Does ecilop radar have to have speed locked to issue ticket?

[KX500]

Got pinged doing 67 down gasson st ch-ch, was traveling north in left hand lane, 2 lanes head north and one heads south - cop was parked opposite side.

There was a ute travelling beside me slightly back and cars heading south. Said to cop how did ya know it was me when i was in far left lane and he said radar can pick up lead vehicle, asked if i could look at radar and he said yes but speed was not locked. Didnt have licence on me so thought best not to push things to far and have another fine added.

Thinking now but prob to late - how can they issue a ticket if the alledged speed is not locked and displayed on the radar dash unit ? What can ya do if you do look at the dash unit and the alledged speed is not showing ?

Cheerz

[SMOKEU]

Thinking now but prob to late - how can they issue a ticket if the alledged speed is not locked and displayed on the radar dash unit ? What can ya do if you do look at the dash unit and the alledged speed is not showing ?

It's their word against yours. Just ask yourself who you think a judge would believe in court.

[KX500]

True, heard people have gotten off when they have asked for the current radar calibration certificate and it can not be produced, then there's this other side of the coin when its not even locked but you have to take the officers word on it :devil2:

[bikaholic]

Bad news bro, they don't have to show you the speed on their radar.

They either saw you speed and confirmed it with te radar, or te radar blipped a speed and the orificer looked and confirmed you as the sacrifical lamb.

Pay as you learn. :bleh:

[KX500]

:niceone:

Front forks taking a dive might been give away :D

Sheks akin to nazi germany if no proof needs to be shown, accuse you of any speed and take ya licence. $120 wont break the bank but surely a lawyer worth their salts would be able to get you off the fine with no proof or the young failed german art student has been reincarnated as the transport minister somewhere along the line :devil2:

[Jantar]

...There was a ute travelling beside me slightly back and cars heading south. Said to cop how did ya know it was me when i was in far left lane and he said radar can pick up lead vehicle, ...
The radar can pick up the fastest AND the strongest signal. The fact that you were in front of the ute doesn't make you either.

[sil3nt]

It's only $120 and lets face it you were speeding (and probably going a fair bit more 67!).

Just put your rego on hold to compensate :bleh:

[davereid]

It's only $120 and lets face it you were speeding (and probably going a fair bit more 67!).

Just put your rego on hold to compensate :bleh:

I can't find it right now, but is been published on the site already. There is a High court precedent, thats if you are not shown a locked reading when you request it, the ticket is junk.

Use search and requote it.

Of course they often get a confession and that will sink you ie "why were you speeding sir ?" any explanation is a confession.

Radar should not be used with more than one vehicle in the beam. For technical reasons its bad man to do it.

[FJRider]

It's their word against yours. Just ask yourself who you think a judge would believe in court.

I agree .... (must be a blue moon)

[KX500]

Cheerz

Not even 3 months to compensate, was suprised fine was so little, yeah like compensation idea :)

Bit taken back though that we live in such a lack luster society where many quite happy to take officers word on the situation, they not god - could have been a plumber 6 months prior :Police:

[davereid]

found this

http://www.fastandsafe.co.nz/Pages/Media/RadarEvidence18Feb05.shtm

Police need evidence for speed tickets
18 February 2005

By ANNA CLARIDGE

Motorists who are pinged for speeding by police radar might have a complete defence if the officer taking the reading cannot produce it in court.

The issue has been highlighted after Christchurch man Peter Fiddler was given a ticket for allegedly driving at 113kmh while heading south of Christchurch on December 22 last year.

He disputed his speed at the scene and when he asked the officer to produce evidence from his radar-gun, the "clocked speed" had been wiped.

Fiddler complained to the Police Infringement Bureau, saying there was no evidence he was travelling beyond the speed limit, but the police refused to waive his ticket saying: "There is no legal requirement for you to be shown a readout or even for the readout to be locked".

Fiddler said this week: "I didn't think it was fair and I tried to discuss it with the officer but he didn't want to know. I tried to challenge it ... (but) I weighed up the costs and I just couldn't afford a day off work to go to court and defend it."

Exasperated, Fiddler paid the fine but contacted The Press, concerned at what he claims are unfair police rules.

"They could just make up a speed and write the ticket. It's ridiculous," he said.

Recent decisions show the courts are backing motorists such as Fiddler, waiving fines for those who challenge police unable to provide evidence of speeding.

Christchurch man Bryan McHerron took the matter to court in September last year after police were unable to produce radar evidence at the scene of his ticket.

An officer allegedly clocked McHerron travelling 121kmh in a passing lane near Amberley, but lost the radar record seconds after the incident and was unable to show McHerron any evidence as he wrote out the ticket.

McHerron went to court, admitting he was probably travelling at more than 100kmh, but denied it was 121kmh.

The Rangiora District Court ruled in McHerron's favour, with two Justices of the Peace saying: "This issue for us is whether there has been a burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt regarding the excessive speed ... to cast light or doubt on the actual speed under consideration and in the interests of justice we think it is not unreasonable for the driver to see the actual locked-in radar speed.

"In this instance it was not available and does create an element of doubt to the actual speed for the defendant."

The decision was based on a similar High Court ruling in 1996 when a motorcyclist on the West Coast successfully defended an alleged radar reading of 126kmh after the officer could not produce evidence of the speed quoted on the ticket.

McHerron now claims his ticket was the result of a Government-pushed, revenue-grab which is forcing police to become "quite unethical".

"It borders on harassment what they do. It's a recipe for fraud because at the end of the day, the average person just accepts what the police have said. Motorists have got some rights and I believe the police are taking those rights away."

Canterbury Road Policing manager Derek Erasmus reiterated the police stance, saying an officer did not have to lock a speed in.

"Best practice indicates that we do it because it removes those arguments further down the track but sometimes ... it's not physically possible to lock it in."

An officer may have to act quickly if a driver was coming around a corner and would not have time to lock the speed in, Erasmus said.

"If a person doesn't like it, you can dispute it through the court process. It's no different from the vast majority of police cases disputed in court.

"It comes through to an issue of credibility. At the end of the day (motorists) have the recourse of taking it to court and the evidence is weighed in an independent forum."

A senior police official said complaints over lack of evidence "presupposed police were liars".

"These are sworn officers who gain no benefit from making things up."

A police spokeswoman said police stood by their legal stance and any appeal against a ticket was a decision for the court, not police.


and this from KB

Jantar
24th January 2011, 14:48
This is a decision from a JP's court and sets no precedent at all.

The required case would be the one from the High Court, as they can set precedent, or case law is the correct term.

I believe that the case law has been set in the high court.


The decision was based on a similar High Court ruling in 1996 when a motorcyclist on the West Coast successfully defended an alleged radar reading of 126kmh after the officer could not produce evidence of the speed quoted on the ticket.

but cant find 1996 case yet

[KX500]

I can't find it right now, but is been published on the site already. There is a High court precedent, thats if you are not shown a locked reading when you request it, the ticket is junk.

