1. ## MAN USES MATH AGAINST RADAR

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com

Most of us, upon receiving a speeding ticket, simply pay the fine and then go on about our business. Zamir Bavel, a National Motorist Association member chose to argue his ticket in court – and he won.

Writing in the NMA Foundation News, he reports that his argument was based upon the scientifically verifiable premise, that the angle at which a police radar unit is reading in relation to the auto’s position will affect the accuracy of the presumed speed. The so-called Cosine Effect posits that the radar read-out will be the same as the clocked auto’s speed only when the car is coming directly toward the police officer’s radar gun. Either side of that line, the speed will register higher or lower respectively than the actual speed.

As Bavel writes: “The closer the car comes to the position of the radar gun, the larger the angle, and the smaller the radar readout. By the time the car is even with the radar gun, so that the angle is 90 degrees, the read-out on the radar screen decreases to 0 mph.”

The judge who listened to Bavel’s defense, dismissed the charges. Bavel reports that he has since been approached for details by local attorneys, and colleges have used his case in their calculus classes.

2. Sounds like the guy "pulled-the-wool" over somebody's eyes or the story is bogus.

The law of cosine's always favors the driver and never the officer regardless of what side the radar/laser operator works as the component of speed in any particular off-angle direction will always be lower (never higher) than from directly ahead of the vehicle...meaning the driver always gets the benefit of the speed reading.

Veil Guy 8)

3. That's exactly what I was thinking, Veil Guy. Cosine error never gives the officer an advantage, which is why so many officers position themselves around a bend in the road and shoot when the car is dead-on in front of them.

4. OK so here is a right-angled triangle. Basically the idea of cosine error has the path of your car on the hypotenuse, and the speed read on the gun is the longer leg. As the angle increases from 0 degrees you have a smaller and smaller leg.

Now what about if you had the radar gun on an overpass... (in other words, b is the path of the car, a is the height of the overpass) doesn't the speed read become the hypotenuse or am I just on crack?

5. Yes it is not in the cop's favour, BUT the very fact that there is doubt in the accuracy of the reading throws it into doubt.

If I remember correctly, some brand of laser or radar (someone could fill in here) was able to clock a tree or a house going at 10kmph or something. Now, while it may be accurate enough most of the time, throwing doubt into the accuracy of the readings, whether or not they favor the driver or so on, means the readings cannot be trusted.

6. His argument makes sense if the officer was clocking traffic at a set angle and applying a cosine correction to get a actual speed from the displayed speed. The uncertainty in the measurement goes up by the factor by which the readout speed is multiplied.

7. In simple english, the cosine effect essentially just means the portion of speed that one is travelling towards an off-axis point.

I don't think the argument has any merit, because the displayed speed will always be lower than the actual.

For example, if someone is clocked at 92mph and the actual speed (without cosine error was 96mph), I seriously doubt any court would throw it out because the clocked speed was actually lower...

...I can hear the defense now - "eh, your honor, throw out this ticket because, the cited speed is actually lower than what I was really doin'"

Besides, all of this stuff should have been settled decades ago during RADAR's judicial notification period in the courts.

---

I will share a personal story where I actually used this "argument" and successfully defended against a ticket. It was for VASCAR, not RADAR, and the calculations were a little more than off - they should be precise down to the 10th of a mile and hour. The ticket was about 6mph off - IN MY FAVOR.

I was able to have the ticket dismissed because the math was substantially off and it should be spot on.

Believe me, I had a moment a pause before arguing that defense. But at the end of the day, I was successful.

Veil Guy 8)

8. To all you guys who know so much about the Cosine Effect:

When the policeman manufactures a reading on his radar, a bogus reading, and lies under oath in court, he is susceptable to saying anything he thinks will crucify the defendant.

This policeman testified under oath that I could not have been going more than 50 mph at the time he clocked me at 43 mph. However, by the Cosine Effect, with the angle he had testified to under oath, my true speed had to be in excess of 98 mph. Thus, clearly, his reading of 43 mph had nothing to do with my car.

Incidentally, I was NOT speeding.

Want to know more about the trial, or about other things the policeman lied about? Just let me know—I have the court transcript and can quote to you from it.

9. Veil Guy, You fell into the same trap as most everybody else—as the manual says, the cosine effect always favors the driver.

I did not pull the wool over the eyes of anybody, and certainly not the judge, who is a very smart and sophisticated person. When the radar operator who gave me the citation claimed a reading of 43 mph, the cosine effect meant that my true speed was over 98 mph. Yet the policeman testified that, visually, my speed was not more than 50 mph. What do you make of it?

="The Veil Guy"]Sounds like the guy "pulled-the-wool" over somebody's eyes or the story is bogus.

The law of cosine's always favors the driver and never the officer regardless of what side the radar/laser operator works as the component of speed in any particular off-angle direction will always be lower (never higher) than from directly ahead of the vehicle...meaning the driver always gets the benefit of the speed reading.

Veil Guy 8)[/quote]

10. bcorby, read my reply to The Veil Guy and see that the police officer in my case never got a reading of 43 mph from his radar gun. He just plain lied, as he did many times during the trial. He is facing a disciplinary action for lying under oath. If you want more details, let me know.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•