“Charge Withdrawn - Success Story”

This thread demonstrates how a flawed understanding of metrology can lead to all sorts of weird and wonderful results. Lets separate out the component parts.

I think all now understand that the FCC/Industry Canada Certifications in the User manual have nearly nothing to do with the accuracy/precision of the speed measuring function of a particular the lidar/radar unit.

It must be understood that independent calibration/records and operator/instrument self checks are two very necessary, but different and separate, items.

Unfortunately for Radar Identified, in the real world of Metrology, independent certified calibrations trump operator test and internal self-checks, always, every time. Seriously, get this straight. I don't care what the courts have been convinced to accept as expeditious, independent calibrations are not optional and cannot be replaced by operator anything. Also, no records promptly produced on demand, no evidence of valid calibrations. Period, end of discussion.

Independent calibration establishes the accuracy/precision of the instrument against, and traceable to, a KNOWN, INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED STANDARD. Depending on the measurement involved, the calibration may eventually be traceable to something as tangible as the ISO Standard Meter in Paris, or to the something as intangible as the wavelength of the light emanating from a certain atom at particular set of conditions. Without regular checks against a Known Standard, any measuring instrument cannot be assumed by the operator or the courts to be accurate or precise. If the courts have ruled radar/lidar do not need regular independent calibrations, they are flying in the face of hundreds, if not thousands, of years of measurement history and practical knowledge. 50 years ago, universal ISO compliance was mostly a pipedream, but today is is basic boilerplate in any industry you can name. The courts need to step into the 20th Century. (Jibe intended.)

The operator and self checks are merely interim tests to assure the operator and the "consumer" (in this case, the defendant and the court) that there is no immediate indication of a malfunction. These operator checks do not compare the instrument function against a KNOWN external Standard. This means these cannot be held to carry the same weight as full independent calibrations, they are merely expedient means to demonstrate due diligence and a basic operator competence. The "the officer didn't correctly and completely follow the test procedure in the manual" defense still holds if that is the case. In other words, if an officer isn't competent to do the test/self-checks properly, he/she is not competent to take speed readings with it, no matter what training certificates awarded.

So we have established that both periodic independent calibrations/documentation AND "each shift" operator/self-tests/notations are required to verify that a particular radar or lidar unit is CAPABLE giving accurate readings IF OPERATED PROPERLY and can be demonstrated not to be subject to other error conditions beyond calibration errors.

The "records" at the detachment may indeed show the radar/lidar is "calibrated". But if these are not readily available to be presented and found to be 100% correct/complete every time, they are next to useless. Given that no (ex)officer here replied to my direct question as to whether they had seen calibration stickers/seals on any radar/lidar unit, we must assume the only "calibrations" generally done were before the original purchase or after "repairs by the vendor". (Again, the vendor is not generally considered an "independent, third party" testing facility.) That aside, EVERY disclosure request should at a minimum note the certificate # and date of the last calibration, as well as any operator/self-checks.

As for "operator error" and "situational/conditions errors". There was a time when hand-held video/radar/lidar units were unavailable. You all know there are now many radar/lidar units that overlay all the information on either a still or video record. These were created to eliminate as many operator and sensing "errors" as possible. But in Ontario, we leave the Mahony-Bruers to literally make up whatever numbers they like. An extreme case, perhaps, but try to tell us that no officer anywhere EVER fudged the numbers up to "teach a young pup a lesson".

Enough already. Why is there so much effort spent defending a speed enforcement scheme which depends on woefully inadequate assurances of accuracy/precision and is totally dependent on the officer's ability to remain impartial and scrupulously honest.

In the end, this issue only exists because of the intransigence of the enforcement/prosecutorial community to open scrutiny, and compliance to the same standards as the rest of us. It is not about the legalistic ballet that happens before the courts. If speed enforcement was a product or service handled by the industrial sector, it would be brought into compliance with ISO and Industry Canada Standards in a matter of weeks.

These are all great points about achieving CERTAINTY with respect to the operation and calibration of the machine, but I think we need to remember that the standard of proof in court is LESS than certainty; it's only "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". This means that you may properly have a conviction on a charge of speeding, even if you can't show, for example, that the machine that calibrated the machine that calibrated the radar wasn't calibrated properly.

