Hacp has no clue what this thread is about....nor does he know what he is talking about..........
Using my example, it will still be 100% ticketed. Lets put it in simpler terms.
Let's say OTC pregnancy tests have a 5% chance to give a false positive. If 100 infertile women took the test, on average, five would show a false positive. In this case, 100% of those who had a positive result aren't really pregnant.
Glad you realized this. Now let's move one step further, slowly so you can understand. A cop LIDAR's 100 people. 5 were going above the speed limit. 95 were going at the speed limit. There is a 1% chance the device records someone going 10 mph faster than they actually were going. On average, what % of the ticketed drivers were going at the speed limit?
Thanks for the response. I won't attempt to prove that the device was defective. A device can be working perfectly with no operator error and ideal conditions, and still return a reading that is wrong!
I just need the data above to prove my point. With this data, I can point out that if an officer takes X measurements in a year, he will have Y false positives. I have more but that's the beginning.
Just because it is very, very remotely possible doesn't mean it is likely or a good defense in court. The evidence against you is soooooo much more compelling. Good luck in court and don't forget your checkbook.
Terrible analogy. This argument hinges on it being impossible that you were speeding. That you are one of the "infertile" group and that any positive result is automatically false. You can't prove that, and, in fact, the preponderance of the evidence says otherwise.
You are so desperate for your "research" to fit your preconceived conclusion that you aren't thinking logically. Get a grip, my friend.
EDIT: ...or exactly what JEDIYoda said.
Upon close inspection of the thread, you'll see that the OP said he doesn't know how fast he was going, but the LIDAR must be wrong, because he never speeds on that road. Thus, he wants to prove to the judge that the LIDAR is incorrect one out of every eleventy-billion times, and he's the eleventy-billionth person to get a speeding ticket, therefore he wasn't speeding.OP I'm a bit confused are you saying you were going 55 in a 55 mph zone and they read you at 73 mph in error or are you saying you were going 65 in a 55 mph zone and it read 73 mph in error?
Upon close inspection of the thread, you'll see that the OP said he doesn't know how fast he was going, but the LIDAR must be wrong, because he never speeds on that road. Thus, he wants to prove to the judge that the LIDAR is incorrect one out of every eleventy-billion times, and he's the eleventy-billionth person to get a speeding ticket, therefore he wasn't speeding.
And you are GREATLY overstating the inaccuracy of LIDAR's measurements.
When is your court date?
Another piece of evidence to add to my list. Law enforcement regularly overstates the certainty in forensics/measurements. The trust me argument won't work anymore.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/u...t&contentPlacement=8&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0
Terrible analogy. This argument hinges on it being impossible that you were speeding. That you are one of the "infertile" group and that any positive result is automatically false. You can't prove that, and, in fact, the preponderance of the evidence says otherwise.
You are so desperate for your "research" to fit your preconceived conclusion that you aren't thinking logically. Get a grip, my friend.
EDIT: ...or exactly what JEDIYoda said.
Either that or the OP is just trolling. You would think that a reasonable person, even when caught in the process of grasping at straws like the OP is, would see his argument is unanimously disagreed with for a myriad of reasons and realize the argument is stupid. Especially in the context of traffic court where it doesn't matter if he's right or not, because it is more likely he's not.
Thanks for your concern. Finally a positive statement!
I have not set up a court date. I have 15 days to decide whether I want to go to court or not. It costs 25 dollars and that won't be refunded even if I win. I need to spend this time refining my defense. When it is good enough, I will mail in the ticket and get a court date.
This isn't the same problem with a testable, repeatable, provable measuring device like Lidar. You might as well grab a laser surface thermometer and claim that it's measuring 75.6 F when another tool measures 75.2 is some a grand flaw.
In the meantime, have you considered bringing up a tireprint challenge? Did the ticketing officer take a record of your tire treads and if not, how can he prove that the car he ticketed was your car?
DNA test, hair analysis,and fingerprinting matching satisfy these requirements. You haven't added anything new.
Sorry but that is not part of my argument. If you want to do the work and write up a detailed five minute script to send me, be my guest. I'll take a look and at least consider it.
With fiber/ballistic matching, or fingerprints, you have no real tests. No numbers: you produce charts that show 10-40x images with little measure bars. You never talk about error rates and the testing methodology with these. Never.
It looks like you're talking about the OLD way people matched finger prints, which was by eye inspection. Sorry to burst your bubble but there is software out there that can read fingerprints and match them. The method used is a form of pattern recognition.