RADAR WRONG again! Worth fighting for!

This is what I'm fighting for. The are not used in accordance with the proscribed legal methods. The authorities will start banning GPS next, like they did in Switzerland. Why? Go the the link

formatting link
In 2005 Jerry Simotas successfully challenged a $160 speeding fine, proving in court that the hand-held radar gun that was said to show he was travelling at 133 kmh in a rented Pulsar had never been properly calibrated, tested or maintained. Last week his son Michael, 25, went one better; Its all in the genes.

The revenue raising tax collectors will swear black and blue that youre doing something wrong or rather and ban the GPS systems, or find some other devious way of banning them.

Reply to
Jonno
Loading thread data ...

formatting link

How about driving responsibly and within the legal limits? No need for any extradinory measures to defend yourself at all, just do what is right in the first place.

Reply to
McAlisters

formatting link
>

I agree and thats what is being proven. They get it wrong. We dont WANT to defend ourselves, but we have too. Piddling speed and changing limits are causing grief. I live in Victoria Australia where the munsters have taken over.

Reply to
Jonno

formatting link
>

Did you read the link? It appears not. If you had read it you would find they were going the legal limit, the RADAR was wrong, either not properly calibrated or used incorrectly, and at least in one case GPS data in court proved the RADAR was wrong. So "just do what is right in the first place" did not help.

Reply to
I. Care

formatting link
>>

The RADAR can get it wrong at times. A lot of people cannot understand that either, having it ingrained that the police can do no wrong, and that RADAR is fool proof. (But as someone said, fools are so ingenious.) The police also think this. They may not intend to do wrong, but in the hands of a well meaning police person they can misuse it and get incorrect readings. Police are not necessarily fully skilled in applying technology. And those who know how to misuse it on purpose, are the kinds not required in the police force. You have little defense at the moment, though GPS technology seems one way of defending yourself. You really should read this news item.

Reply to
Jonno

formatting link
> >

do you mean "read the post"? Yes I did. The poster's point was figuring a way to beat the ticket, not that the radar was incorrect. I repeat, "just do what is right in the first place", don't blame others or equipment when you are caught breaking the law. Obey the legal limits and you will not have to defend yourself..

Reply to
McAlisters

formatting link
>> >

No. I meant the link providing the story. Here is an excerpt from the news report from the Sidney Morning Herald:

"The officers had clocked him with a hand-held radar allegedly doing 85 kmh in a 60 kmh zone, but conceded in court they had not taken the reading for the required length of time. Instead they relied on their own experience and visual estimate.

The evidence Michael Simotas presented that was downloaded from his GPS unit showed that between Eastwood and Carlingford the car once briefly touched 61 kmh but was mostly at 57 kmh. An expert in GPS systems provided corroborative evidence in court."

The police admitted they did not use proper procedures, the GPS system data proved the police and/or the radar WRONG.

Reply to
I. Care

formatting link

The title to this post is incorrect. No mention was made that the RADAR device is wrong or did not work properly. The article explains that the officers did not use RADAR correctly, as a result, the cases were tossed. Both of these knucklehead motorists should spend more resources on improving their driving habits than trying to beat a proven system.

RADAR and Laser speed measuring devices are accurate when used according to their manufacturers recommendations, law enforcement policy, and any government RADAR/Laser taskforce guidelines.

Reply to
Frank from Deeetroit

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.