This is Dutch way
in 2003 8 miljon tickets for speeding were sent out!!!! (The Netherlands have 18 miljon citizens)
64 % were tickets up to 10 km/u
32 % <= 20 km/u
4 % > 20 km/u
A lot off people from which the ticket is < 30 euro grumble to the police and goverment but are paying their tickets
Our tip to the rest. Don't accept the ticket. Ask for the picture, claim that you never bin there. Overhere it is not a surprise that because off capacity problems at the justiceoffice that you don't have to pay! It will cost you only one stamp
Also a way to do is sent a letter asking them to deliver a official paper that the laser is calibrated ...... If not who is saying that the measurement was right????
But honestly speeding is always dangerous and not only for yourself but also for the people in the street! But if you have to drive 30 km/u pffffffff inside the city/village areas(that's new here in Holland) were you easily can drive 50 or more is really also frustrating me....
Nice reading stuf here!!
. Legal Precedent And Judicial Notice Of VASCAR
An analysis of court decisions pertaining to the use of law enforcement speed measurement
devices including VASCAR is to be presented by instructor. Copies of the benchmark
decisions are available to students. This section is not included in “VASCAR Operator” course.
a) California v. Krueger, Pantos, & Payne, case #s 887092, DP 44339, DP 54571-this
decision deals with the necessity of officer training in operation of measurement devices.
b) Honneycutt v. Kentucky, 1996, 408 SW 2d 421-this case deals with the necessity of officers
understanding the physics involved with speed enforcement systems and the necessity
of officer training.
c) New Jersey v. Rubbinaccio, Greene, Maccarone, & Mohammed, 1998, New Jersey
Superior Court-Judge Reginald Stanton ruled on the maximum distances to be used in
measuring speed of suspect vehicles < 400 meters
d) Ohio v. Wilcox, 1874,-deals with officer training
e) Connecticut v. Tomanelli, 216 a 2d, 625, 1996,-necessity of speed measurement systems
f) New York v. Persons, 60 misc, 2d 803, 303 N.Y. 2d 728, 1969-admissibility of VASCAR
g) New York v. Rothstein, N.Y., 1 misc, 2d 576, 152, N.Y.S. 2d 757-necessity of calibration
of VASCAR units on a daily basis
h) New York v. Sachs, 1 misc 2d 148, 154, 147 N.Y.S. 2d 801, 807-accuracy of VASCAR
i) New Jersey v. Schmiede, 289 A. 2d 281, 118 NJ Superior 576, 1972-established training
requirements for operation of VASCAR by law enforcement personnel with performance
standards given of “VASCAR readings must be within the actual vehicle speed +/-
2 mph and officer must demonstrate at least 30 clocks within that tolerance.”
j) New York v. Leatherbarrow, 1972, ruled against VASCAR evidence as officer failed to
present his credentials and certification to use VASCAR and estimate speeds to the
court. This resulted in a speeding violation being reversed by the court.
k) New York v. Olsen, 22 N.Y. 2d 230, 292, N.Y.S. 420, 239 N.E. 2d 354, 1968-Verified
visual tracking history evidence by a trained and certified police officer is prima facia evidence of a speeding infraction and by itself sustains a speeding conviction.
i) New Jersey v. Profaci, inadequate training of VASCAR operator dismissed citations.