Mistaken identity?

[stevedg]

ok, here's the go....
headed down from New Plymouth yesterday to get to the Wanganui races, left about 8.30am so had plenty of time. Heaps of bikes on the road and I was passed by all of them - as I kept my speed under 108km/hr. Imagine my surprise when just by the Waverly racecourse I see flashing lights and a police car pulling into the little picnic area to do a U-turn. I checked my speed - yep still alright, he must be after the bike in front of me (passed about 15-30 seconds earlier and dissappearing into the distance). I slowed down and eased to the left to let him pass but he kept behind me - duh? Ok, I stopped, got off the bike to see what the problem was.

He claimed that he caught be doing 130km/hr (didn't say how he clocked me) and visually saw my bike around the corner 'obviously speeding'. I was dumbfounded.

My only thought was that he did see the first bike (which was speeding), took his eyes off the bike to do a u-turn and then I rode past - and he mistook my bike for the one that was speeding.

Needless to say it ruined my day at Wanganui - I was very nearly going to say stuff it and just head back home.

I'm going to contest, does anyone have any advice?

[Jantar]

Of my last 4 speeding tickets, at least 2 of them I wasn't speeding, a third was doubtful but I may have increased from the time I first saw the cop until he put the lights on me, and one of them, yes I was over the limit.

So now I keep a GPS on the bike. Its not to tell me where to go, its so that I always have a record of my speed for this very type of situation. You can fight it, but remember that in traffic cases the onus of proof is on the defendant. Ie, guilty until proven innocent.

[sunhuntin]

if he had a radar, isnt it automatically cancelled if theres more than one vehicle? like speed camera cant give out tickets if theres two cars in the shot. theres no way he can prove it was your bike if he clocked the other one, and there were a ton of bikes on the road yesterday.

[Max Preload]

if he had a radar, isnt it automatically cancelled if theres more than one vehicle? like speed camera cant give out tickets if theres two cars in the shot. theres no way he can prove it was your bike if he clocked the other one, and there were a ton of bikes on the road yesterday.

No. The difference is the operator. A mobile camera shot while the same method of speed detection is only an instant in time and thus does not determine which vehicle is speeding. But a fixed camera works from strips in the road and does distinguish lanes and direction.

In the case of microwave speed detection in patrol car it is just doppler. So what you're relying on with a cop is their experience and honesty in determining which vehicle was speeding. The Stalker DSR which I understand they're using now gives two speed readings (fastest and strongest) plus a patrol speed and it's down to the operator to establish who is doing what, visually.

[homer]

No. The difference is the operator. A mobile camera shot while the same method of speed detection is only an instant in time and thus does not determine which vehicle is speeding. But a fixed camera works from strips in the road and does distinguish lanes and direction.

In the case of microwave speed detection in patrol car it is just doppler. So what you're relying on with a cop is their experience and honesty in determining which vehicle was speeding. The Stalker DSR which I understand they're using now gives two speed readings (fastest and strongest) plus a patrol speed and it's down to the operator to establish who is doing what, visually.

sounds like another good old ,judge it by eye .
go and contest it , what will u lose another 100 bucks roughly .
it may be worth it

[Gremlin]

So now I keep a GPS on the bike. Its not to tell me where to go, its so that I always have a record of my speed for this very type of situation.
Yep, they are damn useful for that... but I do also use it for going places.

In order to contest it, you'll need some sort of proof/evidence or something to fight it. Look at it from their point of view. If every motorist wrote in, saying "I wasn't speeding officer" and they let them off... well, it wouldn't work would it?

I'm not saying you shouldn't fight it, you just have to look at what you can say to give yourself a chance, without looking like a normal person trying to get off.

What sort of history do you have re speeding tickets?

[swbarnett]

If every motorist wrote in, saying "I wasn't speeding officer" and they let them off... well, it wouldn't work would it?
Well, the current system doesn't work either. This is why I'm in favour of video cameras in police cars. Nobody should be convicted without proof and a police officer's flimsy recognition of a vehicle without a registration number is NOT proof. It's just another fallible human being saying "I think it was you."

[muzz]

Yep had the same problem and because I got a history nobody listens, so had to wear it, sux ya

[slofox]

Fight it. Refuse to pay the fine if they fine you. Give them publicity. Lots of publicity. Scream it from the rooftops if you have to. But do not accept the penalty. Go to jail if you have to but don't accept liability. Some of this stuff is a crock of shit...
I was once sent a speed camera notification for a car I no longer owned - it was in the auction house and someone took it for a "test drive" (hoon more like) and got pinged. I had to write to the idiots several times before they would accept that the car was, by the time it was snapped, out of my hands and in the hands of the auctioneers. But I DID get the ticket dropped after a long time...although they still said "we will let you off your offence this time".....What fukkin offence??? I asked - I WAS NOT DRIVING YA BUNCH OF TITS!!!! :angry2::mega::weird::moon::bash::angry2:

[Max Preload]

What sort of history do you have re speeding tickets?

Your 'history' is not admissible until sentencing.

[Gremlin]

Your 'history' is not admissible until sentencing.
I was getting more at, you need something at least, when writing in. So if he is able to demonstrate he is really law abiding, ie, no history of speeding offences (people like that exist? :whistle:) it could help his argument.

Don't get me wrong, I would be pissed too, but you have to think rationally, and figure out what you can do to increase your chances of sorting it out properly. Simply writing in and saying, it wasn't me... well, I reckon the cop will laugh, and write back saying... Pay.

edit: Not to mention how you present your argument. If you appear logical, well thought out, you stand a far better chance than simply ranting. You can save the ranting for later if you wish, but cops are human, like everyone else and like everyone else, normally respond far better to a sweet response, than a sour response.

[Little Miss Trouble]

[QUOTE=Gremlin;1865387]...no history of speeding offences (people like that exist? :whistle:) ....[QUOTE]

There are, i WAS part of that club until last week:spanking:

[stevedg]

I guess as this is my second speeding ticket I'm a serial offender, although I strongly dispute it.
Had my motor license for 27 years and got my first ticket back in April this year. Yes I was speeding then, first ride on my SV1000 of any distance at night, first ride at night with ear plugs in, no other vechicles on the road (except for the 3 police cars) and I was enjoying the ride not keeping a close enough eye on the speedo. Got done for 118km/hr. Good lesson, made me much more concious how easy it can be to get distracted and go over the speed limit so I am much more cautious now.
Thinking about it, I think the SV's speedo overreads (by 5-10km/hr at 100km/hr? I'll have to recheck this with a GPS, that means I should have read the speedo at 135-140km/hr, wow! I don't think so! My recollection would be 108km/hr).
But then it's my word against the officer and his radar (if that's what he got the speed readout from). No other witnessess to check my speed or the presence of the other sports bike.

[Sparrowhawk]

Ya poor bugger! I'd say contest it - politely - on principle. The one time I got caught speeding I admitted it - I knew I was speeding. But if you're sticking to the rules... fight it! :argue:

[Number 5]

ok, here's the go....
headed down from New Plymouth yesterday to get to the Wanganui races, left about 8.30am so had plenty of time. Heaps of bikes on the road and I was passed by all of them - as I kept my speed under 108km/hr. Imagine my surprise when just by the Waverly racecourse I see flashing lights and a police car pulling into the little picnic area to do a U-turn. I checked my speed - yep still alright, he must be after the bike in front of me (passed about 15-30 seconds earlier and dissappearing into the distance). I slowed down and eased to the left to let him pass but he kept behind me - duh? Ok, I stopped, got off the bike to see what the problem was.

