Safe Speed Forums

The poor Aussies are getting screwed as well. http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/stories/1697.asp?MSID=584b957e00944a2d96c882b53c382bf6

Ever been caught speeding but been doubtful about the accuracy of the radar? Well, those suspicions may not have been unfounded. Today ACA meets one man who has found the key to unlocking the secrets behind radars and is keen to share his knowledge about the many factors which can affect their accuracy.

Motorist Bruce Josephs isn't the first person to express concern over the accuracy of radars. But he could be the first person to uncover a document which confirms his doubts. After hundreds of hours on the Internet and writing letters to the Infringement Processing Bureau, police minister and ombudsman, he finally found what he was searching for - a copy of the police service's radar operation manual.

According to Bruce, who found the information through the Freedom of Information Act, the document outlines some compelling evidence that trees, wind, billboards, even birds can cause an inaccurate reading. The document also states that even heavy rain could affect the correct patrol speed.

Even worse, says Bruce, when a police car is actually moving, it is less accurate.

"So if you have ever been done by an approaching police car, you may have cause to complain," says Bruce. "The manual points out dual-carriageways can be a problem, because the angle you're getting zapped at might be more than eight degrees, which can alter your radar reading."

This research began when Bruce was clocked going 80 kilometres an hour, when he reckons he was only going 60. Through his investigation, Bruce has drawn the conclusion that unless you have a straight flat road in good weather with no other cars on it, radar is not going to give an accurate reading.

"I was following a semi-trailer, I was going around bends and there was no straight stretch of road at all," he says.

In light of Bruce's discovery, ACA asked the NSW Police Service to comment, but they refused. Likewise, Police Minister John Watkins also declined an interview.

Fellow radar crusader Harry Brelsford is also familiar with fighting a fine. He's even written a book about his own battle and has a website for people who want step-by-step advice on how to challenge the system. He urges motorists to fight fines because they have every right to, but contends that even if you take your matter to court, the system is unfair.

"To take this to court will cost me $10,000 minimum," Brelsford says. "People have to mortgage their houses to do this sort of thing, just to pay a fine they shouldn't have got in the first place."

Bruce, who many people may think should simply pay the fine, says it's not about the money.

"If it was $200, I'd pay it," he says. "It is not just $200. Firstly, it is half my licence, which I should not have to lose, and secondly, if I do it, it means everybody else that comes after me is also subject to this insanity."

Bruce says that, for too long, it?s been assumed radars are infallible. But he hopes the release of this document into the public arena will force a change in the system.

"They should start to change the legislation so that radar is only used where there is 100 percent accuracy," he says. "We don?t want circumstances where innocent drivers are pulled over."

I've no idea if they use the same sort of radar as we have here, so how relevant it is to the UK situation is anybody's guess. Still, it's interesting that weather conditions and passing birds can throw the accuracy of the equipment out (assuming the bird is a pigeon or something, not an emu ). Still, I imagine the principle behind one radar unit is the same as all the rest, so presumably there is a potential for error in all of them. I know that all the gear our police and partnerships use has to have Home Office type approval, but I wonder if there's any way of finding out exactly how stringent that is.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein