# Speeding ticket...caught by aircraft



## playoutside (Mar 27, 2011)

Yesterday on the way up 93, I got handed my first speeding ticket.  I was pulled over by NHSP just after going thru the toll, I was completely confused, had been traveling with all the other traffic, not especially fast.  Cop tells me aircraft saw me doing 82 in a 65.  I always knew they did this based on road marks, but never knew anyone caught by it.  NHSP was out in full force Saturday on both 93 & 89...pretty sure they covered this quarter and next with tickets.  

Anyone ever caught this way? Anyone know how accurate this is?  How do i know it was really my car they spotted? Any suggestions on how to fight it?


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 27, 2011)

Well, were you actually driving 82 or not?  

And not a surprise considering that NH really enforces the speed limit around Manchester to catch out of staters.


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 27, 2011)

how long before the technology makes it so that simply setup a  radar detector on the side of the road, clock you, take a picture and send you the ticket in the mail? like they do for abusing the EZpass lane or running stop lights.


----------



## playoutside (Mar 27, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Well, were you actually driving 82 or not?
> 
> And not a surprise considering that NH really enforces the speed limit around Manchester to catch out of staters.


 
I don't think I was going 82, especially because there were so many cars on the road. It's tough to know for sure since I don't know exactly where they claim I was going that fast. I don't normally go that fast. I was stopped just after going thru the toll where they had the cops lined up. It's a very diff experience than seeing the cop come up from behind and you quickly check your speed. In that case, I know around how fast I was going.


----------



## WJenness (Mar 27, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> how long before the technology makes it so that simply setup a  radar detector on the side of the road, clock you, take a picture and send you the ticket in the mail? like they do for abusing the EZpass lane or running stop lights.



They already do this in DC.

I 'donated' $50 to the district's budget thanks to this setup about four years ago...

It's pretty ingenious on their part too... You get the ticket in the mail, and if you pay it, it doesn't hit your insurance... If you ask for an appeal and you lose, it hits your insurance...

That fact, combined with the fact that it was only $50 made me pay it without thinking about it at all.

-w


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 27, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> how long before the technology makes it so that simply setup a  radar detector on the side of the road, clock you, take a picture and send you the ticket in the mail? like they do for abusing the EZpass lane or running stop lights.



Ahem ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42294692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/


----------



## Glenn (Mar 28, 2011)

Wonder how much money it costs to put a plane up in the air for a few hours...a pilot...spotter ect? I doubt they're breaking even. "We gave out $1200 worth of tickets today! And spent $2500 in fuel in personnel costs...winning!"


----------



## dmc (Mar 28, 2011)

yeah - lets lay off a teacher so we can bust people for speeding with a friggin airplane..


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 28, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Ahem ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42294692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/





> _The federal lawsuit contends it's unconstitutional to send motorists tickets by mail and to addresses outside town limits_.



guess i won't be paying tolls as i drive through NY and NJ next time i'm on a road trip.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 28, 2011)

Glenn said:


> Wonder how much money it costs to put a plane up in the air for a few hours...a pilot...spotter ect? I doubt they're breaking even. "We gave out $1200 worth of tickets today! And spent $2500 in fuel in personnel costs...winning!"



right?

I'd imagine the cost of this should be public information as part of the State Police budget.  As a resident taxpayer, I'd be curious to know what the cost/benefit is of such practices.


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 28, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> right?
> 
> I'd imagine the cost of this should be public information as part of the State Police budget.  As a resident taxpayer, I'd be curious to know what the cost/benefit is of such practices.



so we should only bust criminals when it is economically favorable?:smash:


----------



## ALLSKIING (Mar 28, 2011)

dmc said:


> yeah - lets lay off a teacher so we can bust people for speeding with a friggin airplane..


:lol::smash: True True DMC


----------



## dmc (Mar 28, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> so we should only bust criminals when it is economically favorable?:smash:



We should continue to pursue people that commit violent crimes..

But smaller crimes like speeding - we should not be dumping/wasting cash on by using planes..


