Moving Radar mistakes:

The Texas Department of Public Safety produced a comprehensive manual based on the Federal tests. It cautions operators, "...the radar does not generate 'false' readings. Anytime a reading appears, the radar has sensed a signal. The radar operator must be familiar with situations that can produce 'error' readings." If the operator does not detect the error, a ticket will be wrongfully issued.

Here are the radar "errors" detailed by the Texas manual:

1. Antenna Positioning Error
The radar beam travels in a straight line, neither bending around curves nor following the contour of hilly terrain. If the antenna is not properly positioned, it may seem to clock an approaching car when, in fact, it's clocking another car in the background.

2. Look-Past Error
Even if the operator aims his antenna properly, radar is still subject to "look-past" error. This is caused by the radar looking past a small reflection in the foreground to read a larger reflection behind. This error is all the more insidious because poorly-trained operators assume it can't happen.

Texas instructors warn, "It is a widely-held misconception that the reflected target signal received by the radar antenna will always be that of the closest vehicle to the antenna. There are times, due to traffic conditions, that the closest vehicle is not returning the strongest signal."

The Texas instructors confirm this problem with radar, saying "It is not unfair to say that the reading you register could be a larger, better target three-quarters of a mile down the road."

3. Vehicle Interference Error

Texas tells its radar operators that this "...situation becomes more critical if difference in patrol speed and interference-vehicle speed is five to ten mph. A target vehicle moving 61 mph may be recorded at 66-71. These borderline speeds are more difficult to detect with the eye."

4. Cosine Error
Cosine error produces a result similar to Interference error except no moving traffic need be present. A stationary object adjacent to the road, such as a building, or road machinery, or even a sign, makes a more efficient reflector than horizontal pavement. Therefore the radar uses that reflection as the basis of patrol speed.

If this reflector were positioned straight ahead on a collision path, the patrol speed estimate would be close enough. But the further the object is located off a direct line to the target, the lower will be the estimate of patrol speed. This is a simple trigonometry problem relating to the cosine of the angle between the target and the ground reflector, hence the name Cosine error. Since Cosine error always makes patrol speed seem smaller than it actually is, it always acts to raise the reading of target speed.

5. Double-Bounce Error
Microwaves are easily reflected. That's what makes radar possible. But the operator must be aware of the difference between an ordinary reflection and a bad bounce. Big objects such as trucks are very efficient reflectors, and it's possible for the radar beam to bounce off several moving trucks at once, always producing erroneous readings.

6. Beam-Reflection error
Because microwaves are so readily reflected, Texas instructors recommend caution, even in mounting the antenna within the patrol car. They say it's possible that a reflective path can be set up through the rear-view mirror that will produce radar readings on vehicles behind the patrol car when the radar is aimed forward. And those vehicles behind can be either coming or going, since radar does not distinguish directions.

7. Road-sign error
The ready reflectability of microwaves means that road signs are also source of errors.

8. Radio-Interference Error
According to the Texas course, "UHF radio now in use can force radar to read various numbers when you transmit, or just key the mike. Citizens band radio transmissions from within the patrol vehicle can cause ghosting (false readings)." It recommends that no radio transmissions be made while clocking target vehicles.

9. Fan-Interference error
When the antenna is mounted inside the patrol car, the Texas course says, "Radar will have a tendency to read the pulse of the fan motor (air conditioner, heater, or defroster)." The instructors go on to say, however, that the fan reading will disappear when a target comes into range, and that the fan will not distort the speed reading of the target car.

However, in the case of moving radar, they say, "Sometimes a steady fan speed will override patrol car speed reflected from the roadway." When this happens, the false speed reading produced by the fan will be substituted for patrol speed in the moving radar's calculation of target speed. Since the calculation consists of subtracting patrol speed from closing speed, if the fan reading is less than patrol speed, then the speed displayed for the target will be incorrectly high.

