Busted? Help!

[hospitalfood]

furthermore, I have found all the resident officers to be good guys and helpfull, but they will take the piss at times as they are human.

[more_fasterer]

I have found all the resident officers to be good guys and helpfull

By and large, so have I - especially scummy. I'll leave it up to you to investigate the possibility I mentioned further.

Letting go now...

[Maha]

there is more than one resident officer and sometimes thier opinions differ, however the target / ground thing sounds unlikely judging by the specs of the radar unit.
but I could be wrong ?

I got by a Blonde Cop (ticketted) heading into Maungaturoto, she flicked her headlights at me, i looked at the speedo (Hi-Ace Van) and it read 102kms!!
She turned and caught me up making a big deal out of it, all the light working. Said she clocked me at 112...''naaaaaaa the van would explode at that speed''.... she says ''wanna take a look''?
Now why would i wanna do that?
Got home later that day and put the GPS radar thing from the Holden to the Van, went for a drive, and wadda ya know, different reading, the Larger wheels (Hi Lux or Surf) on the van make the speedo reading 10 kms out...lucky i wasn't to much of a smart arse to the nice lady cop...

[swbarnett]

Why is it, people complain the loudest about the "stupid" laws which are actually only the ones they get caught breaking, or the ones they find inconvenient at the time. What gives ANY of us the "RIGHT" to pick and choose WHICH law they WILL, or WON'T obey. Personal (in)convenience was never a serious factor considered, in the process (REASON FOR) a LAW being enacted. WE ALL KNOW THE RULES.

Laws are a mechanism for the majority of society to impose their views and morals on the minority in order to create a society that the majority are happy to live in (at least that's what they're supposed to be).

On the most part this works well as it is clear why a law exists and that the law at least goes some way to creating conditions in society that the majority want.

The trouble with the laws against exceeding the posted speed limit is that we are led to believe that they are there to improve public safety (a laudable goal), however, it becomes increasingly clear that simply staying below a seemingly randomly selected number does nothing to achieve that stated goal.

[spudchucka]

I should have asked if any of our resident had anything constructive to add?

He did, you just seemed to have missed it.

[spudchucka]

, however, it becomes increasingly clear that simply staying below a seemingly randomly selected number does nothing to achieve that stated goal.

Until it is your turn to get smacked into head on by another vehicle travelling at , below or above that seemingly randomly selected number, then it becomes quite painfully clear why we have speed limits.

[Mikkel]

furthermore, I have found all the resident officers to be good guys and helpfull, but they will take the piss at times as they are human.

I demand to see their certificate for doing urine samples - NOW! Either that or this goes international!

[swbarnett]

Until it is your turn to get smacked into head on by another vehicle travelling at , below or above that seemingly randomly selected number, then it becomes quite painfully clear why we have speed limits.

Agreed. Given that you hit in the first place it's best to be as slow as possible (that's what brakes are for). However, speed limits have nothing to do with this. Two vehicles having a head-on both travelling just under the speed limit can produce some pretty horrific consequences (especially if one's a bike). Being under the limit is irrelevant, what's important is things like being able to stop in half your visibility etc.. i.e riding to the conditions. This will often involve riding well under the speed limit on windy roads but does not preclude being over it in the right circumstances.

[Coldrider]

If you give speed a number and limit then no one has to think, the driver or mister plod.

[swbarnett]

If you give speed a number and limit then no one has to think, the driver or mister plod.

Exactly. Some see this as a positive. Personally, I think that far too much thinking has been taken away from the driver. Because of the use it or lose it principle, the less one has to think the less capable of thinking one becomes. On the road this translates into brain dead drivers who can't rub two brain cells together when the have to.

[Banesto John]

Cool. Lets make speed limits subjective, then everyone can decide how fast is safe.

Once upon a time a bloke got airborne in Ferndale Rd, Mt Wellington. Took out the front of a house. Told me he does that speed all the time and it is perfectly safe. Now, oif the speed limit was sibjective, how could I argue with him?

