What is the legal standard for evidence in traffic violations involving speed measurement?

The legal standard for evidence in traffic violations involving speed measurement is the preponderance of evidence that the speed measurement was accurate and lawful. This standard means that it is more likely than not that the speed measurement is valid, which is not as stringent as the standards applied in criminal cases, such as "beyond a reasonable doubt."

In civil matters, which traffic violations typically fall under, the preponderance of evidence is the standard used to assess the validity of claims or defenses. This means that if the evidence presented suggests that it is more than 50% likely that the defendant was speeding based on the speed measurement, the evidence is considered sufficient for a ruling in favor of the party seeking to enforce the traffic violation.

Other options, such as "clear and convincing evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt," are generally reserved for more serious legal matters, such as criminal cases, where a higher degree of certainty is required before a verdict can be rendered. "Substantial evidence reviewed by a judge" is also not applicable, as traffic violations are usually adjudicated based on the evidence presented to the court rather than a specific substantive review standard.