Radar interference ?

[Casper]

Just to add to the pile of 'I got done for speeding, how do I get off'
threads...

I got a speed camera ticket - remembered seeing the van at the time, copper
was standing in front of the radar at the time, so I thought he must have
been setting up. Anyways, 2 weeks later I get the ticket - and a nice
little photo of the operator. 10% (2cm) of the rhs of the photo is full of
plod - from just below his hip to tip of his shoulder, including his left
arm.

Seems to me that with such an obvious obstruction between my car, and the
radar, there could be some doubt about accuracy ?

[Craig Hart]

Definately apply to have it heard in court (this makes them assess it
again). 90% chance it'll be dropped.

"Casper" <someone@microsoft.com.au> wrote in message
news:4282cd4b$0$10304$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> Just to add to the pile of 'I got done for speeding, how do I get off'
> threads...
>
> I got a speed camera ticket - remembered seeing the van at the time,
copper
> was standing in front of the radar at the time, so I thought he must have
> been setting up. Anyways, 2 weeks later I get the ticket - and a nice
> little photo of the operator. 10% (2cm) of the rhs of the photo is full of
> plod - from just below his hip to tip of his shoulder, including his left
> arm.
>
> Seems to me that with such an obvious obstruction between my car, and the
> radar, there could be some doubt about accuracy ?
>
>

[sheik yerbouti]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 07:17:23 GMT, "Craig Hart" <no@spam.thanks> wrote:

>Definately apply to have it heard in court (this makes them assess it
>again). 90% chance it'll be dropped.
>

you could try your luck but there's a big difference between the
rozzer standing in front of the radar, and the camera.

unless it's one of those all-in-one jobs.

---
sheik's auto service centre
88 Wilsons Rd Doncaster 3108
(03) 8855 8077, http://www.freewebs.com/sheik_yerbouti
specialising in transmission service
5% discount if you say you saw us on aus.cars

[veritas]

Casper wrote:
> Just to add to the pile of 'I got done for speeding, how do I get off'
> threads...
>
> I got a speed camera ticket - remembered seeing the van at the time, copper
> was standing in front of the radar at the time, so I thought he must have
> been setting up. Anyways, 2 weeks later I get the ticket - and a nice
> little photo of the operator. 10% (2cm) of the rhs of the photo is full of
> plod - from just below his hip to tip of his shoulder, including his left
> arm.
>
> Seems to me that with such an obvious obstruction between my car, and the
> radar, there could be some doubt about accuracy ?
>
>

The parallax between the cam and the radar unit will be the prosecution trump card.

[Toby Ponsenby]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 08:53:17 GMT, veritas wrote:

> Casper wrote:
>> Just to add to the pile of 'I got done for speeding, how do I get off'
>> threads...
>>
>> I got a speed camera ticket - remembered seeing the van at the time, copper
>> was standing in front of the radar at the time, so I thought he must have
>> been setting up. Anyways, 2 weeks later I get the ticket - and a nice
>> little photo of the operator. 10% (2cm) of the rhs of the photo is full of
>> plod - from just below his hip to tip of his shoulder, including his left
>> arm.
>>
>> Seems to me that with such an obvious obstruction between my car, and the
>> radar, there could be some doubt about accuracy ?
>>
>>
>
> The parallax between the cam and the radar unit will be the prosecution trump card.

You saying the cop needed to be hanging over the screen from the roof
to make that one go away at court?
--
Toby.
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[veritas]

Toby Ponsenby wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 08:53:17 GMT, veritas wrote:
>
>
>>Casper wrote:
>>
>>>Just to add to the pile of 'I got done for speeding, how do I get off'
>>>threads...
>>>
>>>I got a speed camera ticket - remembered seeing the van at the time, copper
>>>was standing in front of the radar at the time, so I thought he must have
>>>been setting up. Anyways, 2 weeks later I get the ticket - and a nice
>>>little photo of the operator. 10% (2cm) of the rhs of the photo is full of
>>>plod - from just below his hip to tip of his shoulder, including his left
>>>arm.
>>>
>>>Seems to me that with such an obvious obstruction between my car, and the
>>>radar, there could be some doubt about accuracy ?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The parallax between the cam and the radar unit will be the prosecution trump card.
>
>
> You saying the cop needed to be hanging over the screen from the roof
> to make that one go away at court?

