The fallacy of Visual Tracking History
Being bored I switched my V1 back into service for a change and on the way home was hit with instant on K-Band rounding a curve. Many jursidictions assert that Radar is to be used to confirm the officer's observation of excess speed after a Visual Tracking History. This denotes that the officer should observe your vehicle is exceeding the limit visually for a "while" and then confirm with Radar.
Over the years I've had hundreds and possibly well over a thousand I/O encounters, and in about 70% of them there's no way a Visual Tracking History has been done. These encounter(70%) have been on sharp curves or brinking over small hills. Last night was typical, I'm alone on the road so only slightly over PSL, I see the reflection of oncoming headlights on the roadside snow banks at the start of a curve. I take my foot off gas, as soon as the passenger headlight of oncoming vehicle is in view, full K-band on V1.
Visual Tracking History my azz! But if I had been ticketed I doubt the judge would give two hoots.
I don't know how it is where you are but here visual tracking can take place while the unit is monitoring speeds (constant on), where the officer must use visual tracking of the vehicle he thinks the radar is "seeing", by training and experience.
There is no law or rule here that differentiates constant on and instant on, so the officer doesn't have to visually estimate speed before using radar. All that matters is that the officer visually observed the vehicle and obtained the proper tracking history, this can be all of 3 secs. Radar Case law varies from state to state.
Have a good one
Re: The fallacy of Visual Tracking History
Very true! If they require a true tracking history, then the use of instant on radar should be banned! Somehow I don't see that happening. They'll just pay lip service to the term tracking history and keep raking in the cash!
Originally Posted by microbb
Visual estimation and "tracking history" were rather weak attempts by the players in the speeding ticket industry to keep the ball rolling. The mere fact that anyone with little to no understanding on how traffic radar or how the law works can debunk visual estimation and "tracking history" through simple logical deduction goes to show how shaky it is.
It only takes one appeals court with some balls to overturn the use of visual estimation (which has no scientific basis, by the way) and the BS use of "tracking history" with moving radar and instant on devices (that includes laser too!) to bring some sanity into speed enforcement in this country. The days of cresting a hill to find a cop right on the other side with a laser gun 300' away would pretty much be a bad memory.