Hand Held Radars  

Sharpy

Khubner is a special ed kid, just ignore him.

xxxxgold

As 70NKY has already clarified, QPS uses handheld laser (lidar), and not radar. This is significant because laser and radar have significantly different limitations.

Laser is extremely accurate, and the operation of the units used by the QPS is fairly idiot proof. I assume this question has been asked because of the incident detailed in an earlier post, as i recall, you were descending a hill at the time the reading was obtained and as such, it would have been far easier to single out your vehicle than if you were travelling on a completely flat road at the time in that there is less chance of a vehicle in front of you obscuring/obstructing the view of the police officer.

There is of course the question of whether the 'speed trap' was operated in accordance with QPS policy, especially in regards to speed detection on a decline (where ordinarily there must be a documented crash history on the hill), but that is a discussion for another thread.

I'm not sure i would agree with your assessment that you were singled out because your car is a stereotypical 'hoon' vehicle. I'd not only dispute that claim, but at any more than a couple of hundred metres, it would be quite improbable that the make and model could be accurately identified by anyone but the most fanatical enthusiast. Perhaps the colour may have stood out and if i recall correctly, you were also towing a trailer which may have also contributed to the officer's attention being drawn to your vehicle in amongst other vehicles.

Mounfield Racing

That's correct, down hill onto a curve then over a narrow bridge with ingoing and outgoing vehicles over the section, all in the line of fire while the officer was walking aiming his radar device. He was not even not motionless never lone leaning on a post or a vehicle for stability and accuracy. If his measurement stated on the ticket is correct, a Dash Green Boss 290 towing a Dash Green tandem trailer with a car on it would stand out from quite a distance.

khubner

the paint ball thing came from the op saying there should be some sort of pain ball mark etc.

Mounfield Racing

I have no doubt others wonder the same thing in some situations. Surely the fact that the car in front was not booked must indicate he was not speeding in the eyes of the Officer that booked me. Whether he was speeding or not, is not the question nor a defense in this case, it's more a case of adopting the same principles used by QP Traffic Investigation Unit, to determine distance traveled over time in the event of a serious collision, how can it be explained that had I been traveling 17km/hr faster than the car in front and yet i did not collide with the rear of that car. Towing a loaded trailer makes it even more unbelievable. Maybe QP will need to reevaluate their accident investigation methodology if this is the case.

70NKY

I have never heard of having to be stationary while using a lidar and having to prop yourself up against something... QPS policies are freely available to those who want to read them as far as I'm aware.

To those people saying that there needs to be some distance between the cars being targeted, no there doesn't. The lidar unit is very target specific, most infringements are detected within 300m I would guess. At 300m, the lidar beam is only one metre wide. One metre is half a car width. So an officer can target your car if it is behind another, so long as they can direct sufficient light onto it.

The liar unit has many checks and balances built into it, and if everything doesn't add up, it won't give a reading. And for those saying your car needs to be targeted for a certain time, the UX model lidar takes about 0.00008 seconds to obtain an accurate speed reading. Its slightly more complex than that but there you go.

TwinCam16

THIS!

Have any of you kids even tried to use a lidar?

It's fucking hard and god dam you need a steady hand, hence why you see them up against a poll.

And given that there is only a few things that the gun can lock onto makes it even more easy to tell what car was speeding.

xxxxgold

I will say no more on the topic of Scott Cooper except to point out that he has no legal qualifications whatsoever. I would also draw your attention to this pearl of wisdom on Cooper's website which highlights his complete lack of legal knowledge, not to mention common sense -

In all cases whether it be Lidar/Laser, mobile radar or speed camera, their guidelines state that they must not be concealed. Further those same guidelines state that the police vehicles must be fully marked police vehicles with their warning lights and overhead lights on!

This is the opinion of a prominent Melbourne barrister who specialises in traffic offences -

I've got nothing against Scott Cooper, and he is probably very good within his area of expertise - the operation of radar devices. Unfortunately the few cases I have seen he charges more than a lawyer for stepping outside his area of expertise - i.e. he gives people legal advice. Sure he probably has all sorts of disclaimers advising people that he is not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but he still gives it and charges for it. He told one of my clients (who paid over $600 to him recently for an emailed "report" on a Victorian case) that the police had to do certain things by law, or that if they didn't do certain things there was a legal ramification. He was totally incorrect. I am pretty sure he would have been just as incorrect if the case had been a Queensland one. In fact, the advice Cooper gave was worse than useless because it caused my client to incur more legal fees than he needed to because, after getting the report, he was very reluctant to accept his lawyers advice.

When people put on their websites that they are famous because they were seen on A Current Affair or Sunrise, they are usually not as fantastic as they think they are.

I can provide all of the information which Mr Cooper purports to provide, and i can guarantee the accuracy of this information, for absolutely nothing.