Back to Top

Speed Laser (Lidar) mistakes

Police LIDAR can also make errors if not operated according to the manufacturer's guidelines.

1. Stationary - Laser cannot be used in moving mode, they must be used whilst stationary.  Similar to radar, laser cannot be used in the rain, snow, or high dust environments.

2. Interference - If for any reasons intended signal returns are interrupted, it may not be able to determine target velocity. Bright lights (such as Halogens) beaming directly into a laser aperture may desensitize or entirely masks target's echoes. The brighter and closer the light source the greater the chance of interference.

3. Cosine Error - Is the angle from 0* perpendicular to the target vehicle. The greater the cosine angle the greater the error. However, cosine error is always in favor of the motorist, one of the speed readings will be will be proportionally less than the actual speed of the target vehicle.

4. Sweep Error (also known as pan or slip error) - Is manifested when the laser is aimed at one part of the vehicle, say the license plate, and due to the motion of the operator, the laser also targets a side mirror during the same trigger pull. Sweep Error adds to the real speed of the target vehicle. See videos below.

5. Reflection Error - On very hot days with low humidity a visible mirage/reflection of the target vehicle is created. In many cases, when the laser is aimed at the target vehicle the infrared beam also receives readings from both the target vehicle and the mirage causing a Sweep Error.

6. Overexposure Error - When a laser gun receives an extremely powerful reflective signal, such as a sun flare off a vehicle, the computer's timer can't see return of the 904 nanometer signal it sent. It can't compute a speed reading. In general, the laser gun is looking for the strongest return reflection of its own emitted beam for speed computation.

LTI 20-20 exposed as unreliable (source)

Daily Mail, 15th October 2005.

Experts and two investigations by the BBC's Inside Out program and The Daily Mail have revealed that the police's favourite speed gun, the LTI 20-20, is flawed and can produce incorrect and unreliable speed readings. The device is used in some 3500 speed traps around the UK, but motorists have been prosecuted for speeding when they're adamant that they weren't over the limit. However, the main expert witness called by the CPS to defend the equipment in court is the boss of the UK importer, Frank Garratt, a former police officer and now a millionaire.

In tests the speed gun recorded a wall speeding at 44mph. (Yes, a brick wall, that's not a misprint) Other tests showed a bicycle doing 66mph and a parked car doing 22mph. The Daily Mail reports that even when the camera is set up following the police's own guidelines and the manufacturer's handbook some of the readings were wildly off the mark.

The newspaper wrote "The Mail can expose the scandal of a speed enforcement industry in which the collection of fines is considered paramount - whatever the consequences for innocent drivers caught in police traps by faulty readings." Lawyers told the paper that motorists are now rebelling by refusing to pay fines and fighting their cases through the courts. One solicitor, Barry Culshaw from Southampton, is representing 15 clients who all claim to have been a victim of faulty LTI 20-20 readings.

Another discovery, writes The Daily Mail, is that vital video film, often taken as secondary evidence, is often mysteriously withheld from accused motorists by the CPS. On at least 10 occasions the CPS has suddenly dropped the case against a motorist when ordered by a judge to hand over the revealing footage. 

Dr Michael Clark is Europe's leading expert on laser technology and a former directory of a company making laser detection equipment for traffic lights and car parks. He's also a fierce critic of the speed gun and has acted as an expert witness on behalf of many motorists since he defended himself after being caught for alleged speeding.

Dr Clark says the gun is defective because its wide beam can easily pick up the wrong vehicle and if not held firmly on the target (which is a difficult task itself) it can produce an erroneous speed result because of "slippage".

Reflections from road signs and from other cars, even stationary ones, can also make the laser device misinterpret the true speed of the vehicle. The LTI 20-20 works by sending out a beam to measure the distance of the target from the officer operating it and also how long it takes for the beam to reflect off the target and bounce back. The operator looks through the sights and sees a red dot which he aims onto the target and presses a trigger. Critically the beam must be held firmly at the same point on the moving vehicle. But if slippage occurs and the beam moves up, down, or along the vehicle the gun will measure an inaccurate reading.

