/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4384151]

Does /sci/ understand the physics of radar guns?

http://www.radarguns.com/how-radar-guns-work.html

I'm looking for a halfway decent argument to get myself out of a moving violation, or at any rate to have the ticket reduced.

Are their any obvious (or indeed, less than obvious) caveats to be observed in the operation of these devices? Because right now the best argument I can come up with is that one only has the 'officer's word' that said vehicle was in fact the one whose speed was measured with the gun, could just as easily have been pointing at any vehicle on the road (so as to generate an illegal reading and then pull over and ticket any moving vehicle the officer chooses, etc.)

If /sci/ can come up with something good, I would be happy to reward everyone, within reason of course. Not sure what such would entail, though.

[Anonymous No.4384180]

Just say that you're sorry and won't do it again, etc. etc.

[Anonymous No.4384186]

I can post tantalizing examples of the female form, if that will encourage /sci/

[A strong ai No.4384197]

Probably won't work in the courtroom, and the judge will worsen your sentence because you called the cop a liar. Not fair, but usually how it works.

Did the cop lose sight of you between targeting you and when he pulled you over? If so what traffic was on the road? Was there any cars that were the same basic layout as yours (van, sports, sedan)? Color? Sounds like your memory is a little hazy officer. Can a person who doesn't remember what traffic is on the road really be certain the car he gauged and the car he pulled over were the same?

Execution is everything though.

I read about another one where a guy asked a cop to give an eyeball estimate for the speed range of the car. Then he pointed out that because of the angle relative to the direction the car was pointing in, the car would've actually had to be traveling MUCH faster.

Of course most solid defenses depend on the officer making some kind of mistake. Most officer gauge from right on the road.

[Anonymous No.4384205]

>>4384197

>I read about another one where a guy asked a cop to give an eyeball estimate for the speed range of the car. Then he pointed out that because of the angle relative to the direction the car was pointing in, the car would've actually had to be traveling MUCH faster.

I think I can work with that. Is there any formula or simple description of how the human eye gauges speed of an object approaching from 1500 meters at an angle of, say, 60 degrees?

I think I can also work to my advantage the fact that the stop was over a month ago. Maybe that could help.

[Anonymous No.4384208]

abs for anon

[Anonymous No.4384214]

Your argument is contrived and pathetic.
>their
You also apparently don't speak English. You have no chance, and this is not really science. You're just a whiny brat.

[Anonymous No.4384225]

>>4384214

I can assure you, my grasp of the English language is second to none. This is an online imageboard, and I have no need for fancy rhetoric here. Please contribute something worthwhile or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.4384232]

>Unfortunately, she doesn't look this fresh anymore.

[Anonymous No.4384237]

>>4384225
Learn to communicate or fuck off. Retard.

[A strong ai No.4384241]

>>4384205
That is too detailed for a court room. The guy sees cars driving every day and compares them to radar readings. When he uses the gun properly, it should be accurate. When he turns around and gauges someone at a wide angle, he only gets a fraction of the speed. So if he claims you were doing 80, and you can establish where he was and where you were (because a tree was blocking view until then or something, or you get him to admit it) you can then use simple trigonometry to show something like that you would have really had to have been going 120 which of course is totally absurd. The eyeball question is just to keep him from then being like, well I was a bit surprised that it only read that much.

[Anonymous No.4384247]

>>4384237

Actually, I believe it is you who has difficulty in communicating, since you've yet to do anything of the sort here.

There are other threads. You are free to go away.

>Perfume model, apparently. Something of a waste, if I may say so.

[Anonymous No.4384260]

>>4384241

I doubt he eyeballs the cars so much as points the gun downrange and waits for a good hit. Probably lets lesser offenders go by without pulling them over, as such would tie him up in the event of someone really on the hammer flying by.

Maybe I should ask if the officer has a particular criteria for initiating a traffic stop or not. Legally, are they not allowed to ticket someone doing as little as 5 MPH over the posted limit? So how does he discriminate? Does he personally prefer to write the largest ticket possible? etc. etc.

[Anonymous No.4384265]

hmmm...

[Anonymous No.4384264]

>>4384247
Nope. I've communicated the fact that you're a moron who doesn't proofread.
You've apparently done nothing but whine and misspell.

You seem to be retarded. I seem to be better than you. The end.

[Anonymous No.4384266]

>>4384264

Well what can one say to that line of reasoning, eh?

[Anonymous No.4384270]

>>4384247
>>4384237
>>4384225
>>4384214
Ahaha, you both realise that the moment you start a flame war based on spelling mistakes, there isn't a winner.
Also, having good grammatical knowledge doesn't mean you have to stark typing like royalty.
How old are you guys? just curious.

[Anonymous No.4384274]

>>4384270

>start typing like royalty

A better question would be how old are you?

[Anonymous No.4384279]

>Beginning to run short on work safe material.

[Anonymous No.4384284]

>>4384274
Deflecting?
I'm 19.

[Anonymous No.4384291]

>>4384284

I believe the phrase is 'ditto'.

[Anonymous No.4384304]

>>4384291
Eesh, and you got in a spelling flame war with someone likely to be 13-15.
You poor, verbose bastard.
Have my pity. :D

[Anonymous No.4384307]

How about a general do and do not do for traffic court?

Anyone have experience with these courts? What are my odds the officer won't show up?

[Anonymous No.4384312]

>>4384270
I'm 24. It's always pissed me off when people say "hurr durr it's the intanet i dun need 2 care"

Yes. You fucking do, morons.
When communicating with another human being, you do need to care. For way too many reasons to even list.

[Anonymous No.4384313]

>>4384304

>implying it wasn't fun anyway

Kids have to learn to troll sometime, don't they?

[Anonymous No.4384348]

>>4384312
Honestly not with spelling.
I definitely think syntax is much more impotant.

[Anonymous No.4384387]

>>4384312

u r seriusly a winey bitch. :D