Thought what you are saying would be common sense :niceone: wouldnt they just send ya the ticket if ya rode away after arguing the toss and then how do ya prove there was no locked reading ? Or hook the old phone camera out and take photo of the dash unit showing naah na ?

[FJRider]

I can't find it right now, but is been published on the site already. There is a High court precedent, thats if you are not shown a locked reading when you request it, the ticket is junk.

Use search and requote it.

Of course they often get a confession and that will sink you ie "why were you speeding sir ?" any explanation is a confession.

Radar should not be used with more than one vehicle in the beam. For technical reasons its bad man to do it.

The precedent had it's own conditions ... not always repeated. The matter CAN be taken to court ... (tell it to the Judge situation) Good luck with that ...

[FJRider]

Thought what you are saying would be common sense :niceone: wouldnt they just send ya the ticket if ya rode away after arguing the toss and then how do ya prove there was no locked reading ? Or hook the old phone camera out and take photo of the dash unit showing naah na ?

On the ticket is two boxes, locked on microwave ... NOT locked on ...

Check which was ticked ...

[KX500]

Cheers Davereid for all the info

Dosnt have two boxs or anything about microwave, he printed off machine like parking warden uses.

[FJRider]

Cheers Davereid for all the info

Dosnt have two boxs or anything about microwave, he printed off machine like parking warden uses.

Oh ... the "smart device" ... :lol:

Fight it ... I DARE YOU .... :devil2:

[KX500]

From what Dave has posted good chance of getting off.

Either way they need new tools in the fight for road safety

In car set up like a speed camera where rego plate recorded to, even looking at dash unit no good when could have been nother vehicle.

[SMOKEU]

Bit taken back though that we live in such a lack luster society where many quite happy to take officers word on the situation, they not god - could have been a plumber 6 months prior :Police:

Would you rather be in a country where a police officers word doesn't count for anything?

Criminal: "But judge, it wasn't me who stole that car then did a runner from the cops and crashed into a pole. The cop is lying about the whole thing".

Judge: "I find you not guilty, case closed".

[KX500]

No - rather live in a society that is based on fact ! (proof) Wouldn't you Mr Fuck The Police ? Or is that aka Mr Ironic ?

[FJRider]

From what Dave has posted good chance of getting off.

Either way they need new tools in the fight for road safety

In car set up like a speed camera where rego plate recorded to, even looking at dash unit no good when could have been nother vehicle.

"Get off" ??? ... loss of a day's wages at least (if you are working)

Liable for a bit more $$$$ than the original fine if you dont ... plus costs ...

[KX500]

Dosn't apply to me having to take day off work FJ

Where's society going to go if law enforcement is based on word ? Reason why it is stated to always get a written quote over a verbal.

[RDJ]

Justice is expensive for you - except when the defendant is legally aided. Then it's expensive for us.

One of my fellow riders got fined for 121 km/hr in a straight line overtaking maneouvre - he said he didn't want to be on the other side of the road longer than necessary but he never went that fast. He went to court, and lost. Now he rides with his GPS set to register the maximum speed for the record if needed. I doubt that would sway a court - would likely be inadmissible.

Usually the authorities work on the (correct) premise that the middle class are the easiest to target; no diversity exemptions, no WINZ subsidies, usually employed and often self-employed so a day off work to defend oneself is too expensive to do. And - we tend to pay the fines.

Bleeding the people who can (just) afford to pay up will continue for the foreseeable future...

[SMOKEU]

No - rather live in a society that is based on fact ! (proof) Wouldn't you Mr Fuck The Police ? Or is that aka Mr Ironic ?

So if a cop catches someone tagging your fence, what are they meant to use as evidence against the offender? If the offender was wearing gloves then there may not be any finger prints on the spray can or marker pen, then any evidence is just hearsay.

[KX500]

Yeah just like tax system with middle class being taken for a ride.

Says in road code to overtake as quckly as you can :D

[Madness]

If you decide to try & defend this then I wish you all the best of luck and think good on you for doing so. From my own experience I'd suggest you put it down to wrong place, wrong time and pay it, meanwhile being thankful it's not a bullshit Dangerous Driving charge. But that's me and your circumstances may be that you are in a position to contribute a minimum of a full day in court and at least $1,000 if you decide to hire a Lawyer. Even then you have to hope the Judge doesn't have a G&T hangover that day and the moons are fully aligned to have any chance of success.

[davereid]

Would you rather be in a country where a police officers word doesn't count for anything? Criminal: "But judge, it wasn't me who stole that car then did a runner from the cops and crashed into a pole. The cop is lying about the whole thing". Judge: "I find you not guilty, case closed".

Thats how it is when I'm on a jury.

I was riding my motorbike one day, not speeding, following another biker, who also was not speeding. He got pulled over. I stopped from interest and got told to piss off by the cop. I said no thanks, I will hang around. Cop said if you are here in 30 secs I will charge you both with racing and have your bikes impounded.

So I know from personal experience that some cops will lie without blinking an eye.

A few months later I was on a jury. It essentially came down to police witness evidence. I would not and never will convict based on a policeman's statement as I have seen them lie at the drop of a hat.

[FJRider]

Dosn't apply to me having to take day off work FJ

Where's society going to go if law enforcement is based on word ? Reason why it is stated to always get a written quote over a verbal.

Police have sworn an oath to uphold the law ... This is the bit Judges remember, and take seriously. :doh:

Some officers don't take it as seriously ... <_<

[CookMySock]

Uh oh, people are waking up to the scam... whatever will the govt do about this?

[KX500]

So if a cop catches someone tagging your fence, what are they meant to use as evidence against the offender? If the offender was wearing gloves then there may not be any finger prints on the spray can or marker pen, then any evidence is just hearsay.

Could you please compare apples with apples, your analogy does not pertain to an instant fine.

[KX500]

Cheerz Madness

"Ask Arthur Allan Thomas for the head's up on police honesty" :laugh:

Mrs yelling out something about a dog and a bone - told her its moved onto bigger things than the fine :Punk:

[Madness]

Rastuscat is here. What say you, Donut Man?

[rastuscat]

Got pinged doing 67 down gasson st ch-ch, was traveling north in left hand lane, 2 lanes head north and one heads south - cop was parked opposite side.

Thinking now but prob to late - how can they issue a ticket if the alledged speed is not locked and displayed on the radar dash unit ? What can ya do if you do look at the dash unit and the alledged speed is not showing ?

Gasson Street? You mean the street where a motorcyclist died recently when a van pulled out of a stop sign in front of him? Sorry, sympathy disappeared just now.

The policy says that if the reading is available to view it should be shown to the driver on request. Nothing says it has to be shown.

There are a range of factors which determine what speed is displayed in the target window, and which determine which speed is locked. Proximity, speed, mass, reflectivity, luck. Heard of the 'faster' window? It can be locked if the operator has one of the new handsets, common to HP but not the city units.

It comes down to tracking history. If you appeared to be the fastest vehicle, the evil-revenue-collecting-bitch is safe to write you up, as if the reading actually belonged to the other vehicle, and you appeared to be going faster, you should think yourself lucky not to be getting a ticket for your actual speed (but rather, his).

