Help me fight the man

[magnetfreezer]

If you have any near you that you can get up close to and find a manufacturer/model # with FCC ID (or subpoena them for it) you can look it up here: https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/ and get tech data, schematics, etc. For a RF device like that, they'd probably have a beam pattern in the submitted test results. If it isn't FCC certified then they may have worse problems: https://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2502.asp

[ForgotPassword]

If you have any near you that you can get up close to and find a manufacturer/model # with FCC ID (or subpoena them for it) you can look it up here: https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/ and get tech data, schematics, etc. For a RF device like that, they'd probably have a beam pattern in the submitted test results. If it isn't FCC certified then they may have worse problems: https://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2502.asp

Contractor/contract/bid that won the job for the city should be public info. I would think that they type of camera would be included in that information.

[Masshole]

Some questions:

How sure are you of the 120' measurement? Is her bumper parallel to the whatever-the-######-that-is in the median? If not, how far behind is she? Are the lane widths reduced to eight feet because of the construction? You cannot contest this unless you are absolutely positive of your measurements and I cannot make the calculations unless they are complete. They will also inquire as to what makes you qualified to determine these things. If you were a mathematics or physics major, then you should be OK with it.

[M2]

No sure how the laws are up there (I try to avoid the place as much as possible, nothing personal I can assure you), but a bud of mine who is a local chief of police told me that the speed cameras in a certain borough within the SA city limits can only be used for fines, but not points. In other words, you play, you pay, and you walk away.

Just me, but I would be more worried about how this could affect my insurance rates versus the time, effort and cost of battling it. I spend that much on ammo for a good range

day!

Cheers! M2

[ClearedHot]

No sure how the laws are up there (I try to avoid the place as much as possible, nothing personal I can assure you), but a bud of mine who is a local chief of police told me that the speed cameras in a certain borough within the SA city limits can only be used for fines, but not points. In other words, you play, you pay, and you walk away.

Just me, but I would be more worried about how this could affect my insurance rates versus the time, effort and cost of battling it. I spend that much on ammo for a good range

day!

Cheers! M2

Completely true, it says NO POINTS on the ticket...ergo, no insurance premium increase. This is simply a battle against the man who is trying to collect revenue.

[Masshole]

Although since it is probably considered a civil infraction there might not be an adherence to due process.

Edit: I would challenge the requirement that you are legally obligated to provide the drivers license information of the person "driving the car". Kinda bogus that the only way you can exonerate yourself is to coerce someone else to incriminate themselves with personal information.

This is a really good point. Where is PYB when you need him?

And just to save someone else the time, I tried refractive indices and it only hurts his case.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Masshole

[ClearedHot]

I'm going to need additional pics of the driver in order to better assist you.

Just ask your mom to show you her drivers license...son.

[gimmeaplane]

Varies by jurisdiction, but in Arizona people just ignored their speed camera tickets. Although "strongly worded," mailed tickets didn't count as being legally served in Arizona law. <https://www.motorists.org/speed-cameras/arizona-freeway-speed-cameras>

[gimmeaplane]

On another tack, the geometry looks less than favorable for your case. But you might be able to twist that in your favor.

AFAIK, K-band cop guns just get closure velocity. They want as small an angle between your travel and the gun as possible. If they try to correct for the for a small offset error by "knowing" the angle of the road and your angle of travel, small angle errors in their assumed geometry could add up.

i.e., argue that she just changed lanes. Let's say they're off by 15 degrees in their assumed geometry. If your frau really travelling 40mph, was offset from the gun by 30 degrees, and they assumed 45 degrees, then they'd read 49mph.

Math in public: 40 * cos(30) / cos(45). The numerator is real closure speed, the denominator is the correction factor they apply.

That whole idea hinges on the man correcting for geometry.

EDIT: bad math...mo' better now.

Edited August 16, 2011 by gimmeaplane

[Beaver]

Just ask your mom to show you her drivers license...son.

Where have you been all my life, you son of a bitch?!?

[Chuck17]

Where have you been all my life, you son of a bitch?!?

I laughed out loud, twice... beers for both of you.

Chuck

[discus]

Answer from a buddy who was an engineer at Sandia Labs. Getting around speeding tickets has become an art form for him.

This is an interesting case. Speed cameras that are used to charge you with a moving violation are unconstitutional on the basis of having the right to face your accuser. Cities are getting around this by NOT charging you with a violation of the law. Instead, the are filing a civil suit against you. In essence, suing you for $125 in damages to the city (usually no DL points either because of no violation). If you look close, you are probably not going to court, but to a hearing. You will not have the right to face your accuser (an officer) and the city can win by a 'proponderance of the evidence' (not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' as required in criminal law).

You can beat the rap on scientific grounds (I've helped many friends do this). You MAY also be able to beat it by proving that there was no damage to the city, therefore no penalty. In my experience, the device (and the officer) are usually not current in their certification, they do not follow proper procedures and they just know that most people won't take the time to fight it. The whole speed camera thing is a huge violation of our constitutional rights and a feeble attempt for government to charge a 'speed tax'.

You do have the right to ask any question you feel is pertinent to your case. Write a LONG list of questions that require essay answers. Ask for the equipment certification documents. Make them verify the other car's position. Call the city and ask who to send the 'discovery questionnaire' to before your hearing appointment. Don't accept a plea bargain or reduced fee. If you lose, appeal. It is not only your right, but your responsibility as an American to keep them honest.