He claimed that he caught be doing 130km/hr (didn't say how he clocked me) and visually saw my bike around the corner 'obviously speeding'. I was dumbfounded.

My only thought was that he did see the first bike (which was speeding), took his eyes off the bike to do a u-turn and then I rode past - and he mistook my bike for the one that was speeding.

Needless to say it ruined my day at Wanganui - I was very nearly going to say stuff it and just head back home.

I'm going to contest, does anyone have any advice?

I got a ticket in October which I am contesting.
Mine is a little more complex, as I am also disputing who was useing the laser gun (police have told me it doesn't matter as the other officer was under supervision by a trained officer, but their guidelines and operating manual states 'only a trained and certified officer is allowed to use speed detection equipment').
I also disputed the speed reading 66kph in a 50kph zone, as I know I wasn't exceeding 50k, and also the line of traffic in front and behind me weren't stopped, so they can't have been exceeding 50k either.
I requested various bits of info from the police, one of which was the NZ operating manual and policy which makes very interesting reading, to much to go into detail here, but the operating manual and training is strictly against cars (states aerodynamic sport cars give eronous readings, as do halogen headlights, thats why the manual states 'it must be pointed between the headlights, on the number plate'), but of real interest is that there is no mention of operating procedures against motorcycles, not one single item.
Will let you all know how it goes when it come to court.

[stevedg]

yeah, it will probably cost me the same amount as the fine to contest it (travel, day off work etc) but the principle and the demerit points egg me on!
Interestingly enough, one reason I rode alone was that most groups go a bit faster than I would like (I was passed by quite a number on the day, cruising between 110 and 120 I would expect) and I did not want to risk getting a fine by speeding. As it so happened, if I was in a group and sped I would not have got the ticket! I will have to reconcider this the next time a group is going somewhere as I like riding in a group!
I attended a Civil Aviation Authority Safety Seminar a few years ago, Jim R. was the presenter. I would say he would be one of NZ's most qualified pilots - flys everything from the Skyhawk, RV4 (I think), sailplane, rotorwing and now getting (or has got) a Herc rating. Wow, us poor civilians can only deam of being able to fund that sort of fun. The point is he claimed that speeding limits were there for a reason and it's not just the driver that could get hurt but other people as well. He had never had a speeding ticket, and to be speeding just showed poor self disipline. I know exception to every rule and I don't like being tailgated, but to pull over cars will often pass within 3 feet of you (as happened on my way home from Wanganui - another reason to ride in a group). Here was a guy that could fly 50 feet off the deck at 400kts, should have been a speed freak but still did not believe in speeding!

[stevedg]

I got a ticket in October which I am contesting.
Mine is a little more complex, as I am also disputing who was useing the laser gun (police have told me it doesn't matter as the other officer was under supervision by a trained officer, but their guidelines and operating manual states 'only a trained and certified officer is allowed to use speed detection equipment').
I also disputed the speed reading 66kph in a 50kph zone, as I know I wasn't exceeding 50k, and also the line of traffic in front and behind me weren't stopped, so they can't have been exceeding 50k either.
I requested various bits of info from the police, one of which was the NZ operating manual and policy which makes very interesting reading, to much to go into detail here, but the operating manual and training is strictly against cars (states aerodynamic sport cars give eronous readings, as do halogen headlights, thats why the manual states 'it must be pointed between the headlights, on the number plate'), but of real interest is that there is no mention of operating procedures against motorcycles, not one single item.
Will let you all know how it goes when it come to court.


Good luck mate! I hate to argue on a technicality but unfortunately when it comes to your word against theirs, technicalities are the only thing you have left to argue on! Wish you all the best and let us know when the court date come up....

[MaxB]

Yep, as others have hinted at you will need documentary evidence of your speed and or credible witnesses. In a 'your word vs policemans word' case the courts will almost always believe the word of the cops.

[Jantar]

...I attended a Civil Aviation Authority Safety Seminar a few years ago, Jim R. was the presenter. .... Here was a guy that could fly 50 feet off the deck at 400kts, should have been a speed freak but still did not believe in speeding!

And the speed limit below 10,000' is 250 kts. Its OK, I have flown in gaggles with Jim R. and in the air he doesn't obey all the rules, and I know that more than once he hasn't obeyed them all on the ground either. Its just that he's never been caught. :rolleyes:

[stevedg]

fair nough, a little embellishment on my part, but I still liked the way he made his point.
I remember being on the beach down in Paraparam and having the Skyhawks fly over on the way back to Ohakea, must have been no more than 200' agl, in formation. Wow!

[stevedg]

...
I requested various bits of info from the police, one of which was the NZ operating manual and policy ....

What address did you request them from? NZ Police Infringement Bureau, PO Box 9147 Wellington?

[Jantar]

fair nough, a little embellishment on my part, but I still liked the way he made his point.....

Not too much embelishment. I have witnessed him inverted at less than 100' and travelling at over 360 kts. But that is what he was trained to do back in the days we still had an airforce.

[Number 5]

What address did you request them from? NZ Police Infringement Bureau, PO Box 9147 Wellington?

Yes, but it took three requests to get it, other info to ask for is the accuracy certificate, the weekly accuracy check log, and the pre deployment accuracy (daily use) info which has to be recorded in the equipment daily log book (once you have read the manual you will understand what info to ask for).
All this info is on the use of laser/radar guns, but the operation manual also gives info on speed detection equipment in patrol cars.

[ynot slow]

Could be a help if the other guy in front of you was able to add his 2c worth,i.e I went passed the officer at Waverley,but think someone else got caught.Shit get a mate to sign a letter to the effect,might get you off,afterall IF you were sitting at legal speeds and got pinged for someone elses behaviour,why should you pay literally.

Seems things don't change much in Waverley,can remember the(mot) cop sitting outside his house xmas and boxing day with a ticket book 20 yrs ago plus lol,then when the cops both in Patea and Waverley retired they changed to combined forces.

[stevedg]

Didn't know the bike in front, I'm just assuming that that was the reason for him to alledge I was doing 130. Otherwise I have to assume an error on the Officer's part or the radar itself, which I would have thought would be less likely.

[scumdog]

'it must be pointed between the headlights, on the number plate'), but of real interest is that there is no mention of operating procedures against motorcycles, not one single item.

And aiming as per above at a target at 287 metres distance is REAL ricky.:whistle:

[The Stranger]

Could be a help if the other guy in front of you was able to add his 2c worth,i.e I went passed the officer at Waverley,but think someone else got caught.Shit get a mate to sign a letter to the effect,might get you off,afterall IF you were sitting at legal speeds and got pinged for someone elses behaviour,why should you pay literally.

Are you volunteering to put your name to that letter?

[kiwifruit]

I kept my speed under 108km/hr

So you were exceeding the posted speed limit.

If you break the law, you should be prepared to suffer the consequences.

[Patrick]

Good luck mate! I hate to argue on a technicality but unfortunately when it comes to your word against theirs, technicalities are the only thing you have left to argue on! Wish you all the best and let us know when the court date come up....

Post 1 and 13 outline it all quite well. The cop appears to have got the wrong bike. He got you, not the one that passed you and left you in the dust.... Write in outlining your version of events. The bureau will forward it to the actual cop involved to see if he can confirm this. If in doubt, in any form of doubt, the ticket shouldn't be written. In his eyes, he got the right one. Did you protest your innocence at the time? He should have notes of this....