The prosecution would only have to show that the obscure photograph did not put the vehicle identity in question AND
*nothing* detracted from the reliability of the radar reading to have a strong case.... If a cop is shown in the
photograph then (because of the parallax between to camera ans the measuring device) he may be able to clearly
demonstrate that he was not interfering with the reliability of the measuring device - hence the "trump card"!

What way a magistrate is likely to jump would be anyone's guess - that lot don't always apply logic.

[Bernd Felsche]

veritas <veritas@coldmail.com> writes:
>Casper wrote:
>> Just to add to the pile of 'I got done for speeding, how do I get
>> off' threads...

>> I got a speed camera ticket - remembered seeing the van at the
>> time, copper was standing in front of the radar at the time, so I
>> thought he must have been setting up. Anyways, 2 weeks later I
>> get the ticket - and a nice little photo of the operator. 10%
>> (2cm) of the rhs of the photo is full of plod - from just below
>> his hip to tip of his shoulder, including his left arm.

>> Seems to me that with such an obvious obstruction between my car,
>> and the radar, there could be some doubt about accuracy ?

>The parallax between the cam and the radar unit will be the
>prosecution trump card.

Parallax? They point in different directions.

Depending on the direction of traffic in which he was "shooting",
the officer may have been well within the main lobe. He was
probably in a major side-lobe anyway. A chewy-wrapper srcunched up
in his pocket could have a stronger return than a car 50 metres
away.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

[atec]

veritas wrote:
> Toby Ponsenby wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 May 2005 08:53:17 GMT, veritas wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Casper wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just to add to the pile of 'I got done for speeding, how do I get
>>>> off' threads...
>>>>
>>>> I got a speed camera ticket - remembered seeing the van at the time,
>>>> copper was standing in front of the radar at the time, so I thought
>>>> he must have been setting up. Anyways, 2 weeks later I get the
>>>> ticket - and a nice little photo of the operator. 10% (2cm) of the
>>>> rhs of the photo is full of plod - from just below his hip to tip of
>>>> his shoulder, including his left arm.
>>>>
>>>> Seems to me that with such an obvious obstruction between my car,
>>>> and the radar, there could be some doubt about accuracy ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The parallax between the cam and the radar unit will be the
>>> prosecution trump card.
>>
>>
>>
>> You saying the cop needed to be hanging over the screen from the roof
>> to make that one go away at court?
>
>
> The prosecution would only have to show that the obscure photograph did
> not put the vehicle identity in question AND *nothing* detracted from
> the reliability of the radar reading to have a strong case.... If a cop
> is shown in the photograph then (because of the parallax between to
> camera ans the measuring device) he may be able to clearly demonstrate
> that he was not interfering with the reliability of the measuring device
> - hence the "trump card"!
>
> What way a magistrate is likely to jump would be anyone's guess - that
> lot don't always apply logic.
>
> Anyone with some knowledge of RF can easily deomonstrate that a body of
water ( copper) that close to the unit will can and would produce a
sizable margin of error , but I expect the proof would also whoosh over
the head of the magistrate .

[budgie]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 19:24:07 +0800, Bernd Felsche
<bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:

>veritas <veritas@coldmail.com> writes:
>>Casper wrote:
>>> Just to add to the pile of 'I got done for speeding, how do I get
>>> off' threads...
>
>>> I got a speed camera ticket - remembered seeing the van at the
>>> time, copper was standing in front of the radar at the time, so I
>>> thought he must have been setting up. Anyways, 2 weeks later I
>>> get the ticket - and a nice little photo of the operator. 10%
>>> (2cm) of the rhs of the photo is full of plod - from just below
>>> his hip to tip of his shoulder, including his left arm.
>
>>> Seems to me that with such an obvious obstruction between my car,
>>> and the radar, there could be some doubt about accuracy ?
>
>>The parallax between the cam and the radar unit will be the
>>prosecution trump card.
>
>Parallax? They point in different directions.
>
>Depending on the direction of traffic in which he was "shooting",
>the officer may have been well within the main lobe. He was
>probably in a major side-lobe anyway. A chewy-wrapper srcunched up
>in his pocket could have a stronger return than a car 50 metres
>away.

and is unlikely to have been moving faster than the limit.