Hb 162 News

[Skip]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

... Supposedly, it's the reflective finish and not the fiberglass material that is detected by a radar gun...

Sorry, the reflective finish of the target being tracked by the radio frequency pulse emitted by the police radar unit is not enhanced by the optical reflectivity of the tracked object. That is one of the many misconceptions of police radar that has been bantered about during this debate.

The amount of signal returned from the target is directly related to the material the object is made of (metal reflects more rf energy than plastic or fiberglas) and the relative amount of material the tracked object offers as a reflector to the signal (along with target range, interference, etc.)

Simply put, two identical fiberglass boats presenting an identical target aspect to the radar unit will return the same amount of signal, regardless of what colors they are painted. And a metal boat of the same dimensions and same aspect will return more signal than the fiberglass boat.

Also, it is up to the discretion of the Court having jurisdiction....but most Courts using the unreasonable speed standard will allow a driver up to and around 15 MPH over the posted limit before convicting. In short, regardless of the posted limit, the officer must show that the speed you were cited for was unreasonable given the prevailing overall conditions at the time of the stop.

However, if the speed limits enacted are referenced as "absolute" limits, such as in neighboring States and some roadways in New Hampshire, then all the officer needs to show for a conviction is any speed above that posted.

There is one particular thing that is constantly overlooked in the debate about police radar. The radar unit is only an extension of the officer's sense of sight, and a tool used to verify the officer's opinion that the offender was operating above a certain limit, or unreasonably. The officer has to be able to testify that given his/her experience and based on his visual observations of your operation, that the speed displayed on his radar unit correlated with the speed that he visually interpreted that you were going. Blind testimony based on a radar unit readout without a visual correlation to the offending operator will not result in a conviction. Simple as that. The radar is a tool, one of several, that the officer will testify to led him to believe it was you, not someone else, that the radar was tracking along with his sense of sight and sometimes hearing. Most experienced radar operators not only use the visual speed tracking component of the radar, but the audio doppler portion of the radar unit while visually observing the relative motion of the objects in the field of view to ascertain the correct target and speed.

It still continues to amaze me that police radar, in use now for almost half a century, is so misunderstood by the general motoring public. But the folks that sell you radar detectors, jammers and hubcap foilers are still laughing all the way to the bank!

As usual, if anyone would like additional information on the truthful way that radar does work, why the conviction rate for cited offenders is extremely high (despite claims to the contrary here) and how it can be used successfully and unsuccesfully on the water, please PM me off-line.

Merry Christmas,

Skip