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 28, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> so we should only bust criminals when it is economically favorable?:smash:



police enforcement should be done as efficiently as possible.  You don't call in a swat team to bust someone parking in a handicap spot.  

The use of aircraft seems extremely excessive to me.  

Maine does something similar to what the OP experienced without the use of an airplane.  They station a spotter on bridge over passes.  A guy standing on a bridge with a radar guns seems like a much less expensive option than someone up in an airplane or helicopter.


----------



## Nick (Mar 28, 2011)

Glenn said:


> Wonder how much money it costs to put a plane up in the air for a few hours...a pilot...spotter ect? I doubt they're breaking even. "We gave out $1200 worth of tickets today! And spent $2500 in fuel in personnel costs...winning!"



That's such an obvious point, I can't believe I didn't even think of that.

Maybe they should start checking highway speeds via space shuttle.


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 28, 2011)

Seems they could save a whole lot of money just pulling people over randomly after teh tolls and telling them they got clocked at whatever speed. Since you don't know when/where it happened, most people would probably just pay.

Me, I'd ask for the proof. If they have it, fine, I pay. If they don't, fight it.


----------



## playoutside (Mar 28, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Seems they could save a whole lot of money just pulling people over randomly after teh tolls and telling them they got clocked at whatever speed. Since you don't know when/where it happened, most people would probably just pay.
> 
> Me, I'd ask for the proof. If they have it, fine, I pay. If they don't, fight it.


 
This is exactly as I felt.  I was going about 20 coming out of the toll when the trooper nearly drove into the side of me to get me to stop.  I also drive a fairly common ski vehicle and was wishing I'd observed how many of cars that look just like me went thru that toll in a 2-3 minute window.  It's a very strange way to receive a ticket.


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 28, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> The use of aircraft seems extremely excessive to me.



to me too. i'd guess the plane is a safer option than having the cop pull out into traffic, accelerate to high speeds in order to chase down the criminal and then pull him/her off on the side of a busy highway. a plane or the spotter you mention probably allows for a more controlled situation.


----------



## dmc (Mar 28, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> to me too. i'd guess the plane is a safer option than having the cop pull out into traffic, accelerate to high speeds in order to chase down the criminal and then pull him/her off on the side of a busy highway. a plane or the spotter you mention probably allows for a more controlled situation.



Why not just use drones?


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 28, 2011)

dmc said:


> Why not just use drones?



why not set up camera on side of the road and just mail them a ticket?


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 28, 2011)

Do they have a picture of your vehicle or something that they gave you to "prove" their case or did they just pull you over with everyone else and hand out tickets?  If it is the latter, I'd call a NH Lawyer and fight it.  Seems lame.  And IIRC the stretch of road near the tolls goes from 65-55 then back to 65, so I doubt that the traffic would be going that fast through there.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 28, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Do they have a picture of your vehicle or something that they gave you to "prove" their case or did they just pull you over with everyone else and hand out tickets?  If it is the latter, I'd call a NH Lawyer and fight it.  Seems lame.  And IIRC the stretch of road near the tolls goes from 65-55 then back to 65, so I doubt that the traffic would be going that fast through there.



people tend to fly through Manchester on 93N after the 101 merger as it's four lanes for much of it and usually not as congested as other parts of the loop around the city.  I know I've found myself going 75+ in the 55mph zone you're mentioning without really thinking about it as that's what traffic tends to move at through there.

I imagine a big reason why people start hauling through that stretch is because from the MA border to Manchester, 93 is a two lane parking lot on Friday afternoons.


----------



## playoutside (Mar 28, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Do they have a picture of your vehicle or something that they gave you to "prove" their case or did they just pull you over with everyone else and hand out tickets? If it is the latter, I'd call a NH Lawyer and fight it. Seems lame. And IIRC the stretch of road near the tolls goes from 65-55 then back to 65, so I doubt that the traffic would be going that fast through there.


 
No picture or anything.  They said I can pay or go to court where I would have the opportunity to ask questions of the plane spotter.  What a system.