Tracking history is a great tool for an experienced officer. Its a bit hit and miss when applied by an inexperienced soul.


Thinking now but prob to late - how can they issue a ticket if the alledged speed is not locked and displayed on the radar dash unit ? What can ya do if you do look at the dash unit and the alledged speed is not showing ?

Yes. :violin:

[rastuscat]

Rastuscat is here. What say you, Donut Man?

Hate to let anyone down. Sorry Madness, hadn't read your post when I answered the question. Nice to be thought of by someone other than the manager of the local Dunkin Donuts.:msn-wink:

[rastuscat]

I can't find it right now, but is been published on the site already. There is a High court precedent, thats if you are not shown a locked reading when you request it, the ticket is junk.

Use search and requote it.

Of course they often get a confession and that will sink you ie "why were you speeding sir ?" any explanation is a confession.

Radar should not be used with more than one vehicle in the beam. For technical reasons its bad man to do it.

I can't find it right now? Convenient.

[rastuscat]

found this

http://www.fastandsafe.co.nz/Pages/Media/RadarEvidence18Feb05.shtm

Police need evidence for speed tickets
18 February 2005

By ANNA CLARIDGE

Motorists who are pinged for speeding by police radar might have a complete defence if the officer taking the reading cannot produce it in court.




Remember to read the words highlighted.

The journo further shows her lack of understanding by saying that the officer has to produce the reading in court. Tripe. How do you produce a reading that appeared on a radar display several months earlier?

Good word, quote cases that have no legal weight, given they arose from a District Court hearing.

Grrrrrrrrr

[The Lone Rider]

I would not and never will convict based on a policeman's statement as I have seen them lie at the drop of a hat.

A poll currently running on 13 says 47.95% of people who voted, "do not trust or respect" the NZ police.

Coming in second place at 24.66% is "respect and trust", followed by "respect but not trust" (21.92%) and lowest is "trust but dont respect" (5.48%)

I think the sample size is around 200-300 people (without logging in to check). And results I guess are only representative of whoever visits the website.

[chasio]

So you have confirmed the location and speed of the ticket in a public forum. At a wild guess it may have been on a KX500 but even if not, there is plenty to go on with which to pin down which motorist is involved, when and where. You have stated that your forks would have been compressed from spirited braking. And you have stated you were riding without a license. If I were you, about now I would realize that, oh silly me, the license was in my jacket pocket all along, pay the $120 and move on.

[KX500]

Gasson Street? You mean the street where a motorcyclist died recently when a van pulled out of a stop sign in front of him? Sorry, sympathy disappeared just now.







:violin:

"Don't you guys get free donuts like in the states ?"

Who said anything about asking for sympathy ? Thats why they were there cause of the accident you mentioned - who they said was going considerably faster than I was (11 miles an hour of earth shattering stuff) - ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff for the poor dead soul now. Most speed down gasson - why ? Cause up until now there is "never" any cops on gasson. Pretty common is it not for people to speed down roads and streets that they know cops hardly ever sit on ?

[Swoop]

Thats how it is when I'm on a jury.

So I know from personal experience that some cops will lie without blinking an eye.

A few months later I was on a jury.
I have seen exactly the same. Cop lying in front of the judge.
Luckily it didn't taint the prosecution's case (this time) and we convicted, but everything I see in court is looked at with suspicion now.

[rastuscat]

Where's society going to go if law enforcement is based on word ? Reason why it is stated to always get a written quote over a verbal.

I'm on a roll now...........................

The reason why a cops evidence is often preferred is the question of motivation. The cop has bugger all reason to make it up, unless they have a wish to end their career in an untimely fashion. The punter, however, has obvious motivation to tell a story of innocence.

HOWEVER, and before I get hammered for saying that, I firmly believe that people who are accused of things very often form a mental picture at variance from what often happens. It's a psychological self defence mechanism, where a persons view of themselves as innocent, 'good' citizens prevents their ego from believing an accusation from a societal representative.

A couple of years back I posted a letter from a guy grizzling about how he had been fitted up, an innocent person accused of a driving offence he had never committed in his life. Such were his plea of innocence that even I as almost convinced. So I sat and watched the video again of him driving through a red light. That chap firmly believed in his innocence, and would have told all who cared to listen about how the revenue collecting Popos had wrongly accused him. His complaints would have gained traction with all who belived they been wrongly accused over the years.

And yet, if I hadn't had that on video, as we normally don't, it would have been his word against mine. Would justice have truly been served if he had defended it and the court hadn't believed me? As it happens, I showed him the video, and shortly after he paid the fine.

It must be a bastard to be an innocent person accused, but it happens a lot less often than you might hear at your uncles mates neighbours party.

Harumph.:2guns:

[KX500]

So you have confirmed the location and speed of the ticket in a public forum. At a wild guess it may have been on a KX500 but even if not, there is plenty to go on with which to pin down which motorist is involved, when and where. You have stated that your forks would have been compressed from spirited braking. And you have stated you were riding without a license. If I were you, about now I would realize that, oh silly me, the license was in my jacket pocket all along, pay the $120 and move on.

Crikey see why churchill drunk so much, no I'm not lucky enuff to be one of the two people that have a road registered KX500 in New Zealand, system by passers. I blimpt the throttle to pass the plumber ute with a canopy who was doing about 40 prob cause seen the cop and was fanging it prior, then I spotted the cop and braked case I was going over speed limit. If you think it is safer to travel in the blind spot of a ute with a canopy good luck on staying alive, go slower than the ute and end up getting rear ended by faster moving traffic coming round the corner ?

READ the whole thread and you will see the discussion is on police ethics now, moved on from paying the fine many posts ago.

[rastuscat]

"Don't you guys get free donuts like in the states ?"

Who said anything about asking for sympathy ? Thats why they were there cause of the accident you mentioned - who they said was going considerably faster than I was (11 miles an hour of earth shattering stuff) - ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff for the poor dead soul now. Most speed down gasson - why ? Cause up until now there is "never" any cops on gasson. Pretty common is it not for people to speed down roads and streets that they know cops hardly ever sit on ?

Sorry I got a titch on and vented.

Yes, we hammer the stop signs down in the block between Moorhouse and Brougham, but we also deal with speed too. It's better to be doing 50-55 down there when someone pulls out in front of you, even if it's their fault.

Can I offer you a donut to make up for your ticket? I directed the car that caught you to be there, figure I might owe you one.

:doh:

[KX500]

I'm on a roll now...........................

The reason why a cops evidence is often preferred is the question of motivation. The cop has bugger all reason to make it up, unless they have a wish to end their career in an untimely fashion. The punter, however, has obvious motivation to tell a story of innocence.


Harumph.:2guns:

You guys do a great job for all of us ! I did think though that bugger from rangoon got me.

So there has never ever been a case of an officer stretching the truth to get his quota up to impress the top brass for quicker promotion ?