What address did you request them from? NZ Police Infringement Bureau, PO Box 9147 Wellington?

As above. The address is on the back of the ticket. Request full disclosure. It will include the officers notes on the back of the carbon copy of the ticket you were issued... as well as calibration certificates and that the user is certified to use the device...

[stevedg]

yep, I agree do the crime and pay the fine. I admit that I occasionally did exceed 100 when I glanced at the speedo (I glance at the speedo a lot now since my first ticket), but an ezing off the throttle and problem is corrected quickly. If he did me for 108 fair enough, but 130 is just wrong.

[stevedg]

Post 1 and 13 outline it all quite well. The cop appears to have got the wrong bike. He got you, not the one that passed you and left you in the dust.... Write in outlining your version of events. The bureau will forward it to the actual cop involved to see if he can confirm this. If in doubt, in any form of doubt, the ticket shouldn't be written. In his eyes, he got the right one. Did you protest your innocence at the time? He should have notes of this....



As above. The address is on the back of the ticket. Request full disclosure. It will include the officers notes on the back of the carbon copy of the ticket you were issued... as well as calibration certificates and that the user is certified to use the device...


Many thanks for that. I admit to being dumbfounded, disbelieving and a bit pissed off. Think I said 'you must be mistaken, that's just wrong' or something like that. Don't think I mentioned the bike in front as I wasn't thinking clearly at that time ( but I can remember it's colour and style), but it was the only explanation I could think off once my head cleared as I think it unlikely that the radar would be wrong.

[Patrick]

Many thanks for that. I admit to being dumbfounded, disbelieving and a bit pissed off. Think I said 'you must be mistaken, that's just wrong' or something like that. Don't think I mentioned the bike in front as I wasn't thinking clearly at that time ( but I can remember it's colour and style), but it was the only explanation I could think off once my head cleared as I think it unlikely that the radar would be wrong.

Word it in this way, makes it sound more likely... not an "afterthought on how to get off a ticket" type of thing, if ya follow ma drift....

[MarkH]

So you were exceeding the posted speed limit.

If you break the law, you should be prepared to suffer the consequences.

You think someone should accept a ticket (with associated fine & demerit points) for 130kph when travelling at 108kph? :weird:

[sunhuntin]

contest it if you can.. theres a big difference between 108 and 130 [keeping in mind you also said your speedo might be out, which means you may well have been travelling below the limit. check it with your gps and write in.]

i know how youre feeling. i got accused of speeding last year, and it ruined my entire day. im actually still bitter about it more than year later.

[stevedg]

I'll try to do a comparrison with the GPS, did one about a year ago and I think it was reading upto 10% high ie 100km/hr has actually 108-110 km indicated on the speedo, but I'll redo it to make sure.

[scumdog]

Word it in this way, makes it sound more likely... not an "afterthought on how to get off a ticket" type of thing, if ya follow ma drift....


C'mon Patrick, what happened to the (alleged) KB-cop credo of ganging up an the poor motorcyclist and 'following the party line" (Is that some kind of conga?)
eh?
eh?
;)

[pritch]

So you were exceeding the posted speed limit.

If you break the law, you should be prepared to suffer the consequences.

That's a bit tough. Most speedos read a bit fast and an indicated 108 could well be nearer 100 actual kph. Or if it was over that it likely wouldn't be by much.

Nice comments by the guys who use GPS, although I feel that the information provided could be more incriminating than helpful in my case :whistle:

[The Stranger]

You think someone should accept a ticket (with associated fine & demerit points) for 130kph when travelling at 108kph? :weird:

You think someone would know a piss take when they see one? :weird:

[Patrick]

C'mon Patrick, what happened to the (alleged) KB-cop credo of ganging up an the poor motorcyclist and 'following the party line" (Is that some kind of conga?)
eh?
eh?
;)

Oops... my bad...

Dah dah da da duh duh...:whistle:

[stevedg]

just did a GPS check of the speedo, looks like it reads 5% high, ie at 100km/hr indicated the GPS indicates 94.5 to 95.5km/hr. I think when I did the same thing in the car it was 10% high, the bike is much more accurate. The digital speed read-out also leave less room for error too.

[pritch]

just did a GPS check of the speedo, looks like it reads 5% high,

On that basis then the original poster was doing perhaps 103kph. Perhaps the 130 is just a case of transposed numbers? :sherlock:

[stevedg]

On that basis then the original poster was doing perhaps 103kph. Perhaps the 130 is just a case of transposed numbers? :sherlock:

didn't think about that, could be right - would make sense. I think they down-load the logs of the Radar to match up the tickets in which case the mistake will be noted. I doubt it though and I'm still asking for full disclosure of all the details until the Infringement notice is withdrawn.

Still doesn't explain why he thought I was visably going too fast or why the bike that had just passed me was not stopped.

[twistemotion]

...but of real interest is that there is no mention of operating procedures against motorcycles, not one single item.
Will let you all know how it goes when it come to court.
That's really interesting, so where do they aim on a motorcycle, or where are they told to aim...? Good luck with the case!

[Dean]

i havent got caught yet but if i do that would be crack up if i tryed to make a runner on my little single cylinder gn250 the coppa will be in 2nd gear eating donuts sayin "just pull over will ya"

[BMWST?]

make sure you mention as much as you can remember of the other bike esp helmet colour.....same as yours?This seems to be abou the only way most non bike people can seperate different riders.
About Skyhawks,many moons ago at Manfeild(wsb?) we had three skyhawks,one distracted us by doing some fast passes and so on over the circuit...the other two had done a big loop out towards Ashurst,and came rocketing from behind us,in over the stands seemingly only a few feet above our heads....

[Number 5]

That's really interesting, so where do they aim on a motorcycle, or where are they told to aim...? Good luck with the case!
Thats my point, it says it must be pointed at a flat reflective (as to return the beam) surface, between the headlights, as halogen lights affect the laser beam.
Now this is where I got curious, pointed at a motorcycle it would be affected by the headlight, as I always have the headlight on (can't turn it off), so how are they instructed to operate against motorcyles?????, no one seems to know, and there is no policy or instruction in the police manual.

Also how would it affect the reading of the laser from side on around a bend, as the motorcycle would be banked over, therefore the laser beam would first be deflected to ground before returning to the gun to record a reading.

[scumdog]

Thats my point, it says it must be pointed at a flat reflective (as to return the beam) surface, between the headlights, as halogen lights affect the laser beam.
Now this is where I got curious, pointed at a motorcycle it would be affected by the headlight, as I always have the headlight on (can't turn it off), so how are they instructed to operate against motorcyles?????, no one seems to know, and there is no policy or instruction in the police manual.

Also how would it affect the reading of the laser from side on around a bend, as the motorcycle would be banked over, therefore the laser beam would first be deflected to ground before returning to the gun to record a reading.

At 230+ metres away it's plurry hard to tell what part of the bike the beam is hitting..all I know is it works.

[Number 5]

At 230+ metres away it's plurry hard to tell what part of the bike the beam is hitting..all I know is it works.
It works as it gives a reading, but is it an accurate reading, and if its hard to tell what part of the motorcycle its hitting, there is a clear case of doubt.
The daily/pre-deployment testing is against a police car with a certified accurate speedometer (+/- 3kph), but the operation policy does not specify any testing against motorcycles, how can we be assured we are not being penalised when there is no assurance of the accuracy of the equipement.
The annual accuracy testing is done in a lab against an international standard, but again not against motorcycles.

