There is more panning than you realize as target is moving rapidly and has to stay in middle of cross hairs. Also as I stated there is no stand, right? That means there is handshake. Then you have the problem of beam width and 1.8m radius around car that lidar is all the time measuring at 300m. The lidar/radar guns are only tested by the manufacturer under ideal conditions so as not to fail. I know for a fact the police force doesn't test them or maintain them and claim it's done by a 3rd party. That's fraudulent as they literally have no idea if they are even being maintained and only passed ...

People are getting hung over the term least squares. All you need to know is that an average doesn't guard against outlier results and is affected by them. The lidar algorithm doesn't discard sweep error results. It discards outlier results. If there is too much sweep the sweeping results might not be the outlier result. On 8x magnification there is less light and image stability than no magnification. The FOV (no I will not) is 1/8 as much as normal view. A 300 meter shot is considered long (er) range and a stand should be used. In reality, whether officer's are cognizant of the fact or not, ...

You stated the average of least squares will guard against sweep error. I would like you to expand on the theory that you learned in training.

You can dumb it down anyway you like. If you have 2 sweep error readings and 3 "good" ones how will the average of least squares guard against the 2 sweep error readings?

Can you expand on the average of least squares will guard against sweep error? Is that your personal theory?

What will happen to the lidar algorithm if the sweep error is bad enough?

Do you know why FOV is important here?

What is the Field of vision at 8x magnification? Can you answer that question or not?

There will be sweep error.

What is FOV at 8x magnification?

I meant to write including objects in reading @ 2X width of beam.

Really not sure how calculation was made or if it was taken but he really can't say what he could've hit in a 0.9 m radius circle 300 meters away in the dark. Yeah if it contradicts distance reading you go to town on his training.

Can anyone really target a moving object 300 meters away in the dark without a stand or night vision equipment and say for sure they hit their intended target?

The purpose of having a standardized template for the officer's notes which has beam width specified is so the officer will document what the beam width is at the distance of the lidar reading. The officer is not putting the beam width of the lidar gun at 300 meters there. The reading was taken at approximately 300 meters away so that is why the beam width corresponds to what it would be at 300 meters. My guess is that the lidar gun indicates the beam width with the reading. The reason why it has to be indicated probably is that is important to know potentially how wide the beam is because it ...

The officer wrote in his notes the beam width was 0.9m. It changes over distance. So the officer had to be approximately 300 meters away when he obtained the reading. If the beam width is 0.9m that means officer can miss the plate by that much and still theoretically get laser beams back from hitting it and therefore readings. However, it also means the operator could be measuring readings from any object 1.8 meters away from his car (I. E another lane of traffic or almost anything really that he is unaware of 300 meters away in dark). Beam width is nOT the officer's friend. I have never opera...

The officer was approximately 300 meters away based on my calculations using beam width of .9m and lidar gun specs. What was volume of traffic? Obviously it was dark but was it raining ( I can't make out the RDS conditions)? Basically the officer is stating he is sure he wasn't off by 0.9m at a distance of 300m aiming at a car's registration plates going, he claims, 121 km/hr, with headlights on probably blinding him to a degree. As well, he didn't sweep the lidar gun while trying to target you way off in the distance in the dark. Okay. His requalification is 3 years old at time of ticket (I a...

I believe the officer has to record his notes no later than one week after the incident. His notes are basically the disclosure you will be given. Ask officer when he wrote his notes and prosecutor reason for delay. There really shouldn't have been a delay there.

In reality Argyll, as it relates to bias, we are both very biased. However, I am upfront about mine. I don't wish personal harm to befall officers but I don't wish them a nice day or a peaceful life so that I can look objective or to irritate them whatever the case may be. Once again you bestow upon yourself the ability to know why other people do and say things. That is a halmark of extreme arrogance. You seem to think everyone has an angle and only do things to try to get one over on you. Consider that the vast majority of police and judges are simply doing their job and aren't plotting in ...

In reality Argyll, as it relates to bias, we are both very biased. However, I am upfront about mine. I don't wish personal harm to befall officers but I don't wish them a nice day or a peaceful life so that I can look objective or to irritate them whatever the case may be. I could go on and on but believe it or not I don't really want to as I find the whole justice process to be extremely aggravating and I would probably pay for most tickets if it wasn't for the money grubbing insurance companies that come next to take their cut. Why don't we get back on track and utilize your objective expert...

I'm giving good advice. To adequately prepare for a trial one should realize what they are up against. Even if you look on this website most people that have radar gun equipment logos or are former police officers arent sympathetic to your viewpoint. No matter the situation they deep down want you to lose and will look for arguments to confirm your guilt and their personal bias rather than your innocence. This is the same mentality you will find in court (actually maybe more unfortunately) even though that mindset is the complete opposite of what justice needs to be. As logical and as damning ...

Zatota, The first appeal I had I lost. I proved mathematically that the officer's observations severely contradicted the radar gun reading. The judge took over 3 hours to deliberate but stated the reason I lost was because I didn't take the stand to declare my innocence. I stated math is the ultimate proof basically and therefore didnt need to testify but the judge wouldn't budge and stated I needed to take the stand. The system is very rigged as you probably know. It is meant to convict and collect tax revenues under the guise of Public Safety. You will have to take the stand and either state...