[rastuscat]

You guys do a great job for all of us ! I did think though that bugger from rangoon got me.

So there has never ever been a case of an officer stretching the truth to get his quota up to impress the top brass for quicker promotion ?

I expect that, given that Popos are human, mistakes will be made. Just not on every ticket ever written to every motorist who protests every accusation ever made.

By the way, anyone know how to identify camellias?

[RDJ]

I'm on a roll now...........................

The reason why a cops evidence is often preferred is the question of motivation. The cop has bugger all reason to make it up, unless they have a wish to end their career in an untimely fashion. The punter, however, has obvious motivation to tell a story of innocence.

"we are all the heroes of our own stories" as the saying goes. The policeman in court - by the time the case gets to court - may not be able to willing to back out of what looked like an easy case (lots of downside consequences in any organisation if you let the team down after spending the team's time and money and also risking the team's reputation...) or more likely, the policeman may not make it up but may choose to misremember what happened for exactly the same reasons as the rest of us.

Realtime video is one way of sorting the facts from the fiction. One of my fellow riders (mentioned in another thread) chooses to run with his GPS set to record the highest speed he got to on any given trip. Personally, I run with a VIO bikecam set on a continuous 4 hour loop...

[RDJ]

How to identify camellias...

Sorry, that one is out of my range! But there is a website for that says my wife...

[Madness]

It must be a bastard to be an innocent person accused...

Yeah, it's not much fun (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/98779-Hypothetical-situation?highlight=hypothetical+situation).

[KX500]

:D yeah ya got the averages in check

I doubt i was recorded cause had just moved in front of ute and i was at 6 oclock and cops at 4 to 5 , whats the sweep of the the radar beam ? xr650r good thump when throttled tweaked, high vis orange vest, high beam headlight - here he comes - look like ya going faster than ya are with drippy plumber ute crawling along.

Its really the whole point - no one actually knows how fast I was going - if there was proof fair cop the average kiwi would say.

[cs363]

no one actually knows how fast I was going


Well you obviously do as you've admitted you were speeding several times in this thread......... :rolleyes:

[KX500]

Last post was braked incase I was speeding, Quote where I said I was speeding sherlock ?

[chasio]

xr650r

Cool, glad that is cleared up.

I did read the thread and I'd be willing to bet that Joe Public lies in court more often than the police do, personally. And neither excuses the other.

So in terms of your ethics, where do you stand on the issue of someone lying in court to get off something they know they did? Or lying to a Police Office when they are stopped?

[rastuscat]

Cool, glad that is cleared up.

I did read the thread and I'd be willing to bet that Joe Public lies in court more often than the police do, personally. And neither excuses the other.

So in terms of your ethics, where do you stand on the issue of someone lying in court to get off something they know they did? Or lying to a Police Office when they are stopped?

A liar in a uniform is still a liar.

I get told shit every day I'm at work. Mostly by the public, but sometimes by the people I work with.

The cellphone thing is probably the porky du jour. I see folk with a cellphone glued to their ear, but its soooooooo easy to dump it on the empty seat next door and deny having used it.

Locked a bloke up once, I saw him using a silver flip phone. He adamantly denied it when stopped, claiming to have a Blackberry, and not owning a silver flip. He then drove off without giving his name and address etc, so was subsequently locked up. Back at the cells, we found a silver flip phone in his pocket. Imagine that.

Remember tho, that most people tell the truth, even if it's only the truth as they know it to be. It might be wrong, but it's the truth. That's not lying, either from a Popo or a punter.

Mrs Cat not well, off to my bed to console her......... :sleep:

[cs363]

they said was going considerably faster than I was (11 miles an hour of earth shattering stuff) Most speed down gasson - why ? Cause up until now there is "never" any cops on gasson. Pretty common is it not for people to speed down roads and streets that they know cops hardly ever sit on ?


I blimpt the throttle to pass the plumber ute with a canopy who was doing about 40 prob cause seen the cop and was fanging it prior, then I spotted the cop and braked case I was going over speed limit.


xr650r good thump when throttled tweaked.

You may not have directly said you were speeding, but first quote above implies it, second post says you 'blimpt' the throttle to pass the ute that was doing 'about 40' - not hard for an XR650 to be doing over 60km/h in this situation, plus braking is implicit of guilt.
3rd post above also implies you gave it a handful.

I think you are painting exactly the profile that rastuscat was talking about earlier 'The punter, however, has obvious motivation to tell a story of innocence.'
To me it sounds like you just caught out doing exactly what many of us all do, and on a street where you say speeding is common as everybody does it because there's never any cops down there -it's just bad luck. Police ethics have nothing to do with it, in this instance anyway.

From memory I think that Police can even issue a ticket based on observed speed or something similar (rastuscat or scumdog might be able to clear that up) if you are travelling noticably faster than other traffic around you. Something along those lines anyway.

So anyway, are you going to fight the ticket?

[KX500]

Cool, glad that is cleared up.

I did read the thread and I'd be willing to bet that Joe Public lies in court more often than the police do, personally. And neither excuses the other.

So in terms of your ethics, where do you stand on the issue of someone lying in court to get off something they know they did? Or lying to a Police Office when they are stopped?

Its BS - literally to lie for any reason.

Don't ya have to lead from the top ? How can you expect all road users to play fair if the system is not seen to be fair, countless people in here think its BS to have to take the officers word on it.
If the system is not respected why respect it ?

We all have to be on the same team, carn't be all about revenue collecting when you have cops in here good enough to tell you where the hotspots are where they target - inturn many will think about why they are in the particular spots.

Its the system, more money needs to be pumped in for as discussed video/photo evidence.

[chasio]

Its BS - literally to lie for any reason.

Don't ya have to lead from the top ? How can you expect all road users to play fair if the system is not seen to be fair, countless people in here think its BS to have to take the officers word on it.
If the system is not respected why respect it ?

We all have to be on the same team, carn't be all about revenue collecting when you have cops in here good enough to tell you where the hotspots are where they target - inturn many will think about why they are in the particular spots.

Its the system, more money needs to be pumped in for as discussed video/photo evidence.

I'm 100% with you there.

[KX500]

cs363 they said 11 miles an hour, a tweak and a handful two different throttle positons, one slowly increases acceleration and one produces a mono. Braking not automatic guilt , you never braked when seen a cop only to look down and you were'nt speeding after all ?


rastuscat philosophy to me in this instance would mean one would have to have very low self esteem to feel like an outcast in society cause you have a speeding fine for an Alledged 67 km/hr.

Being person of principle always served others and me well so to right I'll be fighting it and very suprised not to get off when its "Hear Say".

[cs363]

cs363 they said 11 miles an hour, a tweak and a handful two different throttle positons, one slowly increases acceleration and one produces a mono. Braking not automatic guilt , you never braked when seen a cop only to look down and you were'nt speeding after all ?