[Matt_TG]

Don't shoot me down here as I'm no expert but my thinking is it wouldn't really matter where it hit on the target vehicle (bike or car) as long as it bounced back to register a return signal.

You could argue that there are less flat areas on a bike to reflect a perpendicular signal so therefore you are less likely to get a reading, any other signals will bounce off in all directions, and if they hit something else on their way back to the gun it would be longer than the most direct distance anyway?

At the end of the day "it works" as Scumdog said.

I still think Steve is extremely unfortunate and hope he can get things sorted.

[scracha]

You're wasting your time writing them a polite letter. Same thing happened to me. They don't give a fuck. Pay the fine and get your money's worth by speeding excessively for the next couple of months.

[Jantar]

Don't shoot me down here as I'm no expert but my thinking is it wouldn't really matter where it hit on the target vehicle (bike or car) as long as it bounced back to register a return signal.

You could argue that there are less flat areas on a bike to reflect a perpendicular signal so therefore you are less likely to get a reading, any other signals will bounce off in all directions, and if they hit something else on their way back to the gun it would be longer than the most direct distance anyway?

....

With radar that is correct. It works on the dopler principle so the actual part of the target that is reflecting isn't important.

Laser, though, works on the difference in time taken from send to receive of succesive bursts of light. In this case the point of impact with the target is important. By sliding the laser beam along a surface the speed recorded is the speed that the beam is moving, not the speed that the target is moving. That is why a specific part of the vehicle (eg number plate) is targeted. It avoids the main cause of a false reading.

The cop who ticketed the OP would have radar in his moving vehicle. Laser can only be used when stationery.

[NighthawkNZ]

Know about police radar
http://www.delonixradar.com.au/new_zealand/

[quickbuck]

Not too much embelishment. I have witnessed him inverted at less than 100' and travelling at over 360 kts. But that is what he was trained to do back in the days we still had an airforce.


Hey, we still have one.....
Just a shame Jim can't fly the current A/C he is on inverted at all.......

It was a buzz to see all the Helo's up the other day.
Made me proud......
Never thought I would be, as I used to a die hard Jet fan... Yes, I did get to fix the Strikemasters and Aermacchis of 14 Sqn, and Skyhawks on 75, and the Gas Turbines (Jet Engines) in between times.

Even went Flying in a Strikemaster with Jim. Went cloud chasing. Was a real buzz.

Anyhow, back to the topic.....
If you can be bothered fight it... But for me personally I would just pay the fine, as there are many times I have had a lapse in selkf disipline and might have not keeped within the law.... and didn't get caught.
So I would just look at it as paying for one of those times.....

Yep, the points rip. BUT when I was young and silly I dot 95 within 6 days on my CBR 400..... I managed to keep my nose clean for two whole years!

[quickbuck]

That's a bit tough. Most speedos read a bit fast and an indicated 108 could well be nearer 100 actual kph. Or if it was over that it likely wouldn't be by much.



I know for a fact mine is spot on at the moment.
I had a nice Policeman stand at the end of a Taxiway pointing the radar gun at me to check it at 100k.....
Shame my front tyre is at the lower limit for tread..... ;)

[Number 5]

With radar that is correct. It works on the dopler principle so the actual part of the target that is reflecting isn't important.

Laser, though, works on the difference in time taken from send to receive of succesive bursts of light. In this case the point of impact with the target is important. By sliding the laser beam along a surface the speed recorded is the speed that the beam is moving, not the speed that the target is moving. That is why a specific part of the vehicle (eg number plate) is targeted. It avoids the main cause of a false reading.

The cop who ticketed the OP would have radar in his moving vehicle. Laser can only be used when stationery.

That is exactly my point in my case against a laser gun (a 1970s Pro Laser 2, not the latest LT20 technology), but also remember what I detailed from the police manual about pointing it at headlights,which from research seems to be one of the key elements of false readings on all vehicles.

One funny comment in manual, infact it was the first paragraph stating that,
"The manufacturersoperational manuals for radar and laser speed detection systems used by the NZ police are inappropriatefor the New Zealand environment. For this reason this module and the New Zealand Operators Manual are the only documents detailing the manner of operation".

What is so different about the NZ environment!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Wonder if this has anything to do with what the manufacturers manual states "to avoid movement of the gun which would give false readings this equipement must be used on a tripod

In regards to the radar in patrol cars, it cannot be specifically directed at a vehicle, so any other vehicle on either side of the road can cause a mis-reading , so as in a photo shot speed camera, benefit of doubt is instructed to be considered.

[MaxB]

This is a website for a BBC TV program that used to be online that discusses some of the issues around LIDAR.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southwest/series7/speed-cameras.shtml

Some US states are considering phasing out portable laser units altogether but some commentators suggest it has more to do with training and budget issues. Fixed cameras are a lot cheaper especially if they are farmed out to contractors and they can rake in the $$$.



That is exactly my point in my case against a laser gun (a 1970s Pro Laser 2, not the latest LT20 technology), but also remember what I detailed from the police manual about pointing it at headlights,which from research seems to be one of the key elements of false readings on all vehicles.

One funny comment in manual, infact it was the first paragraph stating that,
"The manufacturersoperational manuals for radar and laser speed detection systems used by the NZ police are inappropriatefor the New Zealand environment. For this reason this module and the New Zealand Operators Manual are the only documents detailing the manner of operation".

What is so different about the NZ environment!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Wonder if this has anything to do with what the manufacturers manual states "to avoid movement of the gun which would give false readings this equipement must be used on a tripod

In regards to the radar in patrol cars, it cannot be specifically directed at a vehicle, so any other vehicle on either side of the road can cause a mis-reading , so as in a photo shot speed camera, benefit of doubt is instructed to be considered.

[davereid]

Laser, though, works on the difference in time taken from send to receive of succesive bursts of light. In this case the point of impact with the target is important. By sliding the laser beam along a surface the speed recorded is the speed that the beam is moving, not the speed that the target is moving. That is why a specific part of the vehicle (eg number plate) is targeted. It avoids the main cause of a false reading.


Yep.

Laser is almost certain to produce incorrect readings if targetted at a headlight. The software in the laser discards those it can tell are wrong, thus allowing it to give a (usually) accurate reading.

Heres how the error occurs.

You are travelling at 50km/hr (about 12m/s) towards the LIDAR.

It sends a pulse of light out which hits your number plate and is reflected. The LIDAR know knows the distance away you are.

1/100th of a second later, it does the same thing with the same result, except you are 0.12 metres closer. Therefore you are doing 50km/hr.

Headlight error..
You are travelling at 50km/hr (about 12m/s) towards the LIDAR.

It sends a pulse of light out which hits your headlight, at the back of the reflector and is reflected. The LIDAR know knows the distance away you are.

1/100th of a second later, it does the same thing except the beam is this time relected from the front of the reflector. As before you are 0.12 metres closer. But the LIDAR thinks you are 0.12m plus the 0.06m caused by the slope of the refector onyour headlight.

Therefore you are doing 75km/hr as measured by the LIDAR.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is why some canny drivers put a CD in the window of the car.
It is on an extreme slope, and is a very good LIDAR reflector.

It doesnt stop the LIDAR working.

But as there are lots of errors in the returned signal, the LIDAR software keeps discarding incorrect ones.

