Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucdavis.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucdavis!ccs009
From: ccs009@ucdavis.UUCP (Dennis Michaels)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: Misuse of Radar - a case history
Message-ID: <25@ucdavis.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 17:15:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucdavis.25
Posted: Mon Aug 26 17:15:20 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 20:52:38 EDT
References: <2493@pegasus.UUCP> <752@dataio.UUCP> <134@drutx.UUCP> <486@busch.UUCP> <1213@ihuxe.UUCP>
Organization: University of California, Davis
Lines: 25

> 
> False readings can also be produced by reflection from large signboards
> (such as freeway route signs) onto secondary vehicles.
> 
> Using this evidence he successfully appealed his conviction, which was
> quashed for unreliable evidence.  Consequently, codes of practice have been
> introduced that constrain the circumstances in which a radar gun should be
> used (no large standing objects; no adjacent vehicles; etc.) and the
> credibility of their evidence severely undermined.
> 
> Charlie (the Alien) @ the Death Star, IL.


	One additional note, somewhere I believe it was C and D or RandT,
that the legal bracket for radar accuracy was +/- 7 mph, so if you contest
the charge and you're within that range, there is a good chance that you'll
beat it .......    that means if your alleged radar speed is from:

		25-32 	in a 25 zone
		35-42	in a 35 zone .........

A small bracket of safety, also a friend of mine also had his speedo checked
and certified by a mechanic BEFORE he went in to court ( his ticket was for
44 in a 35 ) and he won his case so if your sure, its worth your insurance
premiums to fight it if you know your right.