Can't say I've ever braked when I've seen a cop, unless I was actually speeding - being aware of ones speed is part of being a responsible road user, whether you're speeding or not, surely?
If you brake whenever you see a cop that would suggest you speed a lot, at least that's what I imagine a cop or a judge would take from that - much like people that run from the cops when they 'haven't done anything' - you only have to watch any of the multitude of police reality programmes on TV to know that's BS.
In fact braking would tend to draw attention to oneself I would imagine, most cops barely glance at you if you go past them a few km'h over (except on the stupid 4km/h tolerance weekends, and even then a lot don't seem to bother), after all part of the cops training is to be alert for people acting suspiciously.



rastuscat philosophy to me in this instance would mean one would have to have very low self esteem to feel like an outcast in society cause you have a speeding fine for an Alledged 67 km/hr.

Being person of principle always served others and me well so to right I'll be fighting it and very suprised not to get off when its "Hear Say".

I'm not saying I agree with the speed limits in a lot of places in NZ, my personal belief is that in many places they are artificially low and in the odd place too high - BUT the reality is that the speed limit is the law, you break them and you pay the price, if you happen to do it in the vicinity of a cop.

I agree with you regarding your post about better video or photo evidence to remove all doubt in cases like yours, that would certainly be a positive step IMO.

[Jantar]

...If you brake whenever you see a cop that would suggest you speed a lot, at least that's what I imagine a cop or a judge would take from that - .....

I do sometimes exceed the speed limit, but most times I try to stay at or very close to it. Every time I see a cop I brake first then check my speed. If my radar detector goes off I brake then look to see what speed the radar detector locked on to. (it has a built in GPS as well)

I also have my Garmin GPS set to record "often". That is every change of direction of more than 2 degrees and every change of speed of more than 3% or every 10 seconds whichever comes first. It seldom reaches 10 seconds between records, and is often less than 1 second.

I just loved the expression on the face of the cop who stopped me and claimed I was doing 116 kmh when I knew I was under 100 kmh. When I asked him to record on his own notes that my bike was fitted with a recording GPS, and to note the GPS time as displayed and the GPS co-ordinates shown, as I would be defending the ticket in court. He didn't write a ticket, but just got in his car and drove away. I realised later that I should have photograhed the police car and sent in a complaint.

[cs363]

I just loved the expression on the face of the cop who stopped me and claimed I was doing 116 kmh when I knew I was under 100 kmh. When I asked him to record on his own notes that my bike was fitted with a recording GPS, and to note the GPS time as displayed and the GPS co-ordinates shown, as I would be defending the ticket in court. He didn't write a ticket, but just got in his car and drove away. I realised later that I should have photograhed the police car and sent in a complaint.

:lol: Now that would have been funny! Unfortunately there are a few 'bad apples' in the Police as with any large organisation, I know of a particular cop based in a small town in central NI that strong anecdotal evidence would strongly suggest has a habit of pinging people with a speed showing on his radar unit 15+ Km/h higher than their actual speed, probably locked on from an earlier 'customer'. His reaction and threatening manner when this has been suggested to him (by more than one person) would tend to support this theory.
Thankfully the majority of cops seem to just be normal guys doing a job that is often thankless, I know I wouldn't want to deal with some of the shit that they have to.

Just to clarify on the braking comment, not necessarily saying that if you brake when seeing a cop you must be speeding, but rather it portrays the impression that you are, whether or not you are actually be speeding.

[davereid]

Remember to read the words highlighted.

The journo further shows her lack of understanding by saying that the officer has to produce the reading in court. Tripe. How do you produce a reading that appeared on a radar display several months earlier?

Good word, quote cases that have no legal weight, given they arose from a District Court hearing.

Grrrrrrrrr

I did find the original post, as well as Jantars comments about the High court precedent. Someone may have access to Brookers and may be able to find the original High Court precedent.

Its not correct to say District Court judgements have no legal weight.

They are not considered to be precedent, but they are consider to be influential. That is to say if the district court is unsure of which way to jump, they may use the other district courts decisions as a benchmark.

I'm also very nervous when I hear of police issuing tickets when there are multiple vehicles in the radar beam, and especially nervous when "fastest target" type locking is concerned.

There are a wide range of technical reasons why doppler radar is very unsuitable for use when there are multiple vehicles in the beam.

(1) Doppler radar cannot identify its target
(2) Doppler radar does not know distance to target
(3) Doppler radar "mixes" its transmitted output with the received input (reflection) from the target, and produces ALL the sum, and difference frequencies between its output and its input(s).

Lets look at an imaginary but mathematically correct example.

assumptions for the purpose of demonstration set to use simple arithmetic...

output frequency of radar = 100 demohertz
each km/hr of target vehicle speed towards the radar INCREASES the reflected signal frequency by 1 demohertz

3 vehicles in beam. While they are all at different distances, the size of the reflected signal is essentially the same as they are different sizes and have different radar cross sectional areas.

1 at 103 km/hr - small motorcycle
1 at 105 km/hr - car
1 at 112 km/hr - large truck

Mixer output comprises main signals of

3
5
12 demohertz

as well as minor signals of
5-3 = 2
12-3 = 9
12-5 = 7 demohertz

so the part of the radar unit that determines speed is being fed 2,3,7,9,and 12 demohertz.

The manufacturer uses sophisticated digital techniques to try and determine which signals are valid and should be displayed as strongest signal and fastest signal.

But, ALL the above frequencies (plus and caused by multipath reflections) will all get processed.

The laws of physics mean no one, not even the computer in the radar unit can associate any of those signals 100% accurately with a given target.

[rastuscat]

I did find the original post, as well as Jantars comments about the High court precedent. Someone may have access to Brookers and may be able to find the original High Court precedent.

Its not correct to say District Court judgements have no legal weight.

They are not considered to be precedent, but they are consider to be influential. That is to say if the district court is unsure of which way to jump, they may use the other district courts decisions as a benchmark.

I'm also very nervous when I hear of police issuing tickets when there are multiple vehicles in the radar beam, and especially nervous when "fastest target" type locking is concerned.

There are a wide range of technical reasons why doppler radar is very unsuitable for use when there are multiple vehicles in the beam.

(1) Doppler radar cannot identify its target
(2) Doppler radar does not know distance to target
(3) Doppler radar "mixes" its transmitted output with the received input (reflection) from the target, and produces ALL the sum, and difference frequencies between its output and its input(s).

Lets look at an imaginary but mathematically correct example.

assumptions for the purpose of demonstration set to use simple arithmetic...

output frequency of radar = 100 demohertz
each km/hr of target vehicle speed towards the radar INCREASES the reflected signal frequency by 1 demohertz

3 vehicles in beam. While they are all at different distances, the size of the reflected signal is essentially the same as they are different sizes and have different radar cross sectional areas.

1 at 103 km/hr - small motorcycle
1 at 105 km/hr - car
1 at 112 km/hr - large truck

Mixer output comprises main signals of

3
5
12 demohertz

as well as minor signals of
5-3 = 2
12-3 = 9
12-5 = 7 demohertz

so the part of the radar unit that determines speed is being fed 2,3,7,9,and 12 demohertz.

