>Quote : "If a larger
vehicle is coming up behind you, and you are not speeding, the radar
can and does read the speed of the faster, larger vehicle."
That is correct, however the officer would not have clear tone. Anytime you
"clock" a MV the tone should be clear and steady as to not confuse vehicles.
Anyone agree?
"DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9d1rgvkeg30nd24f8ubst5nirsoe5tfubf@4ax.com... On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 03:09:39 -0400, "Eric" <Eric@Eric.com> wrote:I recently received a ticket for speeding in Detroit, MI (actually
HighlandPark, MI, but issued by Detroit police, which apparently have
jurisdictionover traffic tickets in Highland Park, though I'd like confirmation fromthis if anyone knows whether this is true or not) for going 80 in a 55
zone.I am certain that I can prove mathematically that this was not possible,
asI couldn't have accelerated from 0 to 80 fast enough to be going 80 at
thepoint at which I was cited for going 80. Would this defense work in
court? I Yes. However there are certain assumptions you are making that the judge will not. Where were you when your car was stopped? Did the officer witness you stopped there? Can you prove how far it is to the point where he clocked you? Can you prove where he clocked you? Also, the law on radar is quite ignorant of physics. If a larger vehicle is coming up behind you, and you are not speeding, the radar can and does read the speed of the faster, larger vehicle. Cops like to think they can point and aim accurately, but based on how poorly they do in shoot outs, we all know this is not the case. All it takes is some of the waves to be reflected off the faster vehicle, which will happen unless the gun is so close to your car that the officer gets run over, and it will automatically read the higher, incorrect speed. However, the courts have ruled time and time again that physics do not apply in a courtroom.
Nitespark
07-11-2003, 07:32 AM
Thin Blue Line402 wrote:
Quote : "If a larger vehicle is coming up behind you, and you are not speeding, the radar can and does read the speed of the faster, larger vehicle." That is correct, however the officer would not have clear tone. Anytime you "clock" a MV the tone should be clear and steady as to not confuse vehicles. Anyone agree?
Much is left out of this equation, such as distances of vehicles apart,
size difference, speeds involved. I would rely more on my visual
estimation of the two vehicles speeds. If we are talking about the
difference between a tractor trailer and a motorcycle(fairly close
together), the truck will win out (unless you are using the DSP radars
with the "fastest" vehicle feature). More often than not, the doppler
return tone will switch back and forth at a higher and lower pitch
depending on which target is reflecting back the best return. The
clarity and stability of the tone are only indicators of the quality of
return you are getting.
DTJ
07-11-2003, 04:57 PM
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:32:48 -0400, Nitespark <nitespark@cox.net>
wrote:
Thin Blue Line402 wrote:Quote : "If a larger vehicle is coming up behind you, and you are not speeding, the radar can and does read the speed of the faster, larger vehicle." That is correct, however the officer would not have clear tone. Anytime you "clock" a MV the tone should be clear and steady as to not confuse vehicles. Anyone agree?Much is left out of this equation, such as distances of vehicles apart,size difference, speeds involved. I would rely more on my visualestimation of the two vehicles speeds. If we are talking about thedifference between a tractor trailer and a motorcycle(fairly closetogether), the truck will win out (unless you are using the DSP radarswith the "fastest" vehicle feature). More often than not, the dopplerreturn tone will switch back and forth at a higher and lower pitchdepending on which target is reflecting back the best return. Theclarity and stability of the tone are only indicators of the quality ofreturn you are getting.
Assuming you are a cop: You give cops a good name.
Thin Blue Line402
07-11-2003, 05:25 PM
Thanks, I try. Any officer who issues a citation, knowing that he/she did
not estimate speed, have a clear tone, have a good line of sight of the
target and (ofcourse)check the calibration of the SMI prior is doing it all
wrong!
"DTJ" <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7ejugvgs60gkoat49vda27qudqpa3vb4ts@4ax.com... On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:32:48 -0400, Nitespark <nitespark@cox.net> wrote:Thin Blue Line402 wrote:>Quote : "If a larger vehicle is coming up behind you, and you are not speeding, the radar can and does read the speed of the faster, larger vehicle." That is correct, however the officer would not have clear tone.
Anytime you "clock" a MV the tone should be clear and steady as to not confuse
vehicles. Anyone agree?Much is left out of this equation, such as distances of vehicles apart,size difference, speeds involved. I would rely more on my visualestimation of the two vehicles speeds. If we are talking about thedifference between a tractor trailer and a motorcycle(fairly closetogether), the truck will win out (unless you are using the DSP radarswith the "fastest" vehicle feature). More often than not, the dopplerreturn tone will switch back and forth at a higher and lower pitchdepending on which target is reflecting back the best return. Theclarity and stability of the tone are only indicators of the quality ofreturn you are getting. Assuming you are a cop: You give cops a good name.
Ricardo
07-12-2003, 03:02 AM
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 00:25:41 GMT, "Thin Blue Line402"
<thin_blue_line402@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks, I try. Any officer who issues a citation, knowing that he/she didnot estimate speed, have a clear tone, have a good line of sight of thetarget and (ofcourse)check the calibration of the SMI prior is doing it allwrong!
