GPS log as a Defense

[spankayf]

I was playing around with my GPS and didnt realize the track log is as detailed as it is. I was wondering about this then I found this article.

Windsor (CA) - The son of a former sheriff's deputy will fight against a speeding ticket he received, after noticing his GPS log disputed the alleged speeding offense.

What likely appeared to be a routine speeding citation at the time may actually create a new legal precedent in a small California city. 17-year-old Shaun Malone was pulled over for going 62 miles per hour in a 45 MPH zone, according to a ticket he received, but it just so happens his step-father, retired deputy Roger Rude, installed a GPS device that keeps a persistent log of the teen's speed.

While the boy's step-father apparently does not dispute his son was speeding, he says that according to the GPS log, when the cop pulled him over he was not within the required distance of 100 feet to accurately clock him. By the time he was within that zone, Rude says Shaun had slowed down to the correct speed limit.

"I'm not trying to get a guilty kid off. I've always had faith in our justice system. I would like to see the truth prevail and I would like Shaun to see that the system works," said the former deputy.

According to the Associated Press, some 95% of all speeding cases never wind up in court. That's clearly because it ends up being a case of a motorist's word against a police officer from that county with a radar log.

However, with the GPS log, there is actually conflicting evidence in support of the defendant. It could open up a new scenario for speeding cases across the country.

The police officer who pulled Shaun over told AP that it was unlikely to be a substantial defense, though. He mentioned the accepted reality of a delay in GPS relay of speed. "Is it a couple-second delay? A 30-second delay? Because in that time people can speed up, slow down."

[masalma]

it would be interesting to see the outcome.

[Wingboy]

Just make sure you clear the trip computer of your max speed before you present the unit in court!

[Splash]

here's a 3 page discussion about this

http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum...ad.php?t=46886

[DucDic]

well, i don't have a gps for my car or bike, but i do use a device from my insurance company that actually plugs into my cars computer and records everything directly about time and distance travelled...so it would be very accurate, i suppose if a cop nabbed me instead of the intended speeder i could use that in court...

[Bambaataa]

well, i don't have a gps for my car or bike, but i do use a device from my insurance company that actually plugs into my cars computer and records everything directly about time and distance travelled...so it would be very accurate, i suppose if a cop nabbed me instead of the intended speeder i could use that in court...

What insurance company are you with ? and are you allowed to pull out this device whenever you want? or can it only be pullled by you insurance company?

[markopas]

I dont know about 30-sec delay, maybe with some GPS devices are like that or even older ones for that matter, but I was testing out my CrackBerry Curve 8310 with GPS capabilities and it measures the rate of speed and it was dead on accurate, plus when I slowed down in speed, so did the GPS and it was instantaneous.

[DucDic]

the insurance company i use is called autograph, so is the device, it just plugs into the computer console under the dash, you can unplug it and plug it into you computer and pull a copy of the data to see how you are doing...you don't wanna leave it unplugged while you drive as the company may not give you your discount...

[V-Tom]

I think that the unit in the article *reported* the speeds every 30 seconds.

Here's what I have observed playing with GPs units for he last 6 years:

Most GPS units update the screen within a second, some a bit less but none instantly like a speedometer.

GPS units measure the speed over a distance and the accuracy of that distance is best with steady speeds - large rates of change in the speed will tend to show averaged results that may lag behind the actual speeds.

If you look at the track log you will see each leg with average speed though that leg as well as altitude, direction, leg length, time, etc. With my Garmin units I have never seen a leg recorded less than one second in length; although I don't know if that is just what the program shows. I know that the average speed in that leg can often be less than the maximum speed achieved in that leg. For example, I have gone to Mosport a number of times for track days (in cars with work.) I have seen the top speed at the end of the straight before I brake and then looked at the track log when at home later to compare. The cars I use have a digital speed readout and I check the accuracy on my way to the track. In every case the actual speed is within 2 kph of the indicated speed. If I see 200 at the end of the straight which means an honest 198 kph, the top speed shown on the GPS might be 195 yet the top speed recorded in the log might only be 190 or so. If I hit 220 then I might see the top speed recorded as 214 and the log showing only 210.

I think that if you got to court you would want to be careful on how the data is presented. If the police said he had you at 152 for a while on the 400 and your GPS showed you as travelling at 138 then it would likley help your cause in avoiding 52 kph over but I think you are also admitting that you were going 138 and would be found gulity of 138kph in a 100. If he said that you were accelerating rapidly on your bike to 145 and then hit the brake hard and suddenly slowed down to 120 the GPS track might show you were only doing a max of 130. This might look good but if the prosecution realizes how GPS works then they might not allow it to be used.



..Tom

I dont know about 30-sec delay, maybe with some GPS devices are like that or even older ones for that matter, but I was testing out my CrackBerry Curve 8310 with GPS capabilities and it measures the rate of speed and it was dead on accurate, plus when I slowed down in speed, so did the GPS and it was instantaneous.