The manufacturer uses sophisticated digital techniques to try and determine which signals are valid and should be displayed as strongest signal and fastest signal.

But, ALL the above frequencies (plus and caused by multipath reflections) will all get processed.

The laws of physics mean no one, not even the computer in the radar unit can associate any of those signals 100% accurately with a given target.

Seems you are a tecchie, so thanks for all that. It is all correct, based on my memories of having been a radar tech in the navy 30 years ago. It looks complicated enough to be true, and you got me at the word demohertz.

The emphasis on the radar device is disconcerting, both in the way it is operated and interpreted. In the real world in which it is actually used, the operator should be driving along (or stationary) waiting to see a vehicle moving quickly. He/she should then make a mental estimate of the speed based on his/her experience, and only then use the radar to confirm that. Basically, the visual picture should have at least the same weight in the Popos mind as what the machine displays. I have seen vehicles doing 50 which the radar says are doing more or less, but if the picture I see doesn't tie in with what the radar says, it ain't safe to use the reading. That's the way operators are trained. Tracking history doesn't get the respect it deserves, from either side of the fence.

Thing is, the speed if normally checked a long time before the rider/driver sees the Popo car. That's coz the Popo is actively seeking the traget, but the target doesn't know the Popo is there. Most people don't drive around looking for radar traps (except maybe those on KB). By the time the 'Oh Shit' moment happens, the throttle rolls off and potentially the brakes go on, the speed is locked. Thing is, it's only at that stage that the riders/drivers awareness becomes fairly clear. I've had interesting discussions with people who have suddenly had crystal clear recall of exactly what speed, driving line, traffic interactions they have had in the last 3 months, when told about what was happening around them when their speed was checked.

Still the best advice is to drive at the speed limit, and accept that if you exceed it, the consequences of exceeding it might happen. I don't believe there are as many innocent people given tickets are claim to be.

Totally agree on your mention of the law of physics too. The OP got pinged in Gasson St, where the law of physics tragically caught up with a rider a few weeks ago. The law of physics doesn't grant exemptions or tolerances. Kinetic energy increases with speed. Simple.

[KX500]

Totally agree on your mention of the law of physics too. The OP got pinged in Gasson St, where the law of physics tragically caught up with a rider a few weeks ago. The law of physics doesn't grant exemptions or tolerances. Kinetic energy increases with speed. Simple.

You have great way of putting things - thought provoking.

As well as speed factor in the death in question, Gasson St it self is a danger where three lanes have been squeezed in a st originally designed for two. So tight cannot even allow for parking on the left of the two lanes heading north. And opposite lane parking is so tight you have to make like a vertical pikelet when entering and exiting your car with pies in hand. With a row of cars parked there anyone exiting the stop sign has to pull so far forward onto Gasson to get a clear view and the obvious potential for danger is now there. (Big Kick Ass Blackboards advertising their wares down Marshlands road same thing - especially first vege shop on right heading north past Queen Elizabeth Driver roundabout - hopefully :Police: reading this can be proactive on it)

Being seen in my book on a par with the correct speed - like night and day the size of cage drivers pupils when have the bright orange hi vis on - forget the insignificant fluro green most bikers that wear a vis op for. Headlight on high beam always. I've read and experienced people being put down for wearing a hi-glow vis on group rides - I just think are you "Mad or just acting".


The ecilop and his young blond chauffeur were not using a hand-held radar gun - whats the sweep of the in car unit - similar to an infra red beam of an outdoor light :D ? So doppler radar applies to all radar used by New Zealand police ?

[davereid]

The ecilop and his young blond chauffeur were not using a hand-held radar gun - whats the sweep of the in car unit - similar to an infra red beam of an outdoor light :D ? So doppler radar applies to all radar used by New Zealand police ?

To the best of my knowledge police use only three types of technologies at the moment, laser (generally hand held or on a tripod) and doppler radar generally car mounted or in the speed camera van. (Fixed Cameras use different technology.)

Laser is not subject to the errors of doppler radar - it has a different set of errors.

Laser can't directly measure speed.

It can only measure distance to target.

So laser works by measuring the distance to target, then a short period of time measuring it again. I have been told this period is 1/100th of a second, but I don't have a manual so cant confirm that.

This creates the problem that if the first measurement was made to the back of the headlight reflector, and the second one came off the front of the headlight reflector, this would create the illusion that the vehicle had moved forward, even if it were stationary, by the depth of the headlight reflector, say 100mm.

Say you are travelling at 100 km/hr or 27.77m/s. In 1/100 of a second you travel 270mm, so a 100 mm error is a detected range of 17m/s to 37m/s or 61 to 133 km/hr.

We don't know how the manufacturers get around this, but the most likely way is to require a series of measurements that all give the same speed. Say a dozen readings.

The more measurements you require the greater the likelyhood that you will have the correct answer. But the harder it will be to get a "lock".

I have experimented with some techniques to help slow the "lock" speed down on lasers. I cant say they work or not, but they seem to as I have always had plenty of time to see a laser unit before lock is obtained.

Heres the counter measures.

(1) Paint numberplate with flat white paint. You can test this with a cheap laser pointer from warehouse stationary. It makes a massive reduction to the reflectiveness of the plate, but is virtually unnoticeable to the eye.

(2) On my car I have a CD stuffed in the front window. Its on the same angle as the windscreen, a steep slope.
It means that if the first reflection comes off the top of the CD, the second off the bottom, the third somewhere else, no lock will be obtained.

(3) I have 3 orange "cat eye" reflectors under my number plate. I have them at 3, 5, and 7 cms behind the number plate, and at different heights so they can all be seen from front of the car. They are much better reflectors than my number plate, so laser pointed at my plate is almost certain to get a refection from one of the reflectors. But its unlikely that a laser operator can hold still enough to get a series of refelctions off any one reflector - and it only takes a reflection off one of the others to stop lock.

(4) I don't actually speed much, really only when overtaking, as I intend to outlive my grandkids.

[The Lone Rider]

.

(1) Paint numberplate with flat white paint. You can test this with a cheap laser pointer from warehouse stationary. It makes a massive reduction to the reflectiveness of the plate, but is virtually unnoticeable to the eye.

(2) On my car I have a CD stuffed in the front window. Its on the same angle as the windscreen, a steep slope.
It means that if the first reflection comes off the top of the CD, the second off the bottom, the third somewhere else, no lock will be obtained.

(3) I have 3 orange "cat eye" reflectors under my number plate. I have them at 3, 5, and 7 cms behind the number plate, and at different heights so they can all be seen from front of the car. They are much better reflectors than my number plate, so laser pointed at my plate is almost certain to get a refection from one of the reflectors. But its unlikely that a laser operator can hold still enough to get a series of refelctions off any one reflector - and it only takes a reflection off one of the others to stop lock.


Pretty sure Mythbusters test all those and found them to not work!

