Being right will not win your case. Red sports cars and young guys get more than their share of the tickets. Life is not always fair.... John Ferrell http://DixieNC.US ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 8:42 AM Subject: [OT:] i need advice... First I would like to say PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS INTO A RANT. I understand you all have different opinions of this situation, and all I am asking for is some advice from a group of very intelligent people... not for everyone to argue over stuff. I was given a ticket for speeding. I was actually innocent. I know exactly why I was innocent, but the judge had a completely screwed up understanding of radar. I am appealing, but i want to make sure that the same thing does not happening again (ie. ignorant judge). This means that I need (official?) evidence and arguments of sorts that can be admisible in court. He said that because I was not a radar expert, nothing I said about radar had any bearing over what he told me was true (he said shape, speed, distance, and size of an object have NO baring on return from a radar gun). Here is a quick rundown of what happened. I was going 70 mph in my sleak red sporty car. An SUV was flying up behind me. The cop clocked me at 92. I argued that he actually clocked the SUV but because he had the radar mounted on the back of his unit, he simply heard the tone of the radar unit, looked up into his mirror, saw two cars, and chose the faster looking one. I argued that the SUV had a very good chance (perhaps even a larger one) of generating a return on the radar because it was larger, boxier, traveling faster (meaning a larger frequency shift) and since the cop did not know the effective range of the radar unit, who is to say the SUV was NOT in the active space of the radar. Again, I _AM_ no radar expert.. but the judge argued things such as: "radar is pretty flawless" (a direct quote) that it automatically will pick out the closest object and ignore everything else. That my car was blocking the radar's view of the suv anyway because i was in front of the SUV, even though I tried to explain that any one point in a triange sees the other two points as side by side (the cop car was far off to the side of the road, creating a triangle). I asked the judge if size shape, etc don't matter, why is a 747 picked up on radar more easily then lets say a fly or a bird. he responded with "birds sometimes are" missing the point entirely. Overall I don't want to rant about my taffic court experience. All I am asking for is advice from people who have experienced something like this, and for all you engineers out there with more experience and knowledge of radar to offer any advice you have. I need to prove in my appeal that size, shape, etc DO help decide the radar return but i don't know how to do it. Is it good enough in court to bring in a textbook? Should I attempt writing to a "Radar expert" to have my claims notorized as true? I'm lost as to how i can prove and push my case. Thank you everyone. You can respond to: rrc124@pitt.edu so we don't bombard the PIClist with posts. Robert Campbell -- 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