LIDAR Usage Near Airports

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

I love technical folk! Barry, your numbers are good, but the venue is misunderstood. The FAA pointer I gave is to a page that includes an advisory form and diagram for notifying the local airport authority of LASER operation within the zone and over the max. allowed power level. The zone is defined as 3 Nautical Miles from the landing/takeoff edges (and 5,000 ft. wide), plus a 2 Nautical Mile buffer on all other sides of the runway. The officer took up a position in the center of the flight path and less than one mile from the runway edge. He was in the zone and operating at full power; thus the 1,800 (90uW/50nW).

---

You're right -- my numbers are good. Yours, unfortunately are NOT! You are comparing apples to oranges. You CANNOT equate -- or divide -- total power (microWatts) to power per unit area (nanoWatts/square cm). If you do, as you tried, the answer is NOT 1,800 -- it's 1,800 square cm. That means absolutely NOTHING. If your classroom has six pencils and mine has 2 pencils per desk, you don't have 3 times the number of pencils that I have, since you don't know how many "desks" I have. Good luck with your remedial math class.

Barry

So, on a side note. Were you speeding?

Quote:

---

Quoting sniper

---

So, on a side note. Were you speeding?

---

I would suggest the op exercise his rights and not talk to police (even Justice Roberts said as much). Only the court of law can determine whether speeding took place. :) :) :)

Alright Barry, let’s go through the math and get more specific about my argument. The TruSpeed has a point source power of 90uW and a divergence of 2.5mradians, which means it will achieve a power density of 90uW/cm^^2 at a range of 4.0 meters and fall off from there. Your argument, if I can paraphrase it, is that the device couldn’t project 90uW of power onto anything that matters and so the ratio doesn’t apply. Further, the actual ratio would be illuminated power density divided by the allowed. That would be an excellent argument to make for the prosecution. But that is not my interpretation of FAA AC70-1 page 17, and its definition of a LASER Free Zone (LFZ) is quite specific and simple, if not absolute. So my argument takes into account the viewpoint, if not the intent, of the FAA document. Yours is looking at the practical aspect and the likely damage that could result. Both are valid and the court would have to judge the intent, benefits and merits of each. That’s what we pay them for.

Bottom line, should the officer have been operating the device in the LFZ, and does that bear any merit on the case? I contend he should not have, and putting airport safety at risk in an effort to improve highway traffic safety is not justifiable…the ends don’t justify the means. The case should be thrown out as a means of discouraging the use of LIDAR in the LFZ.

As a point of order, I am hoping to keep these exchanges in the spirit of education and contributions to the public good. Some of your remarks were intended to be inflammatory, if not offensive. Apparently you construed mine as condescending, I apologize for that. Please keep in mind as a senior member your actions reflect on your peer group. ‘Nuf said.

Quote:

---

Quoting HonkingAntelope

---

I would suggest the op exercise his rights and not talk to police (even Justice Roberts said as much). Only the court of law can determine whether speeding took place. :) :) :)

---

And yet at the end of the day, the OP was cited for 77 in 65... (My guess: "a 22349(a) citation"). I'm tired of saying this but I will anyways: This case is pretty simple... CHP officer is likely RADAR/LASER trained/certified and can/will testify to a visual estimate with a +/- 5mph error rate. OP is looking at a speed range of anywhere between 82mph and 72mph, both of which are in excess of the 65mph limit, both of which are in violation of 22349(a).

The judge/commissioner/judicial officer (whatever you want to call him/her) is not likely to allow the defendant to waste (yes, I said "waste") 2 hour of the court's time on a quantum physics/LIDAR technology lecture explaining why he "thinks" the FAA would disapprove of the officer's actions (NONE of which is likely to raise ANY sort of doubt as to the officer's speed estimate), nor is he/she going to read a "20 page declaration".

Clearly, the OP misunderstands the concept of "weight of the evidence"... The case is not judged based upon the SIZE of one's declaration and/or argument, but upon the legal relevancy of its content and the arguments presented therein and, more importantly, whether those arguments can raise sufficient doubt as to whether the elements of the offense were committed or not.

AH, thanks but I don’t need to plead the fifth on this. Sniper, I was hoping to keep the argument at a high level and general in nature, but I recognize the hunter instinct and human nature to fight for the underdog. So I’ll share more and you decide.

The incident took place Sunday evening, shortly before 1700 hrs the weekend before Thanksgiving 2010 on a section of northbound freeway that parallels a strip mall. The officer parked his cruiser off the right side of the pavement (there’s some sort of requirement for them to be completely off the road, but it’s unclear to me why) and taken up a position near the front right corner of his vehicle. The weather conditions were very overcast, setting sun peaking under the clouds, dry road, and moderate humidity. The officer was viewing oncoming traffic from the east while being silhouetted by the setting sun in the west. Good tactical maneuver. The freeway narrows from three to two lanes at the officer’s position and traffic travels in “slugs,” which is to say there are gaps and then heavy concentrations that are caused by unmetered on-ramps from the mall area. As I approached the corridor at 70 MPH in the #2 lane, a burst of traffic entered from the on-ramp. I and others moved to the #1 lane and continued at speed for a short distance. Suddenly against the setting sun was a sea of red lights portending an accident or obstruction ahead. Now, I didn’t look at the speedometer, so I only know I was going less than 70 MPH. When I caught sight of the officer in my periphery, I checked my speed and it was 62 MPH at the convergence point. Prima facia is 65 MPH, the officer wrote the ticket for 77 MPH. Earlier in this thread I gave a summary of the facts as presented in the TBD, noting a number of errors, some blatant, made by the officer. In his defense, he had calibrated the LIDAR unit at 0600 hrs, so he had been on duty for nearly 11 hrs. Did he mean 67 MPH, or did he mean 77 MPH for traffic in the opposing lanes where the freeway expands from two to three lanes? No one in my three lanes of northbound traffic was going anywhere near that speed.