Héhé, yeah. Plus, if you have a good line of sight of the target,
odds are that the target has a good line of sight of you, and you'll
clock him right on the limit (or below). :}
Happy revenue generation!
--
ricardo, ex-euroslav vancouver bc canada
e-mail: remove spamfreezone to reply
for liability purposes: I *always* obey the law.
'89 grand am le, garaged; '91 mx6 gt
DTJ
07-12-2003, 03:29 PM
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 00:25:41 GMT, "Thin Blue Line402"
<thin_blue_line402@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks, I try. Any officer who issues a citation, knowing that he/she didnot estimate speed, have a clear tone, have a good line of sight of thetarget and (ofcourse)check the calibration of the SMI prior is doing it allwrong!
Assuming you are a cop: You give cops a good name.
I wish you the very best in your career. I pray that nothing ever
happens to you. We truly need good people like you in every
profession, but especially in positions of power.
DTJ
07-12-2003, 03:36 PM
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:02:44 GMT,
sovietjamaicanguy@spamfreezone.yahoo.ca (Ricardo) wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 00:25:41 GMT, "Thin Blue Line402"<thin_blue_line402@yahoo.com> wrote:Thanks, I try. Any officer who issues a citation, knowing that he/she didnot estimate speed, have a clear tone, have a good line of sight of thetarget and (ofcourse)check the calibration of the SMI prior is doing it allwrong!Héhé, yeah. Plus, if you have a good line of sight of the target,odds are that the target has a good line of sight of you, and you'llclock him right on the limit (or below). :}
Not necessarily. Park your squad over the peak of a hill, keep your
gun off, and turn it on only when you see a vehicle that is obviously
speeding.
Nobody can slow down that fast, and if they do, they can still be
ticketed.
Toastmaster
07-12-2003, 05:01 PM
Thin Blue Line402 wrote: That is not an option in North Carolina. Officers operating an SMI are not allowed to leave the radar on and clock that way. The requirement is that I see the vehicle, estimate the speed of said vehicle and THEN activate the radar. The radar target speed just acts as evidence, my testimony is that I knew he was speeding when I saw him.
There's a big difference between what is supposed to be done and what is
done.
Brandon Sommerville
07-13-2003, 06:08 AM
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:31:29 GMT, "Thin Blue Line402"
<thin_blue_line402@yahoo.com> wrote:
That is not an option in North Carolina. Officers operating an SMI are notallowed to leave the radar on and clock that way. The requirement is that Isee the vehicle, estimate the speed of said vehicle and THEN activate theradar. The radar target speed just acts as evidence, my testimony is that Iknew he was speeding when I saw him.
But who would know if you did it the right way or not if you just
*said* you did it the right way?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
DTJ
07-13-2003, 01:56 PM
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:31:29 GMT, "Thin Blue Line402"
<thin_blue_line402@yahoo.com> wrote:
That is not an option in North Carolina. Officers operating an SMI are notallowed to leave the radar on and clock that way. The requirement is that Isee the vehicle, estimate the speed of said vehicle and THEN activate theradar. The radar target speed just acts as evidence, my testimony is that Iknew he was speeding when I saw him.
Not necessarily. Park your squad over the peak of a hill, keep your gun off, and turn it on only when you see a vehicle that is obviously speeding. Nobody can slow down that fast, and if they do, they can still be ticketed.
Not sure what you meant to say, as what I suggested is what you say
the law requires.
Ricardo
07-13-2003, 02:02 PM
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:36:25 GMT, DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote:
Héhé, yeah. Plus, if you have a good line of sight of the target,odds are that the target has a good line of sight of you, and you'llclock him right on the limit (or below). :}Not necessarily.
So far so good...
Park your squad over the peak of a hill,
This is quite a common tactic but if the hill restricts the line of
sight in any meaningful way, then that'll slow "Muggins" down right
there, cop or no cop. Yes, often to the speed limit. <g>
keep your gun off, and turn it on only when you see a vehicle that isobviously speeding.
Specifically targeting only vehicles that are "obviously speeding"
is, however, at odds with the goal of meeting ticket quotas and
raising maximum revenue without overmilking the cow and actually
encouraging motorists to slow down.
Nobody can slow down that fast, and if they do, they can still beticketed.
Of course they can be ticketed. Heck, one can be ticketed based
solely on a visual estimation but there must be a reason why cops
very seldom dare i$$ue such citations. Actually, though, that makes
an integral part of my case that laser jammers aren't really worth
that much, "out there in real world scenarios". :}
--
ricardo, ex-euroslav vancouver bc canada
e-mail: remove spamfreezone to reply
for liability purposes: I *always* obey the law.