If you need any help with the questions or information on K band radar, feel free to call or e-mail me. Bob Carlton bob@desertaerospace.com Albuquerque, NM

Edit: Bob is also the guy who flies and designed the Jet Sailplane, if you have ever seen that at airshows.

Edited August 17, 2011 by discus

[BADFNZ]

Report the car stolen.

[Carpetbagger]

Just ask your mom to show you her drivers license...son.

Where have you been all my life...

Most excellent!

I love this forum. Where else can freedom loving Americans collaborate about beating a ticket?

CB radio doesn't hold a candle to the internet! Thanks Al Gore!

[Dupe]

CH-

The picture that was on your ticket is a virtually nearly impossible system to produce. Real radars (be they X-band fighter radars or K-band State Trooper speed radars) have a main beam that rolls off and possibly many side lobes. Attached is my crude beer-fueled drawing of your set-up:

[Ram]

Correct me if I'm wrong...but if you're due in court (i.e: brought up on speeding charges), isn't it a requirement of due process for you to be NOTIFIED by a servant of the court?

Who's to say that the ticket didn't just get lost in the mail? Was it delivered via an agent of the court? Did a police officer hand it to you? Was it sent via certified mail, and then signed by you or your wife?

If not, I'd say you weren't properly served and, therefore, aren't due in court to plea/defend yourself/be convicted. The USPS screws-up ALL THE TIME.

[Vertigo]

Most excellent!

I love this forum. Where else can freedom loving Americans collaborate about beating a ticket?

CB radio doesn't hold a candle to the internet! Thanks Al Gore!

[Masshole]

On another tack, the geometry looks less than favorable for your case. But you might be able to twist that in your favor.

AFAIK, K-band cop guns just get closure velocity. They want as small an angle between your travel and the gun as possible. If they try to correct for the for a small offset error by "knowing" the angle of the road and your angle of travel, small angle errors in their assumed geometry could add up.

i.e., argue that she just changed lanes. Let's say they're off by 15 degrees in their assumed geometry. If your frau really travelling 40mph, was offset from the gun by 30 degrees, and they assumed 45 degrees, then they'd read 49mph.

Math in public: 40 * cos(30) / cos(45). The numerator is real closure speed, the denominator is the correction factor they apply.

That whole idea hinges on the man correcting for geometry.

EDIT: bad math...mo' better now.

This would work seven times out of ten. Unfortunately there are radar guns that adjust for cosine error. I love the way you think though.

[discus]

This would work seven times out of ten. Unfortunately there are radar guns that adjust for cosine error. I love the way you think though.

Awesome. The world needs more:

Edited August 17, 2011 by discus

[matmacwc]

Correct me if I'm wrong...but if you're due in court (i.e: brought up on speeding charges), isn't it a requirement of due process for you to be NOTIFIED by a servant of the court?

Who's to say that the ticket didn't just get lost in the mail? Was it delivered via an agent of the court? Did a police officer hand it to you? Was it sent via certified mail, and then signed by you or your wife?

If not, I'd say you weren't properly served and, therefore, aren't due in court to plea/defend yourself/be convicted. The USPS screws-up ALL THE TIME.

He's right, I wouldn't do the cosine of fuck all until I get served.

[Guest]

Where's PYB when you need him.

[Masshole]

So, I think we have the sent-beam spread part all figured out:

I used an isosceles triangle to represent the beam and then bisected the angle to create two right triangles. Using a basic trig function (tangent of 2.5- half of the angle), I figured out the beam spread for ClearedHot's suggest distances of 80',100', and 120'. The figures I arrived at are 7.04', 8.80', and 10.56' respectively. Does anyone know if there is a simple way to calculate the size of the reflected beam? Would using a similar triangle to represent the reflected beam work or should we use something in proportion, only slight larger?

Edited August 18, 2011 by Masshole

[BFM this]

Where's PYB when you need him.

I think you have to say his name 2 more times.

[i.o.w.a]

I'm not sure you are on the right track with the "the other car is within the return beam" argument. I only took one class on Radar and Digital Signal Processing but from what I relearned on wikipedia, it doesn't work that way.

If I were to quibble in court, this would be my argument (disclaimer: If your court is like UPT, you're going to get a U):

-The back of the ticket claims that a picture is not taken with "more than one car in the radar beam."

-There is no way to know where the radar beam is exactly pointed, but it is pretty close to the center of the picture.

-Both vehicles are close to the center of the picture.

-Both vehicles are probably in the beam width, at the very least it is impossible to tell which is or isn't.

-Because a picture was taken someone was speeding.

-Because your license plate is the only one visible, you are the one that was speeding...or not.

Follow with asking the judge (well they aren't a judge since this isn't court) If license plates were displayed in passenger windows instead of rear bumpers, and the near car was identified as well, who would you be giving a ticket to? A violation has occurred so you have accused the only driver that was identifiable, when clearly another car could have been the violator. If a bank was on fire after being robbed while a picture was taken, would you arrest the person without a mask because they are the one you could identify? Does the plane fall out of the sky just because the stall warning horn goes off, it's a warning, not a stall...never mind.

Somewhere there is a perfect analogy as to why when two suspects are in a picture you can't simply penalize the one because they were identified. You still don't know for sure which one did it.

Edited August 19, 2011 by iowa

[Masshole]

I think you have to say his name 2 more times.

It has already been said twice. One more time and he will tell CH how he is a coward for not telling the court that cameras are unconstitutional and the he conscientiously objects to "serving" the fine.