Anyway back on topic....

The problem you are going to encounter is that you seem to be basing your assumption that you could not have been speeding based on the fact that the driver of the vehicle in front was not issued with an infringement notice. The fact that the vehicle in front was not fined/pulled over is not an indication that they were not travelling at the same speed at which you were alleged to have been travelling at, indeed it's quite possible that their speed was not even 'checked'.

There could be numerous possible explanations, the vehicle in front could have been partially/wholly obscured, an attempted speed reading on that vehicle may have returned an error or it could be something as simple as your vehicle was singled out for whatever reason.

Your defence, based on this argument when by your own admission you had no idea at what speed you were travelling, is doomed to fail. In order to establish reasonable doubt in this case, you either need to cast doubt over the officer's operation of the speed detection device, or introduce environmental/situational factors which may have corrupted the reading.

As mentioned by 70NKY, movement of the device will cause no reading to be returned and as such your claim that the officer operated the unit whilst moving is likely to be rejected by the court. You would need to present evidence to suggest that the lidar units used by the QPS are prone to returning (erroneous) readings when moved despite the manufacturers claim (which is backed up by independent testing) that movement of the unit will result in no reading being obtained.

xxxxgold

Topics merged.

4teecal

Bwhahahhhhhhhh. The Cooper/Hardy saga.

Suffice to say. If lidar is used correctly is is very very hard to refute.

Mounfield Racing

Again take your advice on board and will add history has shown that Scott Coopers record in Court is not a good reference I'd hardly rely on that.lol. My real point for the topic being placed was that I was not speeding, it may have been 58-62 depending on the accuracy of a new Ford speedometer which is both analog and digital read out. Given that I was originally hoping someone could dis-spell my fears that perhaps the 77 that had been locked on the radar unit, may have if in fact been a number stored from a previous booking and mistakenly used again on my vehicle. Not a case of insult just a question.

xxxxgold

I said i was going to leave it at that, but what the hell. Taken from Cooper's website -

Is Scott Cooper a Lawyer or Barrister ?

No. Scott Cooper is ex military intelligence who has had over 7 years experience in helping people beat their speeding fines; he does however get called upon by many legal firms throughout Australia to offer his expert assistance.

His 'military intelligence' career came to an abrupt half when he was discharged in 1973. The following is an excerpt from a letter from his commanding officer -

After considerable consideration I am of the opinion that Sig Cooper is undisciplined, immature, irresponsible, disloyal and dishonest, and that the word picture of him painted in April 1969 (Annex B) is still fairly accurate.

Taken from anzmi.net (Australia and New Zealand Military Imposters) -

Cooper was a junior soldier who carried out the duties of a private soldier – no more no less. We are reliably advised that his postings included working in an intelligence environment, however a Private soldier does what he is told and does it when he is told. Scott Cooper greatly and dishonestly exaggerates his role in the Army with tales of intelligence mystique and skulduggery.

Oh and how could i forget, Scott Cooper knows what 'really happened' to Harold Holt but he had to write his account in fictional terms because of 'threats made against his son'.

Cooper is both a liar, and a snake oil salesman.

xxxxgold

I guess it is theoretically possible, but the officer in question would have had to have made a monumental blunder (as in forgetting to pull the 'trigger') for that to be the case.

If the infringement notice that was issued previous to yours was for an allegation of travelling at 77km/h, in theory you may have a defence, albeit an extremely tenuous one, but even then your chances of successfully defending the allegation would be so remote (purely on this basis) that in my opinion, it wouldn't be worth pursuing.

Please note that i am not disputing your claim that may have been travelling at 58-62km/h but on the basis of the information you have given, it's going to be an uphill battle if you choose to contest the matter.

nodrog

some interesting reading on the subject

http://www.police.qld.gov.au/rti/published...6_PT1.htm#06_02

blv

Would it be wrong for me to think that its possible the officer in question may have deliberatrly not pulled the trigger on the device, so he could in fact write a ticket to increase his amount of issued fines? If you were to simply request an investigation on this matter, in may prove whether this method was used or not by recalling his fines made that day.

I could also give events that have happened to myself and family, but chances are they wont help. Instead, i suggest you tick the box on the back of the fine to dispute the fine, plead your case and see what happens.

70NKY

Ralph I find it extremely difficult to believe that an officer would "re-use" a reading so to speak, what happens if you had have been doing higher than 77?

The lidar is also required by the Australian Standards to have audible sounds while operating it. There is an exception, however not when used for speed enforcement. Most officers use the "speed alert" function which gives them a specific sound when a vehicle has been targeted exceeding a set speed.

I'd be interested to know how you go contesting this, but I know it can take over a year to get to court from the date the ticket is issued, so nothing will come of it in the near future.