Still, I think this is an excellent discussion and, personally, I think there is some merit to making this argument in court, perhaps not to achieve a certain result on a case by case basis, but to force police services and industries making radar device to adopt better practices that would reduce even the possibility of error.

watcher wrote:Unfortunately for Radar Identified, in the real world of Metrology, independent certified calibrations trump operator test and internal self-checks, always, every time. Seriously, get this straight

I don't know about you, but I've never found insulting someone to be a particularly effective tactic in terms of winning an argument. It is inappropriate, and it will not change my point of view. I've articulated my arguments, and what I hold to be reasonable. If that does not satisfy you, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Simon Borys wrote:I think we need to remember that the standard of proof in court is LESS than certainty; it's only "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

In a nutshell, that's what I was saying.

Radar Identified wrote:

Simon Borys wrote:I think we need to remember that the standard of proof in court is LESS than certainty; it's only "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

In a nutshell, that's what I was saying.

I agree with your arguement, but the question remains: Why not provide the proof? If all the documentation is available, why not produce it? Would a simple computer screen with Adobe Acrobat and the calibration archives being available to the average joe accused be too much? Like I said before, 99/100 times there is nothing to go on. But if you are the 1 in 100 you have a legitimate beef, what is the recourse. Traffic court is slanted toward the gov't side, for many reasons. I would like the process to simply be more transparent.

This thread is a simple example of "where are the limits" or where do we draw the line. And some of the arguements can be made that time is the issue. Well, I propose that the courts get out of their own. 12 months before you recieve a trial, toss. Get rid of the paperwork involved in an 11b. Calibration questions?, those are right here. Or does the Union of public workers impede our progress by only working 9-5?

Back on track though, if the question of the main calibration does come up, why not have the answer right at hand. AFAIK, the officer gets all his tickets written on day "X" on the same court date, is it a stretch? Photocopy the cal log and bring it with you, not picking on the police with this just looking for transparency. I can see that the devices are solid and they work, but it is easier to prove that the device is faulty then it is to prove the officer f$$ked up.

Next round, carry on!

Next round:

Reflections wrote:I agree with your arguement, but the question remains: Why not provide the proof? If all the documentation is available, why not produce it?

I think we both agree that there's a "this is sufficient proof" line to be drawn somewhere. The question is, where to set it? I wouldn't be opposed to the courts asking for the documentation, but I think that the Prosecutor has to show the court that "in the field" the device was working properly and it was used properly. If the device was taken by the officer, tested and shown to be working, it's very unlikely that the device was out of calibration. The way I see it, the calibration record provides another layer of proof, but it doesn't turn the conviction one way or the other. I don't doubt that it would add transparency, but I don't see it as vital. To me, there are several different types of evidence showing that the device was working and producing a valid reading, including the checks, and the officer's visual estimate (which, as you know, has to be taken before the device is activated). Isn't that sufficient to indicate the device was working properly at the time?

FYI - every time I've been stopped for speeding, the speed reading was either bang-on, or in two cases it was lliterally 1 km/h off what I thought it was doing.

Reflections wrote: Would a simple computer screen with Adobe Acrobat and the calibration archives being available to the average joe accused be too much?

Don't know about that cost-wise. If the courts were to decide that calibration records must be disclosed, that could be investigated I'm sure.

Reflections wrote:I would like the process to simply be more transparent.

I don't disagree with more transparency, but I think that the calibration record doesn't help it that much. Sure, it would push it toward "beyond a shadow of a doubt," as mentioned earlier, but does it have to be "beyond a shadow of a doubt"? I guess we've got a difference of opinion as to whether requiring the calibration record/logs adds to "reasonable doubt" or not.

Reflections wrote:12 months before you recieve a trial, toss.

Agreed on that point. They should also have an automatic ticket quashing for a fatal error instead of this London v. Young "ignore it then appeal" disaster. Back on track...

Reflections wrote:Back on track though, if the question of the main calibration does come up, why not have the answer right at hand. AFAIK, the officer gets all his tickets written on day "X" on the same court date, is it a stretch? Photocopy the cal log and bring it with you, not picking on the police with this just looking for transparency. I can see that the devices are solid and they work, but it is easier to prove that the device is faulty then it is to prove the officer f$$ked up.

Hmm... don't know about whether it's easier to prove the device is faulty. Personally, of all the speeding cases I've seen, usually it was an officer goof-up that got the case tossed if it went to trial. What I'm still concerned about is the courts deciding that the calibration record is "sole proof" of the device's serviceability. I'd put this into "be careful what you wish for..."

Great discussion. Personally, I'm with watcher. Calibration procedures have been developed over decades, and if they weren't important, they wouldn't be used to the extent that they are. This is one of the reasons that I believe that the Radar and Lidar devices should be covered under the Weights and Measures Act. The act sets definitive calibration periods and standards, which would make this a black and white issue with no grey areas. As one of the guys mentioned, it is used by gas stations and grocery stores. Surely, if they can implement this, the police and the courts can too. As for cost, it is a cost of doing business, doesn't seem to be an issue anywhere else. In fact, most companies prefer to have regulatory items laid out in black and white through regulations. It gives them a definitive "checklist" of what has to be done to ensure the their company is compliant.

Hwybear mentioned that the IC cert was in the manual, but the copy I had did not have that mentioned. The FCC approval was there, in fact it took up about a page, but from what I could see, nothing on the IC approval. Which makes me wonder if it hasn't been done, and if it hasn't been done, then there is a much bigger problem than whether the units have been properly calibrated. Like I said, I checked the database and couldn't find any mention of the unit or Decateur. Has anyone else had any success?

You have to remember that these units are basically purpose built computers, nothing more nothing less. From what I have read about lidar is that the beam is "split" when it leaves the gun. This gives it the start of flight signal, which is a very precise point to measure from. I am under the suspicion that with radar, it's not time of flight but freq. change, it would have to do something similar, checking to make sure what freq. is being emitted on exit from the transciever. This is not proven, and would like to see it proven.

Now, the Decateur units, moving radar, the officer does have a reletively decent reference point, the cal'd speedo. If the 2 match, I'd say that the radar is functioning properly. If the 2 don't match.... you have to toss ANY ticket given with those unit's being referenced at the time. That covers the moving units.

Handheld units are the magic "mystery" boxes now. They have on-board test features that will test the circuitry, math functions?, and a few various things. What cannot be validated, by means on self test alone, is the emittion and reception of the signal. Just because you tell the gun it is "sending" freq. "x" does not mean it is. Perhaps some research into the radar units patents would shed some more light.

Sorry to offend Radar, but it is frustrating to present common-practice concepts regarding legally required industry standards of calibration, measurement and documentation to have it all weasel-worded away.

Maybe that's why Metrology is a bit of a mystery to those who deal in a relativist legal world. Think of Metrology as an Absolute Liability offense. Industrially, is was established long ago that there is no defense for not complying with widely accepted independent standards for calibration and documentation. Either a unit is documented as being withing tolerances or it is not. Scrawled notes of internal self-checks and operator testing is not even 1/2 of proper calibration/documentation, and if it's not good enough for gas pumps and weigh scales, it's not good enough for the police and the courts.

The more complex and poorly-understood the workings within the Magic Speed Boxes become, the greater the need for independent verification that what shows up on the readout is accurate/precise under all potential conditions. The fact speed sensing technology is "rapidly advancing" shows just how error-prone the original units were (do we need to go back to 60 mph trees, signs and walls?) . You try to make the case that these Magic Speed Boxes are simply purpose-built computers, and as such are above all this calibration/documentation silliness... so none of your home or workplace computers EVER crashed, lost a file or otherwise malfunctioned. We'd all like to own one of those computers. But, GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out)

There's three types of computer problems. Hardware, software and skinware. The first two are easy to fix, the last, not so much. That's why a full ISO-type standardization of procedures/documentation is needed in the mass-production industry of traffic offenses.

Operator error IS a bit tougher to deal with, but not impossible. As one example potential "fix", iPhone has an app that uses cell and GPS technology to show location and speed, plus uses the built-in accelerometer to calculate G-forces. The accelerometer/level function alone applied to handheld speed guns would 100% eliminate the issue of lateral movement and shake. The speed guns could be easily designed to give no reading if mishandled.

So it is possible to economically eliminate most technological and documentary error sources, but even pairing radar/lidar vehicle or hand-held units with sensors, video etc. doesn't solve all issues. I'm sure you're all aware of UK cases where such units own video proved the speed reading was grossly incorrect. OOPSY.

Here in Ontario, the home of the mythical Perfect Police Officer, no video or unit printout evidence/tracking means no potentially contrary evidence. So an officer's "I observed" testimony combined with a loaded judicial system is tantamount to "guilty until proven innocent" for most traffic offenses. Pretty much OK until McGuinty, Fantino. Wooley, et.al. upped the ante so police could impound/suspend and generally screw over anyone they pleased with no more evidence than their "observations". And M-B doesn't even get to court until Feb 2012, so my guess is HTA 172 isn't going away any time soon either.

And FYI, every time I've been stopped for "speeding", I was going no where near the speed the officer originally claimed the Magic Box showed. Strangely, the "reduced" speed was always closer, but still optimistic. Nice scam, another "sales tactic" that should be deemed illegal, given the de facto enforcement/prosecution/judge powers already granted officers.

