| Jeff Higgins |
11-29-2007 03:15 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMARSH
(Post 3615544)
Jeff I use laser every day. I write alot of speeding tickets. I don't write chicken**** tickets. I typically don't even start my bike up unless someone is going at least 15 over.
I agree with you about what can happen when the unit is not held steady. It has happened to me. I've never seen a jump of 20 mph, but I have seen it jump 10-15 over. What do I do? I shoot it again. I personally always track the car and get a confirmation on the reading anyway. A properly trained user of the equipment would know that the higher reading was an error, because of the vehicle tracking history and because of the vehicle speed estimation. The difference between you shooting a gun and shooting a laser is that our laser travels at 983,571,056 feet per second and sends hundreds of light pulses a second. At 1500 feet. the spread of the laser is about 21/2 to 3 feet and it never spreads more then five feet even at over 5000 ft. It doesnt need to be held in the exact same place to get an accurate reading. (at distance I go for the entire front of the vehicle)
The courts assume that the people using the equipment are properly trained. I've never lost a case because of my ability or inability to use the equipment.
There are way to many people speeding for me to write someone a ticket who I am not 100% sure was indeed committing the violation.
Hold on. (put on flamesuit) ok. go ahead.
|
I'm not sure you understand the principles involved, Mike. I probably did a lousy job of explaining it. Here is a link to an article from the BBC that relates to the investigations they have conduscted on laser accuracy. Dr. Michael Clark, who is apparently recognized as one of the world's foremost experts on laser, disputes its accuracy when used for speed enforcement. Maybe this will explain it better.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southwest/series11/week1_speed_cameras.shtml
If you are actually following the speeding car and verifying its speed by pacing it (I assume that's what you mean by "tracking"), then good for you. That is a level confirmation that, unfortunately, not all police feel obliged to obtain. Like the guys standing on the shoulder just pointing cars over; they are clearly not pacing. They are relying 100% on the laser reading. And the courts could care less. Laser has proven to be too unreliable for that.
I'm not sure where you are going with your "speed of light vs. speed of bullet" comparrison. That's kind of irrelevent. I'm merely using shooting as a comparitive experience that many of us have in an effort to bring to light just how difficult it is to hold steady. And I'm sorry, but you could not be more wrong about the need to be held steady enough to remain on the same reflective plane of the target vehicle. Moving from windshield to front bumper will induce error; enough to place an innocent motorist well above the limit. Read what Dr. Clark has to say about that. Merely aiming at the whole front of the car just doesn't give the accuracy needed.
And yes, I'm sure the courts assume you are properly trained. Traffic courts assume a great deal these days. They have lowered the burden of proof placed upon the State to "preponderance" of evidence, or 51% likely, in traffic court. When it was still "beyond a reasonable doubt" it was well neigh impossible for the State to obtain a conviction. Back then, if an officer showed up in court with a reading from an instrument that could be proven to have given a false reading even once, it would be case closed. Not guilty. Now the state gives itself all the leeway in the world. That you still deploy an instrument that you yourself have admitted can give false readings is evidence of that. Not every officer is as consciencous as you, Mike. Others will nail innocent citizens based on bad laser readings and the courts will accept that. That, my friend, is not how it is supposed to go down here in America.
|