----------



## bigbog (Mar 28, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> .......I'd guess the plane is a safer option than having the cop pull out into traffic, accelerate to high speeds in order to chase down the criminal and then pull him/her off on the side of a busy highway. a plane or the spotter you mention probably allows for a more controlled situation.



It's simply another form of high-speed chase.  Better to use sensors, lenses, and cameras, then planes or moving patrols will save fuel when used not as the majority of hours, but as an addition to sensors and cameras.


----------



## 〽❄❅ (Mar 28, 2011)

...too bad this didn't go over well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MONTANA-PR.svg


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 28, 2011)

bigbog said:


> It's simply another form of high-speed chase.  Better to use sensors, lenses, and cameras, then planes or moving patrols will save fuel when used not as the majority of hours, but as an addition to sensors and cameras.
> The sooner the scumbag defense lawyers get silenced, the sooner the public will get involved to CHANGE the speed limits...and the sooner something will get done.



just link into ezpass.. if you travel 75 miles between tolls in 1 hour or less then you get a ticket in the mail.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Mar 28, 2011)

playoutside said:


> No picture or anything.  They said I can pay or go to court where I would have the opportunity to ask questions of the plane spotter.  What a system.



Sounds like a good way to hit out of state drivers in the wallet who likely will just pay the fine instead of fighting the plane spotter's "proof of guilt" in court. 

Granted, it wouldn't be the first time I've seen the traffic in that wide section of road before the tolls running around 80 mph as people jockey for position coming into the toll booth. They probably just picked you out of the rest of the 80+ mph crowd due to the reason stated above.


----------



## Geoff (Mar 28, 2011)

playoutside said:


> Yesterday on the way up 93, I got handed my first speeding ticket.  I was pulled over by NHSP just after going thru the toll, I was completely confused, had been traveling with all the other traffic, not especially fast.  Cop tells me aircraft saw me doing 82 in a 65.  I always knew they did this based on road marks, but never knew anyone caught by it.  NHSP was out in full force Saturday on both 93 & 89...pretty sure they covered this quarter and next with tickets.
> 
> Anyone ever caught this way? Anyone know how accurate this is?  How do i know it was really my car they spotted? Any suggestions on how to fight it?



You can win this one 100% of the time in traffic court.   They rely on the fact that 99.99% of people just pay the ticket.


----------



## bvibert (Mar 28, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> just link into ezpass.. if you travel 75 miles between tolls in 1 hour or less then you get a ticket in the mail.



Don't give them any ideas! :smash:


----------



## tjf67 (Mar 28, 2011)

Glenn said:


> Wonder how much money it costs to put a plane up in the air for a few hours...a pilot...spotter ect? I doubt they're breaking even. "We gave out $1200 worth of tickets today! And spent $2500 in fuel in personnel costs...winning!"



But the fuel costs goes on a differant departments budget so they count it as a 1200 dollar gain.  GEEZ!!  That is how government works


----------



## billski (Mar 28, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> just link into ezpass.. if you travel 75 miles between tolls in 1 hour or less then you get a ticket in the mail.



They tried this with paper tickets in NYS.  It was booted out by the courts.  Dunno Why.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 28, 2011)

billski said:


> They tried this with paper tickets in NYS. It was booted out by the courts. Dunno Why.


How do you know who was driving?


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 28, 2011)

Geoff said:


> You can win this one 100% of the time in traffic court. They rely on the fact that 99.99% of people just pay the ticket.


 
Not always!


----------



## Nick (Mar 28, 2011)

Yeah, I've fought tickets and lost. 

I've become a much more responsible driver over the years, haha. I used to get tickets fairly regularly. Now it's been probably 4 or 5 years without a ticket.


----------



## dmc (Mar 28, 2011)

Geoff said:


> You can win this one 100% of the time in traffic court.   They rely on the fact that 99.99% of people just pay the ticket.



yup...

I always fought tickets and always came out better then if I had not..
Well worth it to not get points on my license.


----------



## WJenness (Mar 28, 2011)

dmc said:


> yup...
> 
> I always fought tickets and always came out better then if I had not..
> Well worth it to not get points on my license.