I guess the problem is that we all have a different idea of what is safe. Tossers in their Poorches all seem to think it's safe to do 100 in my street, while wanting us to make the plebs in the Corrollers stick to 40. Y'see, we all expect the rules to apply to everyone but us.

We often hear that people should be allowed to make more of their own decisions, then we hear the comments about all the idiots on the road. Maybe these idiots could be exempted from any subjective limit.

Rant over.

He can get you going in the same direction using a Stalker Dual DSR.

http://www.stalkerradar.com/law_dsr.shtml

[davereid]

My understanding of doppler radar is that there needs to be a significant difference in speed between the returns from the two pulses the radar puts out (one to the target, the other to the ground) otherwise an accurate speed over ground measurement of the target cannot be made.

This means that the radar cannot measure the speed of targets travelling in the same direction, they either have to be oncoming or the patrol vehicle has to be stationary.

Yes, there is a problem in this regard to radar units, but it does not preclude the use of them if you are following a target.

The reflected signal that the radar unit "hears" depends on the speed of the target vehicle. Of course, it also depends on the speed of the police car, as it actually hears the relative doppler shift.

In other words, you have to know the speed of the police car as well as the target vehicle.

So the speed of the police car is obtained by using an antenna pointed at the road.

As long as there is only road or stationary objects there, the radar unit now knows the speed of the police car.

Of course, if the police car is following the target vehicle very closely, this beam might report the speed of the police car relative to the followed car, rather than the road. (I say might, because the DSR specification doesn't tell us the direction the antenna points, or it beam width. We know it is susceptable to this problem - we just don't know by how much.)

If this were to occur, the radar would inflate the speed of the target vehicle.

Another bug..
Early models of the radar unit (including to the best of my information all NZ units) can't tell which way the target vehicle is travelling - ie toward or away from the police car.

The operator has to assess which vehicle the radar is looking at, and select the travel direction.

So, what errors can occur ?

An example, is the radar operator is doing 80 km/hr, and is following a motorcyclist who is 50m in front (2 seconds travel time).

In the other lane, 400m away is a truck, travelling slowly, and approaching the radar operator at 55 km/hr.

The radar operator has assumed the motorcyclist is the radars target, and its the lock button.

In this situation, the radar unit may report the trucks speed not the motorcyclist. As the truck is closing on the policecar at 80+55 = 135 km/hr this is the ticket the biker would get.

By the time the biker has stopped, the truck is long forgotten by biker and policeman alike !

[FJRider]

The trouble with the laws against exceeding the posted speed limit is that we are led to believe that they are there to improve public safety (a laudable goal), however, it becomes increasingly clear that simply staying below a seemingly randomly selected number does nothing to achieve that stated goal.

As always, limits are set are a compromise to ensure the safety of ALL road users. Not all road users have the same driving / riding skills, or a vehicle capable of safe high(er) speeds. Add into this "equation" the attitude / mind set of the road users who THINK they have the ability / vehicle capable of high(er) speed, but DON'T. Do you want to be on the SAME piece of road as THEM, AT THE SAME TIME ???

[spudchucka]

Agreed. Given that you hit in the first place it's best to be as slow as possible (that's what brakes are for). However, speed limits have nothing to do with this. Two vehicles having a head-on both travelling just under the speed limit can produce some pretty horrific consequences (especially if one's a bike). Being under the limit is irrelevant, what's important is things like being able to stop in half your visibility etc.. i.e riding to the conditions. This will often involve riding well under the speed limit on windy roads but does not preclude being over it in the right circumstances.

All quite true but what about the guy coming the other way that isn't driving to the conditions, would you appreciate the presence of a police officer on the road keeping speeds down then?

Speed limits are there simply to reduce the risk, human bodies can only withstand so much force.

However it would all be irrelevant if drivers would just stay on their own side of the road and obey the give way rules etc

[spudchucka]

If you give speed a number and limit then no one has to think, the driver or mister plod.

Whether or not you engage your brain when you drive is an individual responsibility issue. If you are the type that drives along in a trance, blaming this or that then you should have your licence shredded.