This often provides the driver with the time to see the LIDAR operator, and slow down.

[Number 5]

Yep.

Laser is almost certain to produce incorrect readings if targetted at a headlight. The software in the laser discards those it can tell are wrong, thus allowing it to give a (usually) accurate reading.

Heres how the error occurs.

You are travelling at 50km/hr (about 12m/s) towards the LIDAR.

It sends a pulse of light out which hits your number plate and is reflected. The LIDAR know knows the distance away you are.

1/100th of a second later, it does the same thing with the same result, except you are 0.12 metres closer. Therefore you are doing 50km/hr.

Headlight error..
You are travelling at 50km/hr (about 12m/s) towards the LIDAR.

It sends a pulse of light out which hits your headlight, at the back of the reflector and is reflected. The LIDAR know knows the distance away you are.

1/100th of a second later, it does the same thing except the beam is this time relected from the front of the reflector. As before you are 0.12 metres closer. But the LIDAR thinks you are 0.12m plus the 0.06m caused by the slope of the refector onyour headlight.

Therefore you are doing 75km/hr as measured by the LIDAR.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is why some canny drivers put a CD in the window of the car.
It is on an extreme slope, and is a very good LIDAR reflector.

It doesnt stop the LIDAR working.

But as there are lots of errors in the returned signal, the LIDAR software keeps discarding incorrect ones.

This often provides the driver with the time to see the LIDAR operator, and slow down.

Great info, and thanks, but from the information I have gathered it is the infra red spectrum in the halogen light source that also affects the laser reading, other errors are caused by slippage (laser moving along the side of the vehicle, and not at the front (cosine angle), this is also recognised in the NZ police manual), also from the NZ manual - undulating services also give incorrect readings, ie dip in the road, coming down a hill, round a bend.

The stated operating procedure is a straight, level road of more than 250 metres.

Another interesting snippet of information from the NZ police manual is that it states incorrect readings when used in a certain manner would be in favour of the driver!!! ie doing 60 may record on the laser as 40kph.
This is in direct conflict of what the manufacturers state, and also proven on some of the links listed in this forum, especially by the work undertaken by Dr Clarke in the UK.
Could this be another case of the unique NZ operating environment!!!!!!!.

[Number 5]

Yep.

Laser is almost certain to produce incorrect readings if targetted at a headlight. The software in the laser discards those it can tell are wrong, thus allowing it to give a (usually) accurate reading.

Heres how the error occurs.

You are travelling at 50km/hr (about 12m/s) towards the LIDAR.

It sends a pulse of light out which hits your number plate and is reflected. The LIDAR know knows the distance away you are.

1/100th of a second later, it does the same thing with the same result, except you are 0.12 metres closer. Therefore you are doing 50km/hr.

Headlight error..
You are travelling at 50km/hr (about 12m/s) towards the LIDAR.

It sends a pulse of light out which hits your headlight, at the back of the reflector and is reflected. The LIDAR know knows the distance away you are.

1/100th of a second later, it does the same thing except the beam is this time relected from the front of the reflector. As before you are 0.12 metres closer. But the LIDAR thinks you are 0.12m plus the 0.06m caused by the slope of the refector onyour headlight.

Therefore you are doing 75km/hr as measured by the LIDAR.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is why some canny drivers put a CD in the window of the car.
It is on an extreme slope, and is a very good LIDAR reflector.

It doesnt stop the LIDAR working.

But as there are lots of errors in the returned signal, the LIDAR software keeps discarding incorrect ones.

This often provides the driver with the time to see the LIDAR operator, and slow down.

Forgot to mention in the last post - you are correct in your statement regarding the LIDAR software, but to my knowledge that relates to the latest LT20 laser gun, the equipment I was stopped with was a Pro Laser 2, 1970s technology from Kingston Electronics, which doesn't have this facility.

[Patrick]

It works as it gives a reading, but is it an accurate reading, and if its hard to tell what part of the motorcycle its hitting, there is a clear case of doubt.
The daily/pre-deployment testing is against a police car with a certified accurate speedometer (+/- 3kph), but the operation policy does not specify any testing against motorcycles, how can we be assured we are not being penalised when there is no assurance of the accuracy of the equipement.
The annual accuracy testing is done in a lab against an international standard, but again not against motorcycles.

You're right. Ban all motorbikes, as they are clearly above the law....


...Laser, though, works on the difference in time taken from send to receive of succesive bursts of light.

The speed of light... 180,000km per second (from memory... allbeit booze and alzheimers affected now...... )

Imagine that number showing up on the screen. What would the fine be?


......

What is so different about the NZ environment!!!!!!!!!!!!

NZ has KB. Some think they are exempt.


This is why some canny drivers put a CD in the window of the car.
It is on an extreme slope, and is a very good LIDAR reflector.

It doesnt stop the LIDAR working.

Fluffy dice work better. The brighter the colour, the better.

[Jantar]

Originally Posted by Jantar
...Laser, though, works on the difference in time taken from send to receive of succesive bursts of light.

The speed of light... 180,000km per second (from memory... allbeit booze and alzheimers affected now...... )

Imagine that number showing up on the screen. What would the fine be?

....

Come now Patrick, I thought you were above deliberately mis-interpreting technical aspects of the equipment you use. Laser is an acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation; an optical device that produces an intense monochromatic beam of coherent light. It is not the speed of the coherent beam of light that is being measured, but difference in reception time of successive pulses. This difference in time between transmission and reception gives the distance, but all that's need ed is the difference in reception times compared to transmission times. This does not give a readout of 3*10^5 kmh as you have claimed. (The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second or 3*10^8 m/s)

Eg. If your device sends out pulses at 10.0000 ms apart, but receives them 9.9981 ms apart then the speed would be 100 kmh. A simplified explanation is that the time for each pulse to return gives the distance, and hence the difference in distances between successive pulses divided by the pulse frequency gives the speed. But in actuality that process is not required. All that is needed is a simple difference between the transmission pulse period and the reception pulse period calibrated to the pulse transmission period.

[Patrick]

Nah... I just shoot the trigger thingy.

[davereid]

All that is needed is a simple difference between the transmission pulse period and the reception pulse period calibrated to the pulse transmission period.

Hi Jantar - I have read all the published data I can find on police LIDAR, and I haven't been able to find one using this technique, although I am absolutely sure it could be in operation.

This technique would be just as liable to errors from slippage as sending two pulses and measuring distance.

For example if the beam slipped from the back of the headlight reflector to the front, it would have the same effect with either system.

With a system measuring pulse width (period) I would expect it could easily overestimate speed.

This is because (lets say) ;

At the start of the measurement the reflection could be strong, but then halfway through the pulse the beam slips off the reflective surface, thus reducing the returned signal to nil.

This would double registered vehicle speed.

[ynot slow]

Nah... I just shoot the trigger thingy.

Shit if I am coming towards you I sure as shit yope it is the right trigger thingy you pull,rather have a fine than a 9mm round from a glock.

[Jantar]

Hi Jantar - I have read all the published data I can find on police LIDAR, and I haven't been able to find one using this technique, although I am absolutely sure it could be in operation.

This technique would be just as liable to errors from slippage as sending two pulses and measuring distance.

For example if the beam slipped from the back of the headlight reflector to the front, it would have the same effect with either system.

With a system measuring pulse width (period) I would expect it could easily overestimate speed.