I dislike MA's new procedure for contesting tickets...

You have to first appear in front of a magistrate who can either dismiss the ticket (almost never happens from what I hear) or finds the ticket in good standing, at which point you can then appeal to a judge with the issuing officer present on a different date.

It means you end up having to take two different days off of work to fight a ticket.

Oh, and there's a $25 filing fee they charge you for requesting a hearing now too...

-w


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 28, 2011)

WJenness said:


> I dislike MA's new procedure for contesting tickets...
> 
> You have to first appear in front of a magistrate who can either dismiss the ticket (almost never happens from what I hear) or finds the ticket in good standing, at which point you can then appeal to a judge with the issuing officer present on a different date.
> 
> ...



Actually it's $25 to see the magistrate and then $50 to go to court if you don't agree with the clerks ruling. And you don't get a refund if you win.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 28, 2011)

WJenness said:


> You have to first appear in front of a magistrate who can either dismiss the ticket (almost never happens from what I hear).



This actually just worked for me a couple months ago. I think they were just impressed that I made it into Cambridge from Northborough in time in the blizzard we were having that day.


----------



## hammer (Mar 28, 2011)

WJenness said:


> I dislike MA's new procedure for contesting tickets...
> 
> You have to first appear in front of a magistrate who can either dismiss the ticket (almost never happens from what I hear) or finds the ticket in good standing, at which point you can then appeal to a judge with the issuing officer present on a different date.
> 
> ...


+1...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...ersial_ticket_appeal_fees_to_have_sjc_hearing


----------



## Nick (Mar 28, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Actually it's $25 to see the magistrate and then $50 to go to court if you don't agree with the clerks ruling. And you don't get a refund if you win.



That is completely ridiculous.


----------



## buellski (Mar 28, 2011)

playoutside said:


> Anyone ever caught this way?



Yep, years ago (mid-80s) on 101 heading into Manchester.


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 28, 2011)

FWIW with the fiscal crisis that many states are facing they are not so easy to just give up on routine speeding tickets.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 28, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> FWIW with the fiscal crisis that many states are facing they are not so easy to just give up on routine speeding tickets.



If the OP got caught in a normal roadside speeding trap that's one thing, but I wouldn't call using an aircraft a 'routine' speeding ticket.  Seems like an excessive expense to enforce the law to me.


----------



## dmc (Mar 28, 2011)

You can visually see where these traps are..

Don't the mark the pavement somehow and time you between the marks?


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 28, 2011)

dmc said:


> You can visually see where these traps are..
> 
> Don't the mark the pavement somehow and time you between the marks?



i always slow down when i see the sign saying "marked mile begins here"


----------



## dmc (Mar 28, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> i always slow down when i see the sign saying "marked mile begins here"



i open the sun roof and look up..


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 28, 2011)

dmc said:


> i open the sun roof and look up..



that means taking my eyes off the road and that wouldn't be very safe. i just slow down for the mile and then start speeding again.


----------



## dmc (Mar 28, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> that means taking my eyes off the road and that wouldn't be very safe. i just slow down for the mile and then start speeding again.



So you never take your eyes off the road?


----------



## ctenidae (Mar 28, 2011)

dmc said:


> So you never take your eyes off the road?



Only when texting...


----------



## dmc (Mar 28, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Only when texting...



exactly..


----------



## WJenness (Mar 28, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Only when texting...



And shaving... Natch...

-w


----------



## dmc (Mar 28, 2011)

WJenness said:


> And shaving... Natch...
> 
> -w



A friend of mine dated a girl who got in an accident changing here shoes and also one putting on makeup..  crazy...


----------



## Geoff (Mar 28, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> Only when texting...



...and opening my beer


----------



## legalskier (Mar 28, 2011)

playoutside said:


> Anyone ever caught this way? Anyone know how accurate this is?  How do i know it was really my car they spotted? Any suggestions on how to fight it?



Here, check out page 36 of this site:
http://www.norman-law.com/speed.pdf

Good luck.


----------