Personally, I'm done futzing around. The Mahony-Breur incidents, the totally bogus stunt drive charge I know about and the legal pussy-footing revealed here and on Canlii convinces me I must out Big Brother Big Brother. I now run two video cameras, one facing front, showing my calibrated speedometer and my GPS, another facing back to see what's happening behind me. If I'm speeding or stunting, OK the video will show it, I'll take my lumps. It will be interesting to see how many officers are so 100% firm in their "I observed" "evidence" when faced with video showing what they were up to as well as I.

Hence my handle here. I'm Watching.

watcher wrote:, showing my calibrated speedometer and my GPS, another .

I have yet to see any civilian vehicle that has stamped on it "calibrated speedometer" such as in purpose built police vehicles. Where does one go about obtaining the personal vehicle calibration? How much does it cost? I have asked at automotive dealers, not one will provide any calibration to me, and last was on a brand new vehicle in February this year (2011) on a 2011 vehicle. So is my speedometer accurate? I would think so, but I am not 100% confident either in the speedometer.

GPS -has been already tossed out of courts for a defence as it is does not have a precise enough location, most are accurate within 5-20m. We have all been there where we were sitting somewhere and our GPS puts us 5-15m away on a different road. Easy way to do that go to edge of a parking lot, all 3 of my GPS units think I am parked on the road.

The speedometer on my Escape is "calibrated" (by me ) at 100 km/h because I pulled the needle off and placed it exactly on the line. It's slightly off at other speeds but nothing to be worried about - when it says 50 km/h I'm actually going 52. Our new Buick Regal has a digital speedometer which is almost dead on - when it reads 100 km/h I'm actually going 101 km/h.

Although no longer a valid defence in courts, GPS speed information is not shown using location information, rather it is calculated by Doppler Effect on the satellite signal. Otherwise, I think any civilian GPS receiver prior to maybe the SiRFStar III chipset would have shown you alternating between 0 km/h and 100,000 km/h, forwards then backwards. I do trust my GPS speedometer to be very accurate, although I can see courts not accepting it due to there being no certification of the accuracy and (especially in the case of laptop GPS software and the GPS units based on Windows Mobile) the ability for users to tamper with software readings and records. For example, go back and drive the exact same route after getting a ticket, this time at the speed limit with the GPS unit tracking. Bust that out in court, blame the 20 minute discrepancy on time it took for the traffic stop. Too many unknowns to really be handled at the level of a POA court.

hwybear wrote:

watcher wrote:, showing my calibrated speedometer and my GPS, another .

I have yet to see any civilian vehicle that has stamped on it "calibrated speedometer" such as in purpose built police vehicles. Where does one go about obtaining the personal vehicle calibration? How much does it cost? I have asked at automotive dealers, not one will provide any calibration to me, and last was on a brand new vehicle in February this year (2011) on a 2011 vehicle. So is my speedometer accurate? I would think so, but I am not 100% confident either in the speedometer.

GPS -has been already tossed out of courts for a defence as it is does not have a precise enough location, most are accurate within 5-20m. We have all been there where we were sitting somewhere and our GPS puts us 5-15m away on a different road. Easy way to do that go to edge of a parking lot, all 3 of my GPS units think I am parked on the road.

As a civilian, I am not held to the same level of due diligence as police officers and other professionally certified persons working in the speed enforcement industry. Before the courts, I only have introduce "reasonable doubt" as to the veracity of the officers evidence. While I have worked with measurement/calibration concerns in the past, I am no longer certified or employed as such. As others have observed here, I'm simply "well informed".

So the particular "calibrated" speedometer I speak of is electronic with an aftermarket circuit that corrects it for certain variables in gearing etc. My other speedos are factory-supplied and unaltered. I took video while comparing my "corrected" speedo against two separate GPS units and simultaneously with a stopwatch over MTO measured kilometer makings. Held as near as possible to 100 kph for 3 km, the speedo, both GPS and the measured mile/timing calculation all agreed within +/- 1%. My other speedometers disagree by up to 10% faster than the GPS and measured/timed speeds.

That said, lets play... So for what tire condition is the "calibration" for police vehicle speedos taken? On new tires? Tires worn to the wear bars? In any case the closest this can be is +/- 5%, as that will be the minimum difference between new and worn tires. Do you take tread depth readings on the drive tires and present specific pavement/tire friction/slippage data for each time you write a "pace" ticket? Didn't think so...