This is because (lets say) ;

At the start of the measurement the reflection could be strong, but then halfway through the pulse the beam slips off the reflective surface, thus reducing the returned signal to nil.

This would double registered vehicle speed.

That is exactly what can happen. Do the math by working out the time for a pulse to relect from say 500 m, then 10 ms later from 499.72 m (remember to double the distance for the return pulse), then again from 499.44 m etc.

Next just take the time difference for the return pulses and you will get exactly the same result, without the need for multiple registers to store, subtract and move each successive distance.

Slippage will give the same result either way, but just measuring the time between return pulses is more accurate because of fewer processing errors, and also enables better discrimination of errors.

[Ocean1]

all that's need ed is the difference in reception times compared to transmission times.

That's how metrology laser transducers work. You do, however need to be carefull with pulse frequency/target velocity ratios, you can get phase errors.

Most such equipment has fairly sophistocated control software to manage such discrepencies, including culling suspect input and replacing it with interpolated data from either side.

[NighthawkNZ]

Come now Patrick, I thought you were above deliberately mis-interpreting technical aspects of the equipment you use. Laser is an acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation; an optical device that produces an intense monochromatic beam of coherent light. It is not the speed of the coherent beam of light that is being measured, but difference in reception time of successive pulses. This difference in time between transmission and reception gives the distance, but all that's need ed is the difference in reception times compared to transmission times. This does not give a readout of 3*10^5 kmh as you have claimed. (The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second or 3*10^8 m/s)

don't get me started... ;) :innocent:

radar and laser targeting is a fun subject

[Jantar]

don't get me started... ;) :innocent:

radar and laser targeting is a fun subject

Yes, yes. Please do start.

NighthawkNZ is a specialist in this field. :clap:

[scumdog]

[QUOTE=davereid;1872015
For example if the beam slipped from the back of the headlight reflector to the front, it would have the same effect with either system.

With a system measuring pulse width (period) I would expect it could easily overestimate speed.

This is because (lets say) ;

At the start of the measurement the reflection could be strong, but then halfway through the pulse the beam slips off the reflective surface, thus reducing the returned signal to nil.

This would double registered vehicle speed.[/QUOTE]

It don't happen...and the reading I take is not a split second one, often have two goes just to make sure.

Having said that, there are so few motorbikes on the road down here I don't think I've pinged one yet.

[gunrunner]

But isnt he spose to show you the speed you were doing to prove that he clocked you at that speed:eek:

[scumdog]

But isnt he spose to show you the speed you were doing to prove that he clocked you at that speed:eek:

Doesn't HAVE to but most do.

[davereid]

It don't happen...and the reading I take is not a split second one, often have two goes just to make sure.

From the stuff I have read the LIDAR uses the first technique - that is to say it sends a pulse, and calculates your distance.

A known time later it sends another pulse and it knows your distance again, thus it can calculate your speed.

Then the LIDAR sends a third pulse. This must give the same result or the software discards the test and starts again.

This reduces the chance of a incorrect reading, as slipage would have to occur twice, and be the same. This is, of course entirely possible, just much less likely.

But the technique Jantar suggested would make a fine device for measuring speed, excepting the defect of lost signal causing an inflation in vehicle speed.

Indeed, I am sure that it would be possible to send a series of pulses, modulating the beam, and using doppler shift measurement of the modulated signal to determine speed.

I doubt this technique would be used on its own, as it adds considerable complexity, without actually overcoming any of the problems.

The LIDAR manufacturer faces a dilemma...

a) He can just take a simple 2 pulse measurement, and get a reading of speed easily. But it has a very high chance of being wrong.

b) He can take a 3 pulse measurement, and significantly reduce the chance of an error being processed and accepted as correct. But it may take a little time to get a lock, as potentially faulty readings are discarded. And even then the reading may be incorrect.

c) He can take a large number of readings, or combine modulated doppler shift techniques, to ensure that slippage and multiple path problems arent occuring.

This would reduce the chance of error to virtually nil. But the operator will be frustrated with the device as it may take a long time to lock, or may not lock at all.

[scumdog]

This would reduce the chance of error to virtually nil. But the operator will be frustrated with the device as it may take a long time to lock, or may not lock at all.

That is what happens - it's not as simple as 'point,pull-trigger,get reading' just as quick as that, especially at longer distances.

The good thing is you can use it in place you can't use radar and KNOW which vehicle the signal is coming from.

[Jantar]

....
But the technique Jantar suggested would make a fine device for measuring speed, excepting the defect of lost signal causing an inflation in vehicle speed....l.

Again, I ask you to do the math. The two methods ARE in fact the same. The first is just a simplistic way of describing what happens, the second is the mathematical way of dealing with the task. Calculating the distance is a byproduct of the return pulse time and so is easily displayed. A missed return pulse is obvious and will cause an error display as should a return from slippage.

[davereid]

Eg. If your device sends out pulses at 10.0000 ms apart, but receives them 9.9981 ms apart then the speed would be 100 kmh. A simplified explanation is that the time for each pulse to return gives the distance, and hence the difference in distances between successive pulses divided by the pulse frequency gives the speed.

But in actuality that process is not required. All that is needed is a simple difference between the transmission pulse period and the reception pulse period calibrated to the pulse transmission period.

I would have thought the two processes are slightly different. If you measure the interval between two pulses you will know the speed of the target. No problem there.

But comparing the period (duration) of the transmitted pulse with the period (duration) of the received pulse is not quite the same.

Loss of the reflector half way through the pulse would change its recieved duration, thus giving you a different reading.

Lets look at an example, using long time perods to make it easier to follow.

I send a 1 second long pulse. I measure the distance to an object. 100 seconds later, I send another pulse. The object has moved by 2700m it is therefore travelling at 27 m per sec. If either of my pulses slips off the reflector half way through, it won't give me a false reading. As long as I detect the pulse, I have my measurement.

As you point out, I can skip the measurement of distance bit if I want, I can just time the arrival of the second pulse at something less than 100 seconds, and that will provide a speed reading.

Example 2 - Period measurement.
I send a 1 second long pulse. I compare the received pulse. It is only 1/2 a second long. This could be because the target is travelling towards me. Or it could be because it went over a bump and my LASER drifted off the reflector.

[Number 5]

Doesn't HAVE to but most do.

Hmmmm, another bit of confusion here with what the operators policy states;-
"Operators should lock on the speed reading and maintain it on the device until the offender has had the opertunity to view the reading. The only exception to this is when another officer is operating the device and is remote from the officer stopping the offender.

"The speed and distance at which the vehicle was checked should be recorded on all offence notices" - This was not the case on the infringement notice issued to me.

Evidence in Court
The operator must be able to give in evidence that;
they are an approved speed enforcement operator
they conducted the required tests for the unit and found it to be working correctly
a tracking history was established for the target vehicle
the code of operations was complied with

[scumdog]

Hmmmm, another bit of confusion here with what the operators policy states;-
"Operators should lock on the speed reading and maintain it on the device until the offender has had the opertunity to view the reading. The only exception to this is when another officer is operating the device and is remote from the officer stopping the offender.

"The speed and distance at which the vehicle was checked should be recorded on all offence notices" - This was not the case on the infringement notice issued to me.

Evidence in Court
The operator must be able to give in evidence that;
they are an approved speed enforcement operator
they conducted the required tests for the unit and found it to be working correctly
a tracking history was established for the target vehicle
the code of operations was complied with

Hmm, I was talking about radar - it seems you are talking about lasers.