[KX500]

(3) I have 3 orange "cat eye" reflectors under my number plate. I have them at 3, 5, and 7 cms behind the number plate, and at different heights so they can all be seen from front of the car. They are much better reflectors than my number plate, so laser pointed at my plate is almost certain to get a refection from one of the reflectors. But its unlikely that a laser operator can hold still enough to get a series of refelctions off any one reflector - and it only takes a reflection off one of the others to stop lock.


Percy Shaw would be proud :D Might go score me some of those cop mirror sunglasses from the 80's for good measure :shifty:

Cheers for all the technical info on the doppler radar - makes for a good case :msn-wink:

[Ronin]

Uh oh, people are waking up to the scam... whatever will the govt do about this?

Take it international?

[willytheekid]

This is why I never leave home with out my HD camera on the bike.

As rastuscat has previously mentioned...you just can't argue with video...its dosn't lie!
:niceone:

[davereid]

Pretty sure Mythbusters test all those and found them to not work!

Nothing will stop the laser eventually getting a lock.

But, I have explained the theory behind these counter measures.

The laser manufacturers are not keen to explain how they deal with "slippage" as this may give away trade secrets, help people like me develop countermeasures, or simply demonstrate to the courts that the laser may not be relied on as much as they would like you to believe.

Its my view that all the measures mentioned will have some effect.

Apply occams razor. If the car provided NO reflection then laser would never get a lock. So a poorly reflective number plate must be better than a highly reflective one.

Same as the CD and reflectors. If the device simply gets a reflection from a straight level surface it will obtain the readings it needs easily. If it can't find that straight level surface, it must work much harder.

[willytheekid]

So laser works by measuring the distance to target, then...blah blah blah blah genius waffle rant IQ exceeding waffle waffle DONE!.


Nothing will stop the laser eventually getting a lock.

But, I have explained the theory behind these counter measures....waffle einstein genius amazing facts blah blah lol genius is me waffle waffle tech specs understandy good!

.

:eek::drool:

Dave=
http://wtfcontent.com/img/131539140812.jpg

Me good Idea for lazerery dodging=
http://operatorchan.org/v/arch/src/v23510_F-117%20Stealth%20Bike.jpg

...is me smrt now tooo??
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QCACJTiTDzM/ToCrGkYXHJI/AAAAAAAAAII/s3WzADSTww4/s1600/2372_2eeb.jpg

posted because Dave is a bastard!...makin us feel like bloody cave men...STOP SHOWING OFF AND GO BUILD US A FLYING BIKE DAVE!! :laugh:

[awa355]

Some interesting posts. So, would a GPS that records speed position etc as 'Jantar's Garmin be admissible in court as a defence?

Probably not, but might make a 'suspect' officer think twice about pushing a false accusation as happened in Jantars case.

I have been thinking about purchaseing a GPS, mainly for the more accurate speed readout. Are there units specificly suited to motorbikes?

[Jantar]

..... So, would a GPS that records speed position etc as 'Jantar's Garmin be admissible in court as a defence?

Probably not, but might make a 'suspect' officer think twice about pushing a false accusation as happened in Jantars case. .....
Why wouldn't it be admissable? The tracklog id is date/time stamped all the way through. The data recorded is at least as accurate as the data displayed on the cops radar, and is much more accurate than the inbuilt data logger that some cars have and has already been used by the police to get a conviction. Modern GPS does not suffer from the same inaccuracies that the 1st generation GPS units had.

To disallow a GPS record as evidence would mean disallowing ALL electronic evidence.

[jasonu]

Could you please compare apples with apples, your analogy does not pertain to an instant fine.

It doesn't make much sense either.

[KX500]

It doesn't make much sense either.

One is guilty until they prove their innocence the other is innocent until proven guilty.

[rastuscat]

Some interesting posts. So, would a GPS that records speed position etc as 'Jantar's Garmin be admissible in court as a defence?

Probably not, but might make a 'suspect' officer think twice about pushing a false accusation as happened in Jantars case.

I have been thinking about purchaseing a GPS, mainly for the more accurate speed readout. Are there units specificly suited to motorbikes?

Garmin Zumo.

Tom Tom Rider 2 (although this has been superseded by a new model). I have a rider 2.

The difference between bike ones and car ones is that you can punch the bike ones with a gloved hand, and they are normally water resistant. They also bluetooth to a helmet headset, if you have one, and bluetooth to a phone.

There is a mounting on TardMe which makes your car one waterproof, looks like a good deal, coz you can buy car GPS far cheaper than bike ones.

[rastuscat]

To the best of my knowledge police use only three types of technologies at the moment, laser (generally hand held or on a tripod) and doppler radar generally car mounted or in the speed camera van. (Fixed Cameras use different technology.)

Laser is not subject to the errors of doppler radar - it has a different set of errors.

Laser can't directly measure speed.

It can only measure distance to target.

So laser works by measuring the distance to target, then a short period of time measuring it again. I have been told this period is 1/100th of a second, but I don't have a manual so cant confirm that.

This creates the problem that if the first measurement was made to the back of the headlight reflector, and the second one came off the front of the headlight reflector, this would create the illusion that the vehicle had moved forward, even if it were stationary, by the depth of the headlight reflector, say 100mm.

Say you are travelling at 100 km/hr or 27.77m/s. In 1/100 of a second you travel 270mm, so a 100 mm error is a detected range of 17m/s to 37m/s or 61 to 133 km/hr.

We don't know how the manufacturers get around this, but the most likely way is to require a series of measurements that all give the same speed. Say a dozen readings.

The more measurements you require the greater the likelyhood that you will have the correct answer. But the harder it will be to get a "lock".

I have experimented with some techniques to help slow the "lock" speed down on lasers. I cant say they work or not, but they seem to as I have always had plenty of time to see a laser unit before lock is obtained.

Heres the counter measures.

(1) Paint numberplate with flat white paint. You can test this with a cheap laser pointer from warehouse stationary. It makes a massive reduction to the reflectiveness of the plate, but is virtually unnoticeable to the eye.

(2) On my car I have a CD stuffed in the front window. Its on the same angle as the windscreen, a steep slope.
It means that if the first reflection comes off the top of the CD, the second off the bottom, the third somewhere else, no lock will be obtained.

(3) I have 3 orange "cat eye" reflectors under my number plate. I have them at 3, 5, and 7 cms behind the number plate, and at different heights so they can all be seen from front of the car. They are much better reflectors than my number plate, so laser pointed at my plate is almost certain to get a refection from one of the reflectors. But its unlikely that a laser operator can hold still enough to get a series of refelctions off any one reflector - and it only takes a reflection off one of the others to stop lock.

(4) I don't actually speed much, really only when overtaking, as I intend to outlive my grandkids.

The legislation requires that a plate is retroreflective white, not flat white. Keep flat white for your coffees.

Just out of interest, car mounted speed cameras work on a different principle, being slant radar. Still doppler based, but not subject to cosine angle effect.

Odd that someone who doesn't speed much, intending to outlive his grandkids, would put so much effort into making his plate less reflective. I've put no effort at all into doing that, and still haven't had tickets. Simple really, no spid, no spidding tickets.

