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.