"Certified calibrated" or not, the speedo in my vehicles show the speed measuring device I was using. Think your standard gas pump notation- "In the case of disagreement between the pump and register reading, the pump reading shall be taken as correct". Unless I am running seriously non-standard size tires or have tampered with the speedo, relying on a manufacturer-supplied standard speedo demonstrates no mens rea... I honestly thought the speed I was going was as my speedo showed. The video just shows what I saw. Besides, the video timing where permanent roadside landmarks like lamp posts and signs were passed give a tamper-proof indication to verify speed. Just go back, measure the distances and look at the video time code when each passes out of frame... viola, exact speed calculated.

IIRC, the main landmark case in the US where the GPS reading was thrown out was because the defense could not prove that GPS was in that car at that time. Hence my video cameras, which place that GPS with my vehicle at that time/place and also show the officer who wrote the ticket. Along with the pertinent excerpts for display in court, I will be bringing the GPS with the logs still stored, where they cannot be tampered with. Ditto for the video files, on the original memory media which uses a proprietary camera writing schema. The prosecution can make copies and look for tampering to their heart's content. I may be good, but not good enough to convincingly fake original GPS logs and video files simultaneously.

GPS speeds are calculated using many readings, typically 1 to 5 per second for modern units, not just single reading. That is why the lag occurs when speed changes or the GPS signal is lost. But like cosine error for radar/lidar units, the GPS thinking it is a meter or two from the actual point a is minor error, reduced to near zero by the large number of readings taken over many kilometers.

In my defense proposal, the GPS is not to show the actual speed reading at a specific time/place, it is to show that when the speed was held held constant at some time shortly before the speed stop, the speedo and GPS agreed closely. When the alleged speed offense took place, the speedometer is the pertinent number on the video, as it responds as quickly as possible for that specific technology. When combined with the roadside markers on video, the speed can be closely confirmed.

So all combined, the speedo/GPS/video evidence will either verify the officer's evidence, or not.

Honest officers need have no fear. Mahoney-Breur types may justifiably find themselves looking for another line of work. Can't see why this is a problem for you.

Unless manufacturers/police/prosecution know something about radar/lidar that the public doesn't. Such as these reading are taken over such a short timespan (about 0.1 second) that the potential errors cannot be completely eliminated by the software. Those 60 mph trees coming back to haunt again?

Reflections wrote:Now, the Decateur units, moving radar, the officer does have a reletively decent reference point, the cal'd speedo. If the 2 match, I'd say that the radar is functioning properly. If the 2 don't match.... you have to toss ANY ticket given with those unit's being referenced at the time. That covers the moving units.

Agreed. As for "hand-held" radar units, I do not personally believe that a sole-source internal check is sufficient to verify the device is working properly... which is what I've said for years. If, during pre and post-use testing, the device doesn't bounce a signal off an object that is going a known speed and verify a proper readout, I don't believe that evidence from it should be accepted.

After doing some research on this and emailing IC I did manage to find out that the Decatur products are all Industry Canada certified. I have attached a link if anyone is interested.

stormsam wrote:After doing some research on this and emailing IC I did manage to find out that the Decatur products are all Industry Canada certified. I have attached a link if anyone is interested.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/sitt/reltel/src ... :15ds6qt0j

I couldn't follow your link, but Decatur's company ID is 1270A in the IC database if anyone wants to check.

I am not from Ontario but rather from Alberta, although traffic laws are similar and JP cites cases across the country. To keep the story short, I was not as lucky as compared to the original author of this thread. I fought my ticket and requested for disclosure with added documentations (Certificate of Calibration, Certificate of Conformance and the like). Prosecutor would not provide any. I went to trial hoping for a dismissal. The traffic commissioner cites R. vs A.K. 2004 to the effect that the laser technology does not need to be proven for every case.

My argument is that if law enforcement agencies decide to use those confidence checks in place of certifiable calibrations, the device is no longer function to the original intent of the device, i.e. shorter maximum range due to reliability and uncertainty. I am not questioning on the technology, I have a concern if the device can function at a much further range.

For some reasons, they look at laser technology (as a technology) and calibration (regular maintenance) as the same issue. By the time the JP was making the favourable ruling to the crown, I had no more chance to comment and was told to pay my fine.

Back to some other comments throughout this thread, proofing the technology and proof the device is in proper operating conditions is two totally different things. Now, all I can do is to appeal, if I still want to play their game.

For others, especially those fighting based on lack of calibration, be aware if the JP beat you up with R. vs A.K. 2004. Enjoy your research and I hope you all have favourable ruling.