Pattax

I thought you couldnt gun people on inclines / declines like that.

crazy.mofo

pff they can do woteva the frik they went

scooby36

Specs can be found here

http://www.lasertech.com/UltraLyte-100-Laser-Speed-Gun.aspx

key point:
Speed Accuracy: +/- 1 mph (+/- 2 kph)

i am requesting a court case for a 13kph infringement, i deny speeding to that extent.
hoping to use this accuracy allowance to get bumped down below 12kph so its just a one-pointer

although this happened october last year and i still havnt heard anything of it !

Parag0n

Have you been pulled over since with a full license check?

First thing would be to check with QLD transport, just call them and they can bring up what infringements including pending fines that are in the courts.

You could have a warrant for failing to appear. Sometimes even registered post gets lost.

Mounfield Racing

No doubt if Scooby36 drives a modified or a performance car (legal or otherwise) he will have been pulled up in that time. That's the way it works now days. Wear a grin your guilty of something, drive a nice car and your a hoon.

scooby36

wow - no i havn't been pulled over
iv had cop cars tail me for a while and NOT pull me over !

i guess i should investigate further!
cheers for the headsup


update-
Gave them a call,
apparently its still floating around the system, still waiting on a court date
not bad eh!

mr18osx

few words from metallica - " justice is lost, justice is raped,justice is gone - pulling your strings justice is done!"

fullysicman

The magistrate is not interested in the amount you were speeding, only the fact that you were speeding. If you go to court and say "yeah i was speeding but the Lidar has a +/- 2km/h" then the magistrate may well say "well whats to say you weren't doing 15kph over.........."

Guilty

Mounfield Racing

Yes this is one thing that has had me intrigued for many years. Magistrates have said in many cases it's not a matter of what speed you were doing it's simply a fact that you were speeding. If this is the case, why do we have a demerit point system and why is there a variation in the cost of fines.

70NKY

I think you'll find that each speed category, is a different subsection of section 20 of the TORUM-Regs... So the magistrate is only interested if you are guilty of that offence or not. You need to actually read what the legislation states, not just what the infringement notice reads.

Mounfield Racing

But if you are guilty of 10 over the limit, yet ticketed for 16 over, how is Legislation relevant. You are deemed to have been speeding (which I agree with) yet charged according to the details outlined on that ticket. Be it accurate or not.

An example is a case where a Tradesman driving a fully loaded L300 van (on gas) towing a loaded tandum trailer also loaded, was ticketed for doing 80 in a 60 zone some 50m after leaving his own driveway. This would necessitate owning the fastest Mitsubishi L300 ever built. Thanks for the Government revenue.

xxxxgold

Ralph, if you were indeed 'only' exceeding the speed limit by 10km/h, the allegation would be one of exceeding the speed limit by less than 13km/h as opposed to exceeding the speed limit by 13-20km/h. While the alleged speed is certainly recorded on the TIN, the offence is categorised in that the allegation would not be one of exceeding the limit by 16km/h. I'm confident that you would already be aware of this, but i just wanted to clarify.

If you have been issued with a 13-20km/h and you genuinely believe that you were exceeding the speed limit by 10km/h, you have 2 distinct options on which you may base your argument -

- You make admissions that you were exceeding the speed limit by 10km/h, and provide evidence to substantiate this claim.
- You do not make admissions, but submit evidence to suggest that the method by which your speed was obtained was flawed and as such, it cannot be relied upon to give an accurate estimation of your speed.

Both have merit, if you choose to make admissions you are taking the moral high ground in that while you dispute the police version of events, you are still admitting guilt to a 'lesser' allegation. If however, you do not wish to make admissions and you produce evidence to substantiate your claim(s), you stand a greater chance of being acquitted as opposed to simply having the allegation or penalty downgraded.

In terms of defence strategy, you have 2 main potential defences (barring exceptional circumstances) -

- You were not in fact exceeding the speed limit by 16km/h.
- Honest mistake of fact, that you do not dispute the allegation but you reasonably believed at the time you were complying with all relevant laws/regulations. An example of this is if you were formerly travelling in an 80km/h zone and entered a 60km/h zone but the sign was obscured by a tree, you may argue that you honestly and reasonably believed you were still in an 80 zone.

Obviously if you wish to make admission, the honest mistake of fact defence isn't going to be relevant in most cases but if you are not making admissions it could indeed be relevant.

There is also the strict liability v absolute liability argument (depending on the state in which the alleged incident occurred) but for the purposes of this post, i will disregard it.

People often mistakenly believe that the burden of proof is reversed in traffic matters, this is incorrect and the burden still rests with the prosecution. Your 'job' is to cast doubt over the accuracy of the evidence submitted by the prosecution, which in this case is almost always an estimation of speed obtained by using one of a number of approved methods. You can do this by adducing evidence of your own to suggest that police may have erred in their operation of a particular device, or environmental/topographical factors distorted the reading to such a degree that it's accuracy cannot be relied upon.

