"- If the cop saw both vehicles and saw that the SUV was travelling 20 mph faster than you, as he quite possibly did, then they are probably a liar to= some extent and your chances of success are reduced. Without a witness that= there WAS a SUV present and that it WAS going faster than you then you are probably in a difficult situation." I understood that telling the judge that they cop was perhaps lying would o= nly make me look worse. What I instead argued -and very well could have bee= n the case- is that the cop set his radar unit to sound a tone if it detect= ed a car traveling over a certain speed threshold (this can be done in some= radar units I understand, and I have the cop on record saying that his rad= ar unit sounded a tone when it clocked me). He also said that the radar uni= t was mounted on the back of his car pointed behind him. What I argued was = that the officer was probably sitting there looking around or whatever, hea= rd the tone sound, looked up into his mirror, saw two cars, and chose the f= lashier one. The judge then proceeded to tear me a new a-hole and tell me t= hat i was "profiling myself" and that the cop never testified that he chose= my car because it looked faster, hence the officer never actually did anyt= hing of that sort. This is in PA btw. The cop then went on to say that he h= ad his eyes on the mirror during the entire process, from the first appeare= nce of my car to the automatic detection. Very frustrating. Thank you to ev= eryone who is offering up advice. --- Begin Orginal Message --- From: "Russell McMahon" To: CC:=20 Date: 6/23/2004 9:17:06 AM >Overall I don't want to rant about my traffic court experience. > All I am asking for is advice from ... and for all you engineers > out there ... to offer any advice you have. > I need to prove in my appeal that ... > Should I attempt writing to a "Radar expert" to have my claims > notarised as true? If I were in your position I would try to enlist expert help. Odds are that= there are organisations dying to champion such causes and they may do so fo= r free. > You can respond to: rrc124@pitt.edu so we don't bombard the PIClist with posts. Sounds like a valid onlist OT topic to me - SO FAR. Won't stay that way if we do get into rant mode, as you say. _________________ A few quick comments. I'm sure there will be much more on this. We should leave your assertions of innocence out of consideration as they alone do not help you at all in court. - IMHO the judge sounds like an idiot, but don't tell him that :-) He MAY perhaps be right in general conclusion but he does not understand what he i= s dealing with. - In the situation you describe, it is definitely possible in some circumstances for the SUV to have been detected rather than you. Whether this is so or liable to have been so in your case (leaving aside your assurances) is a matter of specific detail. A radar expert shown the specific details could provide a better opinion. - In this country there are (or were in the past) rules which disallow(ed) the use of radar when there were two vehicles in the beam. Producing such rules, even if not from your country, may be of assistance in your case. - Some radars ARE able to differentiate between multiple vehicles in the beam at the same time and it is certainly technically possible to pick the 1st, last or nth at will. If you think of a visual radar where there are multiple moving blips on a display, it is obviously easy to visually discriminate. A traffic radar could easily enough be made to do the same. Whether this is the case depends on the radar in use and you would need to have specific knowledge of the equipment in use to properly defend yourself= . - If the radar used is capable of multi target use and is designed to identify eg the closest vehicle, then you will have a much harder job. Multiple vehicles can indeed produce a result which is a function of the two. Proving or disproving that this is the case or probably the case would= be difficult for all but an expert (and then even for her probably). - Size of vehicle will affect strength of return, as may angle of incidence= , surface finish and possibly also accessories etc which may provide some for= m of resonant structure at the wavelength used. The strength of return should= not be a major issue in properly designed modern equipment. - If the cop saw both vehicles and saw that the SUV was travelling 20 mph faster than you, as he quite possibly did, then they are probably a liar to= some extent and your chances of success are reduced. Without a witness that= there WAS a SUV present and that it WAS going faster than you then you are probably in a difficult situation. - You obviously should sell your sportscar and get an SUV :-) Russell McMahon -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body