Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site steinmetz.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!edison!steinmetz!connolly From: connolly@steinmetz.UUCP (C. Ian Connolly) Newsgroups: net.auto,net.legal Subject: Re: Re: Radar Surveillance Message-ID: <249@steinmetz.UUCP> Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 10:23:21 EDT Article-I.D.: steinmet.249 Posted: Fri Aug 16 10:23:21 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 06:11:49 EDT References: <1081@homxa.UUCP> <4891@allegra.UUCP> <269@ihlpl.UUCP> Organization: GE CRD, Schenectady, NY Lines: 14 Xref: watmath net.auto:7721 net.legal:2104 > - Should police be prohibited from using air surveillance to catch > speeders, since they need a stopwatch to accurately obtain times > between markers. Is it different if the stopwatch is mechanical > instead of electronic? If I remember correctly, police radars have a fair amount of error. This is why, for example, NY State cops almost always set their radars for 65 mph. This is far enough above the speed limit to compensate for the radar error. It would be interesting to compare the error obtained from timing via aircraft with radar error. Does anybody have more info on this? -- C. Ian Connolly, WA2IFI - USENET: ...edison!steinmetz!connolly , , ARPANET: connolly@ge-crd An rud a bhionn, bionn.