[Number 5]

Hmm, I was talking about radar - it seems you are talking about lasers.

Yes we were talking about laser, but in regards to radar the policy states;

"When the operator is satified the target vehicle is producing the correct reading they should lock the reading and take appropriate enforcement action.
It is not always possible to lock the target vehicles speed, however, failure to lock the speed will not prevent normal enforcement action being taken".

This is assuming the operator has had the time to obtain a proper tracking history, especially ground speed checks.

[Jantar]

I would have thought the two processes are slightly different. If you measure the interval between two pulses you will know the speed of the target. No problem there.

But comparing the period (duration) of the transmitted pulse with the period (duration) of the received pulse is not quite the same.....

OK, now I see the confusion. Its my bad wording. It isn't comparing the duration of the pulse either sent or received, but the pulse interval, ie the duration btween pulses. As the transmitted pulse interval is known then it is only neccessary to measure the interval between successive received pulse. The duration of the pulse itself is meaningless.

If you actually look at the example I gave you will see that I talk about the time between pulses, not the time length of each pulse.

[Patrick]

Shit if I am coming towards you I sure as shit yope it is the right trigger thingy you pull,rather have a fine than a 9mm round from a glock.

Sometimes I get confused.... Lack of donuts.....


Hmmmm, another bit of confusion here with what the operators policy states;-
"Operators should lock on the speed reading and maintain it on the device until the offender has had the opertunity to view the reading. The only exception to this is when another officer is operating the device and is remote from the officer stopping the offender.

"The speed and distance at which the vehicle was checked should be recorded on all offence notices" - This was not the case on the infringement notice issued to me.

Evidence in Court
The operator must be able to give in evidence that;
they are an approved speed enforcement operator
they conducted the required tests for the unit and found it to be working correctly
a tracking history was established for the target vehicle
the code of operations was complied with

The speed and distance is recorded on the rear of the officers copy... not your copy. Everyone has the "opportunity" to view. Very few actually do.

[nico]

any update did you contest???? win or loose

[nico]

Of my last 4 speeding tickets, at least 2 of them I wasn't speeding, a third was doubtful but I may have increased from the time I first saw the cop until he put the lights on me, and one of them, yes I was over the limit.

So now I keep a GPS on the bike. Its not to tell me where to go, its so that I always have a record of my speed for this very type of situation. You can fight it, but remember that in traffic cases the onus of proof is on the defendant. Ie, guilty until proven innocent.

what type of gps do you use with all these fetures?? web site?

[stevedg]

any update did you contest???? win or loose

Haven't got that far yet. I'm writing a letter asking for the relevant details so I can contest, that will be sent hopefully this week coming. I'll keep yous informed of my progress....

[Jantar]

what type of gps do you use with all these fetures?? web site?

There are many GPS available that will record track data with distance and time between recording points. Until recently I was using a Garmin Etrex Legend, but I have just upgraded to a Legend Hcx.

https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=145

[nico]

nice ive got a garmen astro dailed into my dog colars but i done really do roads very well so this my be a good option chers do they have good mounting options? or just sit in tank bag

[Jantar]

nice ive got a garmen astro dailed into my dog colars but i done really do roads very well so this my be a good option chers do they have good mounting options? or just sit in tank bag

They make a nice handlebar mount that the unit just clips onto.

[BigGuy]

Doh - sorry nico, hate to be the one to tell you but, you do realise that these dog collars are illegal? http://forums.gps.org.nz/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4488
"There is a maximum fine for operating interfering unlicensed equipment of NZ$30,000.00 per item for an individual"
:Oops:

[nico]

Doh - sorry nico, hate to be the one to tell you but, you do realise that these dog collars are illegal? http://forums.gps.org.nz/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4488
"There is a maximum fine for operating interfering unlicensed equipment of NZ$30,000.00 per item for an individual"
:Oops:

ahhh crap
so that includes about 70% of nz pig hunters then that sucks

[BigGuy]

Yeah - sorry fella :(. But thought it was better to make you aware than let you go unaware and risk you being fined.

[nico]

yea chers 4 that im using the older 1s they good but do seem to loose signal in the gullys hve a m8 using the newest 1's out and are blody fantastic never looke signal at all he rekens then legal have to show him that site

[BigGuy]

You must be using the DC20 then? The DC30 are illegal too (which is what he will have). They both use the same band/s so it doesn't matter.
Pity Garmin hasn't given the method to modify them to work in NZ :( I have a use for this kind of device.
Apparently they will if a order of over 10,000 is made!:doh:

I might have something similar in the pipeline though. It's too early to state what but I'll be sure to let you know if we manage to get it sorted.

[nico]

you a hunter 2?? yeah dc20 had to modify all the aerels stand ones were crap m8 using the dc30 with bilt in aerials

[BigGuy]

No - not a hunter. Just have a use/interest for this type of device elsewhere ;)

[davereid]

No - not a hunter. Just have a use/interest for this type of device elsewhere ;)

Can't get my wife to wear the collar outside the house. I have to track her car...

[nico]

Can't get my wife to wear the collar outside the house. I have to track her car...

hahahahahaha gold sneek it in her hand bag

[Tony]

I requested various bits of info from the police, one of which was the NZ operating manual and policy which makes very interesting reading, to much to go into detail here, but the operating manual and training is strictly against cars (states aerodynamic sport cars give eronous readings, as do halogen headlights, thats why the manual states 'it must be pointed between the headlights, on the number plate'), but of real interest is that there is no mention of operating procedures against motorcycles, not one single item.
Will let you all know how it goes when it come to court.

You should have also requested a copy of the manufaucturers manual like I did. they initially said there was no such thing. But I bought two of them for $45 off the Internet direct from the manufacturer. I foudn the manuals usage guidelines in direct conflict with the nZ police manual. Result eh police dropped the charges and cancelled the court dates and paid court cost incurred todate.

BTW I still have two copies of the Kustom Singnal INc manual for the Pro Laser II. I any one would like to buy a copy off me for $30 (my cost) plus postage I would be happy to sell one.

[Tony]

Don't shoot me down here as I'm no expert but my thinking is it wouldn't really matter where it hit on the target vehicle (bike or car) as long as it bounced back to register a return signal.
.

As a laser worsk on doppler effect if laser receives signals back directly from bike plus extra reflected signals time shifte d by longer path the laser can read high.

[Jantar]

Radar works on Doppler effect, not Laser. Doppler effect is a wavelength, and hence frequency, change resulting from the difference in speed between the emitter and receiver. In the case of radar the bounced signal is effectively an emitter.

Laser works on the time difference between receiving successive pulses, it doesn't read the frequency shift. This is why laser can also calculate distance, but is prone to more errors than radar.

[Tony]

Radar works on Doppler effect, not Laser.

Whoops thanks for picking up on typo (Should have typed 'radar' not 'laser')

[zzzbang]

edit: repeat info, doh

[stevedg]

quick update: I wrote a letter to the Police Infringement Bureau in early January disputing the alleged infringement and requesting information pertaining to the case so I could defend myself. Last week I received a computer generated reminder notice which had more details of the procedures around infringement notices and interestingly enough had a different address to send correspondence to. There was no acknowledgment of my letter. Thus I copied my original letter, wrote a new one paragraph cover letter and sent this off to the new 'informant' address at the New Zealand Police.
Guess I'll have to wait a bit longer to see how the process developes...