I am arguing the latter and provided pictures, vector analysis, and satellite imagery from the scene showing the exact scenario of a northbound vehicle in the foreground and a southbound motorhome in the background. The TruSpeed User’s Manual directs that the viewing scope reticle be aimed at the front license plate as the target “sweet spot,” and I believe the LIDAR training supports that. The reason for this is the license plate makes an excellent dispersive reflector, unlike a windshield which has very low dispersion and transparency issues. Non-illuminated headlights work well also. Given my position in the slug (I have video of slugs from a Caltrans camera mounted just yards from the officer’s position, but not from the day in question), the viewpoint from the officer’s defilade made it impossible to see my license plate in the thick of traffic, so he was forced to aim high. My vehicle has a large moonroof, guess where the beam went.

From the LTI 20-20 manual:

Measuring a Moving Vehicle
Refer to the instructions below to use the UltraLyte LR B to measure the
speed of a moving vehicle.
1. Ensure that the UltraLyte LR B is powered ON and that the
Speed Mode is active.
2. Use the sighting scope to aim the instrument at the target
vehicle's license plate area and press the TRIGGER.
3. Continue to press the TRIGGER and keep the instrument
sighted on the target
• A low-pitched growl means that the instrument is
attempting to lock onto the target.
• A low-pitched beep means that a measurement error
occurred. An error code will be displayed.
• A high-pitched beep means that a speed was captured. As
long as you hold the TRIGGER, the instrument will
continue to take speed measurements. The measured
speed will be displayed on the LCD screen and will be
projected on the scope, just below the aiming dot.
While the instrument is attempting to lock onto the target, as
long as the TRIGGER is kept pressed, it will retry the speed
measurement.
• Depending upon its configuration, the instrument will
try up to 10 times or more. Information is
accumulated until it gets a good measurement or
generates an error code.
• Consequently, it is very important that the aiming
point on the target remain constant for the entire
measurement time. If you move the instrument off
the aiming point, it will generate an error code
instead of capturing a speed reading.

That is why, when the officer testifies; if he does not say he followed the manufacturer's method or procedure then you ask for an acquittal/summary judgment due to the lack of testimony. It does not matter if he gives every step in his testimony either -- if he does not say he tested in in accordance with the manufacturer's method that should be enough.

The OP could ask to explain each step he did take (if he says he followed the manufacturer's procedure) .. but I would not recommend cross-examination further upon the officer that would allow him to give better testimony upon cross or re-direct. If he does not state he followed the manufacturer's procedure the court should view this as a fatal flaw & you don't have to prove what that procedure is..


From one of my cases in a regular court (trial de novo):

THE COURT: Right, but is there any testi -- I know what he did I’m not disputing that I credited his testimony I have no reason to -- to disbelieve him when he says that, the question is was there any evidence offered as to what the suggested method of testing was?
ATTY. REDACTED: Did I specifically ask him if that was the suggested methods of testing? No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That’s what the Statute calls for. Okay. The motion for judgment of acquittal is granted for the following reasons ...

TG, I’m guessing you were a gunnie in a former life. Did you review the TBD summary earlier in this thread? On the citation the license information was incorrect, the registration information was incorrect, the LIDAR serial number was given as Lidar #1 which did not match the calibration table furnished during discovery…need I go on? The only physical evidence is the citation, and it’s replete with errors. I don’t want to crucify the guy but there have been some comments here that indicate it’s either that or pay the fine and go home. In the bigger picture, the practice of operating a LIDAR in the LFZ is merely one more nail in the coffin. We’re bordering on gross incompetence here, yet you’re convinced otherwise? That’s why I came to you guys, so let’s hear why you’re dismissing each of the summary points. I think I have the “weight of evidence” on my side.

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

On the citation the license information was incorrect, the registration information was incorrect, the LIDAR serial number was given as Lidar #1 which did not match the calibration table furnished during discovery…need I go on? The only physical evidence is the citation, and it’s replete with errors.

---

These are ALL valid points.

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

I don’t want to crucify the guy but there have been some comments here that indicate it’s either that or pay the fine and go home.

---

No one is saying that. We are just trying to steer you clear of "loser" arguments.

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

In the bigger picture, the practice of operating a LIDAR in the LFZ is merely one more nail in the coffin.

---

This argument is worth bupkis. All we have been trying to tell you is that it will have NO AFFECT, except to tick off the judge. As we've said a few dozen times: whether you're right or wrong (and I still believe you're wrong), the officer's conduct did NOT influence your speeding. You were speeding, you were caught. If you try to argue that the officer should not have been there, the judge will probably respond that YOU shouldn't have been speeding. Concentrate on your other points -- you've got some good ones. Especially the serial number argument.

Barry

Correction: the step by step method was for the LBR Laser Tech model ... I have the LTI 20-20 model manual somewhere .. if I find it I'll repost from that one .. they are likely the same procedure or very similar...

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

This argument is worth bupkis. All we have been trying to tell you is that it will have NO AFFECT, except to tick off the judge. As we've said a few dozen times: whether you're right or wrong (and I still believe you're wrong), the officer's conduct did NOT influence your speeding. You were speeding, you were caught. If you try to argue that the officer should not have been there, the judge will probably respond that YOU shouldn't have been speeding. Concentrate on your other points -- you've got some good ones. Especially the serial number argument.
Barry

---

Total bupkis ... it annoying me to no end too