In tests in the USA, it was shown that if the beam slips from the windscreen of a car down to its grille on the bonnet it can add 8mph onto the vehicle's measured speed. If it slips along the length of the car - which is possible when a vehicle comes around a corner into the speed gun's sights - a whopping 30mph can be added on to the reading.

The BBC's experiments with the LTI 20-20 were dismissed by both the UK importers and ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) saying it was impossible for the gun to make any errors and that the BBC used an American version of the gun which they claim has less reliable software.

However, that claim was been rejected by the Daily Mail who obtained a UK version of the gun - a LTI 20-20 Ultralyte certified by Tele-Traffic, the UK importers based in Warwick.

Dr Clark points out during the experiments that the gun uses a multi-mode laser which uses 3 beams, not one. Over a long distance the beams widen so if it's targeted onto one vehicle it can unintentionally hit another vehicle nearby by mistake. Dr Clark said "A policeman can't tell from 400 meters away - or even at a longer distance in many cases - exactly which car he is marking." To demonstrate his point they parked a car at the side of the road and drove a white van past it at just 3mph. The laser gun was pointed at the car from 371 meters away which, according to the handbook, is easily within its capabilities.

As soon as the van drove past the parked car the laser gun picked up the moving van. It was impossible to target just the parked car along and as a result the car was recorded as travelling at 3mph, even though it was really stationary. The experiment was repeated with the van doing 26mph and the gun clocked the parked car at 26mph.

Another problem is reflection from other vehicles. They pointed the gun at a different parked car and slowly drove the white van past. It recorded the parked car doing 22mph. Dr Clark explains "The beam sometimes catches the reflection of a nearby car. It zig-zags to this car before carrying on to the target vehicle and returns by the same route."

In their final experiment they pointed the gun at a brick wall with no moving vehicles in the area. They moved the beam along the wall instead of keeping it perfectly still on a single point to create the slippage effect. The gun was confused and showed a speed of 44mph. Dr Clark said "This shows how a traffic officer can mistakenly pick up a reading from a wall by the side of a motorway or even an empty road if he doesn't target a vehicle properly. Of course there's no record to prove if an officer had targeting the vehicle properly or not. Assumption of accuracy is always taken for granted even if the officer had unwittingly made a mistake.

ACPO state that the gun shouldn't be used at distances more than 500 meters, but Dr Clark says that it's being used in some cases at double that distance.

Despite the recent media interest in these issue the shortcomings of the gun was discovered nearly a decade ago in 1996 in the US state of New Jersey. The state temporarily banned the gun after a court witnessed someone targeting the gun on a wall of the courtroom and it measured 4mph. The lawyer, Joe Maccarone, defending a motorist accused of speeding called on an expert from NASA. The expert said that at just over 300 metres there was only a 60% chance of a human operator hitting a 12 foot wide target with a laser gun. Cars are only 6 foot wide so the chances of hitting something other than the target are very high indeed.

Hand-held laser mistakes videos:

Back to Top

Speed camera mistakes:

Once again the police and the government would like to have us believe in their "utmost confidence in the accuracy of speed cameras".  Of course they would, as a proven fault could cost them millions of dollars in repaid fines (like what happened in Victoria) and a loss of revenue.  But how accurate are the Western Australian Multanova 6F speed cameras?

"As the police officer was not in a position to estimate accurately the speed of the vehicle with the naked eye and did not take meaningful notes, his evidence, apart from the evidence from the Multanova , was not sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the motor vehicle owned by the defendant was speeding on the date in question.