[stevedg]

okay, this is the latest....I've received from the police a copy of the officer's infringement notice, copies of all infringements issued by the officer on 26 Dec 08, cert of accuracy of the radar, maintenance record of the radar, operators manual and training module for the radar (all provided free of charge). As it will be difficult for them to give me a list of all the infringements issued by that radar unit for that week they will charge me approx $152 to get those records (time take to research the info I believe).
I am still waiting on the Issuing Officers cert of training, log book for the radar, cert of accuracy for the speedometer and other notes that may have been made at that time.

My closing date for the court request will be end of next week so I don't have a lot of time now.

I have been given some conflicting info about the process going to court - one person said there will be only one court appearance and I have been told by someone else that there will be 2 court dates (one for pleading not-guilty then a defended hearing). That means traveling from New Plymouth to Wanganui at least twice, 2 days off work. I have also been told by a court clerk that she has seen more allegations added to the infringement in some cases which scares me somewhat.

At least I now know that the officer was traveling at 90km/hr towards me when he alledged that I was doing 130km/hr. I have been back to the area to take video to try and work out how he might have thought I was doing 130as this still baffles me, still think he mistook my bike for one infront. I'll try and add a link to youtube and would appreciate your comments.

I have also been told by 2 lawyers (on phone) not to bother contesting and just to pay the fine - they reckon that a defended hearing is rarely successful and if I wanted them to represent me it will cost $2-5000.

What to do? I was not speeding ...

[stevedg]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ENTmGj35nuc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ENTmGj35nuc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Police car perspective traveling from Waverly to Patea SH3, 90km/hr

Link to google maps (http://maps.google.co.nz/maps/mpl?ie=UTF8&moduleurl=http:%2F%2Fmaps.google.co.nz%2Fintl%2Fen _nz%2Fhelp%2Fmaps%2Fholidays%2Fmapplet.html&mapclient=google&ll=-39.773516,174.588525&spn=0.012023,0.027809&z=16)



What amazes me is that the officer only had a few seconds where the straght comes into view in order to viusally see a 'speeding' bike some distance away, get a radar speed and constant tone readout on the doppler (which needs the antenna to be pointing at the bike around the corner or the bike has to be within 12 degrees of the front of the police car if a fixed antenna), and to slow from 90km/hr (ground speed on the ticket) to safely stop in the layby and turn around to make chase. I don't think this is possible which is why I suspect he 'clocked' the bike in front which would have passed him around the corner somewhere and as I pulled over assumed that I was the infringing bike.
Be interested in your thoughts when you view the video....

[stevedg]

google street map (http://maps.google.co.nz/maps/mpl?ie=UTF8&moduleurl=http:%2F%2Fmaps.google.co.nz%2Fintl%2Fen _nz%2Fhelp%2Fmaps%2Fholidays%2Fmapplet.html&mapclient=google&ll=-39.771401,174.595596&spn=0,359.996524&z=19&layer=c&cbll=-39.771364,174.595531&panoid=5nKKb4mthj4S5ivxI8CN0A&cbp=12,226.39731756874772,,0,5.724882803525711)

[peasea]

okay, this is the latest....I've received from the police a copy of the officer's infringement notice, copies of all infringements issued by the officer on 26 Dec 08, cert of accuracy of the radar, maintenance record of the radar, operators manual and training module for the radar (all provided free of charge). As it will be difficult for them to give me a list of all the infringements issued by that radar unit for that week they will charge me approx $152 to get those records (time take to research the info I believe).
I am still waiting on the Issuing Officers cert of training, log book for the radar, cert of accuracy for the speedometer and other notes that may have been made at that time.

My closing date for the court request will be end of next week so I don't have a lot of time now.

I have been given some conflicting info about the process going to court - one person said there will be only one court appearance and I have been told by someone else that there will be 2 court dates (one for pleading not-guilty then a defended hearing). That means traveling from New Plymouth to Wanganui at least twice, 2 days off work. I have also been told by a court clerk that she has seen more allegations added to the infringement in some cases which scares me somewhat.

At least I now know that the officer was traveling at 90km/hr towards me when he alledged that I was doing 130km/hr. I have been back to the area to take video to try and work out how he might have thought I was doing 130as this still baffles me, still think he mistook my bike for one infront. I'll try and add a link to youtube and would appreciate your comments.

I have also been told by 2 lawyers (on phone) not to bother contesting and just to pay the fine - they reckon that a defended hearing is rarely successful and if I wanted them to represent me it will cost $2-5000.

What to do? I was not speeding ...

You plead not guilty, they send you a notice of a preliminary hearing. You MUST write to the court (not the cop shop) and tell them you want a defended hearing. Then, at the preliminary hearing (which you DO NOT have to attend, provided you have informed the court IN WRITING that you want a defended hearing) the court will set a date for a defended hearing.

If you're broke then you can apply for legal aid but you have a motorcycle so I doubt they will deem you as being broke. Never have your bike in your own name, or any other bloody thing for that matter, if you want legal aid. (That's a hint.)

If you can't get legal aid and can't afford a lawyer, something the cops are never short of and they use your money to finance (sometimes) bullshit charges), then have your say in court yourself. Don't miss the opportunity to get the cop in the box though. You need to discredit him/her as much as possible. There are many coppers on kb who post comments about cops being human; so if that's the case then they are prone to making mistakes. We all do. Perhaps one was made in this instance but I doubt the cop in question will give a shit, he only wants the conviction and your money. It makes no odds to them if you plead not guilty, they get paid to go to court, get a free lawyer and it's "fuck you".

Fight it, make them work for it.

[stevedg]

Yeah, you're right I wouldn't be eligable for legal aid, but I would like to make a point. The time off work is a problem, as is the stress involved which I could do without!

[peasea]

Yeah, you're right I wouldn't be eligable for legal aid, but I woulkd like to make a point. The time off work is a problem, as is the stress involved which I could do without!

Thats what they play on; the average punter has to get time off work, explain everything to the boss, take leave whatever. The cop just turns up and gets paid. Most people can't be arsed with the aggro and simply roll over and cough the cash whether they're guilty or not. It's the easy road. If you're not guilty, fight it.

[stevedg]

another video from my (the bike) perspective....traveling 90-100km/hr Patea to Waverly SH3. The car pulls over where I stopped the bike to speak to the officer.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MwEFjlz-CwE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MwEFjlz-CwE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Another interesting note is that the ticket is written out as being SH3 between Kohi Rd, where as where he would have seen me was SH3 near Ihupuku Rd.

[Max Preload]

The cop just turns up and gets paid.

Or doesn't withdraw the charges, doesn't turn up, charges are thrown out and there are no consequences for them personally. Something is very wrong with this picture...

[peasea]

Or doesn't withdraw the charges, doesn't turn up, charges are thrown out and there are no consequences for them personally. Something is very wrong with this picture...

I've had that happen to me and while I was pleased to see a relativly minor thing get chucked out you have a point. I doubt the copper (traffic it was, ages ago) faced any action for wasting my time and the court's.:argh:

[CookMySock]

Sorry, didnt read the whole thread. Ask to see his evidence. If there the evidence is damning, ur fucked. If there's no evidence, tell him you are going to write him a letter denying it, then you are going to deny it in a court of law if you have to, and then walk out and go back to some interesting thing you were doing. Don't negotiate. Don't plead. Don't argue.


Steve

[Number 5]

any update did you contest???? win or loose

definately contested Nico, still waiting for a firm court date for a contested hearing