[Paul900rr]

I think that if you got to court you would want to be careful on how the data is presented. If the police said he had you at 152 for a while on the 400 and your GPS showed you as travelling at 138 then it would likley help your cause in avoiding 52 kph over but I think you are also admitting that you were going 138 and would be found gulity of 138kph in a 100. If he said that you were accelerating rapidly on your bike to 145 and then hit the brake hard and suddenly slowed down to 120 the GPS track might show you were only doing a max of 130. This might look good but if the prosecution realizes how GPS works then they might not allow it to be used.
..Tom

I beg to differ on this point. I believe that when you go to court, you're disputing the charge entirely. Let's use your example.

If I was in that situation I would be disputing the 52km/h over. Granted my GPS shows that I was doing 138km/h, but I'm fighting the fact that I was clocked at a speed that I wasn't travelling at. The GPS evidence should be enough to prove that I wasn't doing 152km/h, therefore the charge has to be dropped, IF the judge accepts the GPS evidence.

IF the prosecution decided to charge me with 38km/h over, I'd dispute that as well as I wasn't clocked at 138km/h by the officer, nor is my GPS an official tool used by the police to measure the speed of traffic.

I have a problem with speed being measured by aircraft as well, but that can be discussed some other time.

NOTE: I'm in no way promoting speeding and/or racing on public roads. This is JUST an opinion.

[Brian P]

... and this is why you hire lawyers, who are going to have a field day with this.

I hope *everyone* who gets their charges dismissed, files a lawsuit against the police.

[V-Tom]

I don't know.. I'm not a lawyer, and I hope I am wrong. But I recall from somewhere that if you said to the judge you were not doing 150 but were doing 138 and he accepted it then you would be charged with doing 138 not released from all charges. I believe the same would apply with evidence you entered - if it was accepted as showing you were not doing 150 but were doing 138 then you would get charged with doing that speed.

I very much hope I am wrong... does anyone here actually know if this is true or not?

..Tom

I beg to differ on this point. I believe that when you go to court, you're disputing the charge entirely. Let's use your example.

If I was in that situation I would be disputing the 52km/h over. Granted my GPS shows that I was doing 138km/h, but I'm fighting the fact that I was clocked at a speed that I wasn't travelling at. The GPS evidence should be enough to prove that I wasn't doing 152km/h, therefore the charge has to be dropped, IF the judge accepts the GPS evidence.

IF the prosecution decided to charge me with 38km/h over, I'd dispute that as well as I wasn't clocked at 138km/h by the officer, nor is my GPS an official tool used by the police to measure the speed of traffic.

I have a problem with speed being measured by aircraft as well, but that can be discussed some other time.

NOTE: I'm in no way promoting speeding and/or racing on public roads. This is JUST an opinion.

[Paul900rr]

... and this is why you hire lawyers, who are going to have a field day with this.

I hope *everyone* who gets their charges dismissed, files a lawsuit against the police.

I remember sometime ago sitting in traffic court watching people fight their speeding tickets. I was amused at how I noticed holes in the officer's testimony and was able to come up with several arguments to derail the officer. *sigh* I should've gone into law....

NOTE: Let it be known that I have nothing against the police as I'm sure so bright person will comment on that.

[GMAN]

I beg to differ on this point. I believe that when you go to court, you're disputing the charge entirely. Let's use your example.

If I was in that situation I would be disputing the 52km/h over. Granted my GPS shows that I was doing 138km/h, but I'm fighting the fact that I was clocked at a speed that I wasn't travelling at. The GPS evidence should be enough to prove that I wasn't doing 152km/h, therefore the charge has to be dropped, IF the judge accepts the GPS evidence.

IF the prosecution decided to charge me with 38km/h over, I'd dispute that as well as I wasn't clocked at 138km/h by the officer, nor is my GPS an official tool used by the police to measure the speed of traffic.

I have a problem with speed being measured by aircraft as well, but that can be discussed some other time.

NOTE: I'm in no way promoting speeding and/or racing on public roads. This is JUST an opinion.

This is all very well and good. But the advantage the police have, and it is a great one, is that they will prove to the court that the radar at the time of use was accurate, in that it was tested before and after the offence for which you are charged. Could you say the same for your GPS?

[AdRath]

This is all very well and good. But the advantage the police have, and it is a great one, is that they will prove to the court that the radar at the time of use was accurate, in that it was tested before and after the offence for which you are charged. Could you say the same for your GPS?

Does the Radar print out a log of speeds and times? I'm actually curious.
If it doesn't then what does it matter if the radar is callibrated the only evidence that you went that speed is because the officer wrote it down. Can the officer prove that he got you doing whatever speed other than saying he did? I just wish they would give officers more tools so they actually have real evidence other then pointing at the person I hate one persons word against anothers as the evidence.

[de Jager]

GPS is a great tool to have but they are hardly accurate enough to be relied upon as a "matter of fact". Check out this article: http://www.newbieriders.com/articles/2007/gps.htm