to 100, as I was at almost 90 when this CHP motor zoomed past me (phew!) and hit his lights. Everybody starts pulling over, but the CHPy just kept the lights on for a while, zipped through all the cars, turned his lights off and disappeared.

Believe this is called the "halo" effect. Since everyone was out hauling a**, the CHPy hits the lights, everyone slows down and he's made his point.

Dariof

Please allow me to explain to you why you are incorrect.

Neither you nor I could do what you stated above, because we are not trained to do so.

As part of police training (and it is continued training) all traffic enforcement cops who are radar trained (as CHP) must be able to visually determine the speed of a vehicle within a couple MPH with just that visual...no equipment like radar or pacing. It is very easy to do on straight-a-ways, more difficult on corners.

I have seen this training with my own eyes, and was even allowed to participate. It is uncanny how these people get very, very good at it, until they are mostly exact with their guesstimates. The 2 MPH leeway is a walk in the park, and remember, they practice everyday on the job then confirm with radar.

It's all part of their training, and courts everyday accept the statement "I visually observed the vehicle traveling at a speed of X, radar confirmed." The radar part is icing on the cake...the cake being the initial observation.

In this case, the cop did have a pace, so it's all a moot point anyway. There are no rules that say they have to pace for a certain amount of time...a pace is a pace, no matter how brief.

007GT3

Personally, I'd rather see the CHP watching container and truck traffic in and out the Port of Long Beach and the Mexican border instead of pulling over and detaining Porsche Drivers, but I suspect that will never happen.

I'd much rather see a terrorist in handcuffs than a law abiding, hard charging, capitalistic P-Car driver standing by the side of the road being made to look like a criminal.

But that's just my opinon.

Dariof

Mine too. In California, other police agencies have a name for CHP. Instead of California Highway Patrol, they have been dubbed "Can't Handle Policework."

4thporsche

Yeah right, law abiding? If your opinion of of 'law abiding' is someone driving over 100 mph on the freeway that's pretty sad. I don't care what kind of car they drive.

mal28

this depends. In Ohio, I often drive on highways that have no other visible traffic in front of me. Driving at 100+ in a 997 under these conditions is much safer tha some drivers I see who are using their cell phone and applying makeup while driving 5 MPH under the limit in the left lane!

On crowded roads, i do agree with you

Nine9Sixer

even if it is correct that a PO can visually guage 105mph (still have my doubts, among other reasons, as i imagine the PO would had to have accelerated quickly and paced for some period of time which, even if handling a frappucino (at 105mph???, c'mon), would have been noticed by any self-respecting driver), it would be subject to tough scrutiny in court without radar/laser confirmation (and the radar wouldn't be the icing on the cake, but rather would be the cake itself). that is, i highly doubt any speeding charge would stick on a visual reading alone. and if true, this is why the cop was so willing to drop it to 80mph (itself a made up number) because he knew he couldn't get 105mph (and not so much because he was a compassioate gearhead).

anyway, for anyone to drive and pass traffic in the nonpassing lanes at 105mph while drinking a beverage without being extra vigilant looking for other cars and especially a cop, i think is extremely reckless. i'm not normally one of those people who say that we p-car owners should care about how we project our reputation, but in this instance, you're making us look bad.

Blackness

I thought I saw bin Laden screaming by me in a GT3 RS the other day. I couldn't be sure, he was going too damned fast. Wonder if he got any special treatment?


Sorry...something about a terrorist and a p-car.

500

That wasn't Osama...it was the tropper that pulled over jrgordon, wearing a fake/beard/nose and moustache kit sporting the new GT3 his rich wife just bought him....

Dariof

One of the reasons the cop may have been willing to drop the charge was it was easier for him, not that he couldn't prove the speed through a visual. Please trust me on this.....he could have. I am intimately involved in police programs, and I can assure you a visual for a radar trained cop is all they need....at least in the CA courts.

Having said that, if the cop had arrested for misdemeanor reckless, he would have had to 1). write the report, 2). impound the vehicle (another report & wait for the tow truck), 3). write a Statement of Facts (another report) and 4). transport and book the suspect (more paperwork), 5). get approval for the report from the Watch Sergeant, and 6). book the personal effects of the Driver into evidence (More Paperwork)

It was at least a 2-3 hour ordeal and a lot of work for something not really that serious. Or perhaps he just wanted to give the driver a break. I don't know, but I do know he did not drop the speed to 80 because he couldn't prove 105.

Also, 80 was not a made up number...it is the maximum speed in CA for which traffic school is allowed.

I am also sure the CHP officer was substantially certain the driver would go to traffic school, and this is the last he would deal with this speeder.

If the CHP had arrested, he would be going to a misdemeanor trial court and would have been subpoenaed (perhaps several times). Many cops really don't like court, because they would rather be out in the field. This BTW is the reason so many don't show up for simple traffic cites....they don't want to be there.

jrgordonsenior

It would be nice if you could have at least read my report....

uzj100

Dario--how did that incident that you were involved in last year turn out?

Nine9Sixer

hmmm . . . i thought i did read your post. allow me to recap:

"unintentionally accellerate" while passing a cop in the "slow lane" and further while "oblivious drinking my Starbucks" all at 105mph -- your words, not mine.

Dariof, i don't doubt your knowledge of police procedures, etc., but i never discussed arrests here. my point was simply, however wrong i may be, that 105mph was a made up number (and i still think a visual has to be based on pacing of some sort-- so, really the visual read is a matter of pacing, in of itself a different technique). writing him down for 105mph (if accurate) would not have been a 2-3 hour ordeal. and 80mph was indeed arbitrary assessed here, as even you acknowledge, because it relates to traffic school and not his actual speed, i.e. arbitrary.

Dariof

I saw an attorney, was told had a lawsuit against DMV for the stolen plate they issued me and the local PD for detaining me for approx. 1.5 hours after they knew the car was just fine (i.e. not stolen).

I decided ultimately to let it go. I knew I would win something, but my decisions were based on the fact that I don't have a lot of respect for those who litigate just to get $$ (ie actually not hurt), and I did not want to be one of those people.

I am still a little upset about it when I think of it, because they took my little girl out of the car with guns in hand???

You have a good memory.

uzj100

The postings here reminded me of that incident. I would suspect that you might catch a "break" at some point in the future--hope so anyway and I hope your daughter is well past this incident.