[bikaholic]

The legislation requires that a plate is retroreflective white, not flat white. Keep flat white for your coffees.

Just out of interest, car mounted speed cameras work on a different principle, being slant radar. Still doppler based, but not subject to cosine angle effect.

Odd that someone who doesn't speed much, intending to outlive his grandkids, would put so much effort into making his plate less reflective. I've put no effort at all into doing that, and still haven't had tickets. Simple really, no spid, no spidding tickets.Same here, no speeding tickets ever, I put it down to the steelos rattling round inside my hubcaps. :mellow:I just can't find any other reason.

[davereid]

Just out of interest, car mounted speed cameras work on a different principle, being slant radar. Still doppler based, but not subject to cosine angle effect.

All doppler radar suffers from cosine effect, especially slant radar.

[rastuscat]

All doppler radar suffers from cosine effect, especially slant radar.

Why 'especially'? The car mounted ones we started with were set at 22.5 degrees to the roadway, so the angle of incidence of vehicles as within a degree or two of that, unless they were driving at some bloody odd angle to the road. Certainly slant radar is subject to less cosine angle effect than a Hawk, Eagle, KR10, TR6, and Stalker. Even a laser is subject to cosine angle effect, and that's not doppler radar.

Anyway, it's a non-issue, as cosine angle effect always favours the motorist. That's physics.

http://www.radarguns.com/radar-and-cosine-effect.html

Ho hum.

[davereid]

Why 'especially'? The car mounted ones we started with were set at 22.5 degrees to the roadway, so the angle of incidence of vehicles as within a degree or two of that, unless they were driving at some bloody odd angle to the road. Certainly slant radar is subject to less cosine angle effect than a Hawk, Eagle, KR10, TR6, and Stalker. Even a laser is subject to cosine angle effect, and that's not doppler radar.

Anyway, it's a non-issue, as cosine angle effect always favours the motorist. That's physics.

http://www.radarguns.com/radar-and-cosine-effect.html

Ho hum.

No, its the other way around.

Imagine I am standing in the fast lane of an 8 lane highway, looking at Rastuscat riding towards me on his beemer, also in the fast lane.

He is traveling directly towards me - if I aim a laser or doppler radar at him, the speed I get is the speed he is traveling, right up until the point he runs me over.

But I don't want to get run over. So I move closer to the footpath. For each lane closer to the footpath that I get, Rastuscat will be observed more and more from an angle. So even though Rastus cat is still moving at the same speed, I will observe a slightly different speed.

In this case it is to Rastuscats favour, and as he gets closer to me it gets more in his favour, as I have to swing around to follow him.

In fact at the point he is passing me, he is still going the same speed, but he actually has no velocity toward me at all, and I will record a reading of 0.

When I stood in the middle of the lane looking at Rastuscat, my angle of incidence to him was 0 degrees.
The COS of 0 is 1. So I observed 100% of his speed.

When he was passing me I had swung around to follow his progress. He was now at 90 degrees to me. The COS of 90 degrees is 0, and I observed 0% of his speed.

This leads us to a discussion on "slant radar" as used in Camera Vans.

This is set up expecting to be at 22.5 degrees to the road way. So the manufacturer knows it will be reading around 92% of the actual vehicle speed.

So the speed recorded by the camera is obtained by observing the incident speed at this angle and increasing it by around 8% to determine the actual vehicle speed.

This is OK if the van is set up correctly, and the radar is at exactly 22.5% to the road. But if the radar is not slanted at this angle, then the speed camera will record the wrong speed.

If the camera is at an angle less than 22.5 degrees it will always exaggerate the speed of the vehicle.

Same as if a vehicle moves toward the left of the road as it passes the beam - changing lanes, or even a motorcycle being blown around in the wind.

Tell me Rastuscat - How carefully is the beam angle set up ? Are measurements made from the van to the road to ensure it is parked exactly parallel ? How is the beam angle set exactly ?

I was told that its not set. That its just been accepted that cosine effect always benefits the motorist.

[rastuscat]

No, its the other way around.

Imagine I am standing in the fast lane of an 8 lane highway, looking at Rastuscat riding towards me on his beemer, also in the fast lane.

He is traveling directly towards me - if I aim a laser or doppler radar at him, the speed I get is the speed he is traveling, right up until the point he runs me over.

But I don't want to get run over. So I move closer to the footpath. For each lane closer to the footpath that I get, Rastuscat will be observed more and more from an angle. So even though Rastus cat is still moving at the same speed, I will observe a slightly different speed.

In this case it is to Rastuscats favour, and as he gets closer to me it gets more in his favour, as I have to swing around to follow him.

In fact at the point he is passing me, he is still going the same speed, but he actually has no velocity toward me at all, and I will record a reading of 0.

When I stood in the middle of the lane looking at Rastuscat, my angle of incidence to him was 0 degrees.
The COS of 0 is 1. So I observed 100% of his speed.

When he was passing me I had swung around to follow his progress. He was now at 90 degrees to me. The COS of 90 degrees is 0, and I observed 0% of his speed.

This leads us to a discussion on "slant radar" as used in Camera Vans.

This is set up expecting to be at 22.5 degrees to the road way. So the manufacturer knows it will be reading around 92% of the actual vehicle speed.

So the speed recorded by the camera is obtained by observing the incident speed at this angle and increasing it by around 8% to determine the actual vehicle speed.

This is OK if the van is set up correctly, and the radar is at exactly 22.5% to the road. But if the radar is not slanted at this angle, then the speed camera will record the wrong speed.

If the camera is at an angle less than 22.5 degrees it will always exaggerate the speed of the vehicle.

Same as if a vehicle moves toward the left of the road as it passes the beam - changing lanes, or even a motorcycle being blown around in the wind.

Tell me Rastuscat - How carefully is the beam angle set up ? Are measurements made from the van to the road to ensure it is parked exactly parallel ? How is the beam angle set exactly ?

I was told that its not set. That its just been accepted that cosine effect always benefits the motorist.

We teach our munchkin Popos exactly what you have outlined re CAE (Cosine Angle Effect) then tell them not to worry about it, as it's always in favour or the motorist.

I did some speed camera work in 1993, when they were set up. A laser attached to the unit at a fixed, certified angle, was directed at a sight board placed the same distance from the kerbline as the camera, at least 10 metres back. Once sighted in, the camera was then at 22.5 degrees to the road, assuming that the kerbline runs parallel to the roadway. Quite a simple, basic arrangement. In fact, the camera having been set at 22.5, the electronics were programmed to allow for 23 degrees, compensating for any slight error in alignment, in favour of the driver.

Now, I haven't done it since 1993, so can't speak for how they are set up now. Please don't start jumping up and down about how todays practice is the same as back then, coz I don't know if it is.

How about we have a discussion on tracking history, not THERE is an under-rated issue.

[Bassmatt]

[QUOTE=rastuscat;1130257204

How about we have a discussion on tracking history, not THERE is an under-rated issue.[/QUOTE]

+1 not that I can contribute, but Im finding this all very interesting