'89 grand am le, garaged; '91 mx6 gt
Brandon Sommerville
07-13-2003, 03:50 PM
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:26:36 GMT, "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck>
wrote:
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in messagenews:c3ab81e3f4aeb277fd8aa03f129a893d@free. teranews.com... On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:31:29 GMT, "Thin Blue Line402" <thin_blue_line402@yahoo.com> wrote:That is not an option in North Carolina. Officers operating an SMI arenotallowed to leave the radar on and clock that way. The requirement isthat Isee the vehicle, estimate the speed of said vehicle and THEN activate theradar. The radar target speed just acts as evidence, my testimony isthat Iknew he was speeding when I saw him. But who would know if you did it the right way or not if you just *said* you did it the right way?Trust the cop.
I'm beginning to think you're developing a sense of humour John. You
should see someone about that. ;)
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail
Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
Nate Nagel
07-14-2003, 11:10 AM
"motocat" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<A_fQa.47874$GL4.11300@rwcrnsc53>... "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message news:0LfQa.53063$0v4.3601421@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... "Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message news:c3ab81e3f4aeb277fd8aa03f129a893d@free.teranew s.com... On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:31:29 GMT, "Thin Blue Line402" <thin_blue_line402@yahoo.com> wrote: >That is not an option in North Carolina. Officers operating an SMI are not >allowed to leave the radar on and clock that way. The requirement is that I >see the vehicle, estimate the speed of said vehicle and THEN activate the >radar. The radar target speed just acts as evidence, my testimony is that I >knew he was speeding when I saw him. But who would know if you did it the right way or not if you just *said* you did it the right way? -- Brandon Sommerville remove ".gov" to e-mail Trust the cop. Yeah, and enjoy that stick up your ***.
Finally, a cop who gets why us non-cops don't always trust the cops.
nate
Nate Nagel
07-14-2003, 11:14 AM
DTJ <dtj@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<im21hv8ji00c4t2jfrsv1muurl5pf7dqvt@4ax.com>... On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 00:25:41 GMT, "Thin Blue Line402" <thin_blue_line402@yahoo.com> wrote:Thanks, I try. Any officer who issues a citation, knowing that he/she didnot estimate speed, have a clear tone, have a good line of sight of thetarget and (ofcourse)check the calibration of the SMI prior is doing it allwrong! Assuming you are a cop: You give cops a good name. I wish you the very best in your career. I pray that nothing ever happens to you. We truly need good people like you in every profession, but especially in positions of power.
yeah, what he said. If every cop used similar procedures, we'd see
far less complaints about "bad" tickets.
nate
john wardle
07-14-2003, 11:42 AM
"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in message
news:7d682f509ff9bbfd7fa6fd9b48434173@free.teranew s.com... On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:26:36 GMT, "john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote:"Brandon Sommerville" <grimrod@mindless.com.gov> wrote in messagenews:c3ab81e3f4aeb277fd8aa03f129a893d@free. teranews.com... On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:31:29 GMT, "Thin Blue Line402" <thin_blue_line402@yahoo.com> wrote: >That is not an option in North Carolina. Officers operating an SMI
arenot >allowed to leave the radar on and clock that way. The requirement isthat I >see the vehicle, estimate the speed of said vehicle and THEN activate
the >radar. The radar target speed just acts as evidence, my testimony isthat I >knew he was speeding when I saw him. But who would know if you did it the right way or not if you just *said* you did it the right way?Trust the cop. I'm beginning to think you're developing a sense of humour John. You should see someone about that. ;) -- Brandon Sommerville remove ".gov" to e-mail
It's the only way to survive in here..... ; )
Toastmaster
07-14-2003, 03:27 PM
Nate Nagel wrote: "motocat" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<A_fQa.47874$GL4.11300@rwcrnsc53>..."john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message
Trust the cop.Yeah, and enjoy that stick up your ***. Finally, a cop who gets why us non-cops don't always trust the cops. nate
motocat isn't a cop, is he?
Nathan Nagel
07-14-2003, 04:56 PM
Toastmaster wrote: Nate Nagel wrote: "motocat" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<A_fQa.47874$GL4.11300@rwcrnsc53>..."john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message>Trust the cop.Yeah, and enjoy that stick up your ***. Finally, a cop who gets why us non-cops don't always trust the cops. nate motocat isn't a cop, is he?
nah, I was referring to Wardle who looks like he's actually developing a
sense of humor, albeit dry and warped (but I'm not really one to
complain about that now...)
nate
john wardle
07-14-2003, 07:30 PM
"Nathan Nagel" <njnagel@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F13431D.162E1D44@earthlink.net... Toastmaster wrote: Nate Nagel wrote: "motocat" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<A_fQa.47874$GL4.11300@rwcrnsc53>...>"john wardle" <you@spammers.suck> wrote in message>>Trust the cop.>>Yeah, and enjoy that stick up your ***. Finally, a cop who gets why us non-cops don't always trust the cops. nate motocat isn't a cop, is he? nah, I was referring to Wardle who looks like he's actually developing a sense of humor, albeit dry and warped (but I'm not really one to complain about that now...) nate
The physical characteristics of my sense of humor aside....all I have to say
is...
Pot...Kettle...Black
;^)
Toastmaster
07-14-2003, 07:41 PM
john wardle wrote:
The physical characteristics of my sense of humor aside....all I have to say is... Pot...Kettle...Black
Hey. Watch yourself. The word is "African-American" =)