When questioning the accuracy/validity of a speed reading, you may want to consider some of the following -

- Was the police officer operating the device (if any) in accordance with manufacturer recommendations and any applicable legislated standards?
- Could another (often similar) vehicle have been speeding in the vicinity? Essentially a case of mistaken identity.
- Could environmental conditions (rain/fog/smoke etc) have contributed to an erroneous reading? Obviously some research will need to be undertaken into the limitations of the device in question.
- Could topographical (i use this term in a very wide sense, i know technically it's not 100% accurate for all the boffins out there) factors such as the incline/decline/curvature of the road in question have lead to an incorrect speed estimation?
- Could your speedometer be inaccurate due to age and/or any modifications made to the vehicle?

There are many more variables to consider (although not all will work in your favour, an inaccurate speedo in most instances will not assist your 'cause'), but won't list them all here. The point i am trying to make is that if you genuinely believe you were travelling at 6km/h less than the alleged speed, you need to take into consideration as many potential factors as possible, and make an informed and unemotional decision as to how to proceed.

If there is a 6km/h discrepancy, something has 'gone wrong' somewhere along the line, either on your end or on the part of the police. Your job is to identify where this discrepancy has occurred and if you believe it to be a police error, take the appropriate action. Of course if the error is directly attributable to you, driving a vehicle with modified/aftermarket rims/diff ratio etc, you should then take steps to ensure that this doesn't land you in hot water again in the future.

4teecal

Or, as I tell many people, maybe you just saw him too late. Natural reaction of lifting off the accelerator and then the "Oh shit" look at the speedo, results in a lower reading than the officer tells you. Immediately firing the "consiparcy theory" neurons in the brain.

Mounfield Racing

Thanks for your response as usual you are accurate and informative. You speak with clarity and for this, I respect your comments.

The instance i refereed to about speed was not in any way related to my case it was just an example as to how demerits points are calculated against a person who admits to doing a speed less than the speed alleged on your ticket..

In my case, i am accused of doing 17km/r faster than the vehicle in front of me. My vehicle is 11 months old, not modified on factory fitted wheels. No speedometer could have that amount of error. Bottom line, If I was traveling 17km/h faster than the car in front over an extended distance, yet did not collide with the vehicle I was following or need to over take that vehicle (which the Officer deemed to be traveling within the legal limit) over the 200+m distance I was apparently clocked over, either the Officer is wrong which makes me question the use of the speed equipment, or he is correct which makes a mockery of QP Accident Investigation methodology in measuring speed over distance.

70NKY

Ralph, I think I know where you might be falling down. In your above post, you mention time divided by distance to work out speed. You also stated that the officer checked your speed over 200+ metres. Am I right in that you believe that the officer was checking your speed while your vehicle travelled over 200 metres?

I think you will find that the distance written on the infringement notice, is the distance that your vehicle was away from the police officer. The time taken to measure your speed was in fact about 0.3 seconds, if the officer was using the UX model lidar.

So your theory of crashing into the back of the car in front of you is wrong if you think that the police officer got your speed by checking you over a certain amount of time...

Mounfield Racing

Yes that is correct clocked at 300-500m I was following a vehicle which had started pulling away from me. Whether or not he/ she was speeding is not the case nor is it relevant. I was allegedly targeted at 220m at which time the vehicle i was following had started to make ground on me. If I had been traveling 17 km/h faster than the car i was following I would no doubt have crashed into the back of his / her vehicle in the time it took to arrive at the point where I was directed to stop. That's based on logic and common sense not a myth. Thank heavens i did grade 3 mathematics at school. The same Officer that will swear under oath when we attend Court will be the same officer that swore under oath that he would up hold the law. Pity he did not consider that when he deemed the faster car to be within the legal speed limit.

Innuendo

If you read the above you would of come across this;




A really helpful contribution.

Mounfield Racing

It has attracted some interesting comments worthy of consideration, i am glad I put it up for comment. Naturally some clowns have had their say and they too are entitled to make their feeling known lol.

A lot of positive comments regarding where, and where not a device should be operated, and a lot of informative back ground on QP Policies etc. Very little feed back from those in the know as to whether or not cow boy operators are frowned upon as they must draw unwelcome criticism towards genuine Officers. But lack of such comment is an answer in its self and that is understandable.

70NKY

I would have thought that went without saying. As an operator of said instrument, I wouldn't be very happy seeing an officer doing lidar and shooting up a hill. That said though, it doesn't say you CAN'T necessarily conduct speed enforcement in that sort of area, but documentation is required to give you a bit of credibility...

I if was you, I would be taking a lot of notice of xxxxgold. He has some sort of interest in this area and has given you his advice.