Multinova readings are admissible if the surroundings reveal that the evidence is both accurate and enjoys circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. The circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness were not supplied by the police officer's visual observations. The onus was on the crown to prove that the Multanova was capable of accurately measuring the speed of the defendant's vehicle, while it is not necessary for the Crown to establish through expert evidence how the particular speed detection device works scientifically, there must be relevant and appropriate evidence on the record from which the court can conclude that the device was functioning properly at the time of the alleged offence. The tests performed on the instrument to ensure its accuracy must be approved tests and these tests must satisfy the trier of fact that the instrument is capable of accurately measuring speed. Something other than simply turning the instrument on and relying on it to test itself is required. The fact (assuming that such a fact was established) that the "self-test" performed in this case is all that is required by the manufacturer does not mean that the test is an "approved test". The "self-test" was insufficient to satisfy the required circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness." (source)

Back to Top

What is the best defence against each of these speed measuring devices??

Simple! - "Don't speed" - I hear echo amongst the narrow minded.  That's fine, and we agree whole heartedly, but "Don't speed and you won't have to pay a fine" assumes three very important things:

1) The speed limit is clearly indicated (Kwinana Freeway road works with two different posted speed limits on either side of the road ring a bell?)

2) Your car's speedometer is accurate.

3) The radar, laser or speed camera that measures your speed was accurate.

So what happens when you are driving down the road, sitting on 80km/h (according to your speedometer) in an 80km/h stretch of road, but you cop a speeding fine?

We will analyze each WA speed measuring device and discuss the products available:

Hand-held radar:

The "Falcon" hand held radar gun (made in the USA) operates on K-band.  The police officer points the "gun" towards the approaching vehicle and squeezes the trigger.  In this "instant on" mode you have little warning if you're the only car on the road.  The ideal situation for early warning is if a motorist in front of you is targeted first, and the radar beam travels past his car, it is detected by your radar.  Most detectors (cheap included) will detect the K-band radar at long range.

Dash Mounted radar:

The dash mounted Golden Eagle by Kustom Signals is similar to the hand-held radar above, operating on K-band.  When the police officer is driving down the road "shooting" at on-coming traffic he is doing it in two ways; "constant on" or "instant on".  In constant on, the radar beam is constantly transmitting down the road.  When an oncoming car enters the radar's beam, a reflected signal is returned to the gun, and a speed is displayed on the unit.  Again, any decent radar detector will give advanced warning in this scenario.

In "instant on" the radar unit is powered on, but not transmitting.  When the approaching vehicle is within range, the radar gun is then switched on (transmitting) and the target vehicle's speed is displayed within a second.  "Instant on" radar can be deadly, especially, if you're the only car on the road.  For this reason it pays to keep a "rabbit" in front of you so he or she is targeted first and you can detect the police radar in advance.

What about a radar jammer?

Some people have queried the possibility of a radar jammer.

Your most important question in purchasing a so-called radar jammer should be "does it work?"
 
You may have seen them advertised on other websites and some magazines: the passive radar/laser jammers (also known as radar scramblers).  Some passive jammers are Phantom, Phantom II, Phaser or Phazar, the Phantom III and The Black Widow.

Passive radar Jammers DO NOT WORK!  These "jammers" are usually manufactured by a company called Rocky Mountain Radar (RMR). We have tested many of their units and we have yet to find one that works as advertised.

Know what to avoid before you purchase such a passive jammer, consider reading the "Jamming Testing Report" by Radar Roy first to find out why we do not sell and/or recommend them.

Active Radar Jammers - Not Much Improvement! You may have also heard of the active radar jammers with the name of Phantom RCD XP or The Scorpion. These do work to a limited degree.

Active radar jammers like those named above, only jam X, K with any success and have difficulty jamming Instant on radar.  Their effectiveness against Ka radar is even less, especially at close range.  Read a test report on active radar jammers here.

Hand-held laser (lidar):

Laser guns are another "deadly" device in that they can calculate your speed in less than a second.  Although most radar detectors include a laser sensor, they usually offer little more than a "ticket notifier" when they go off.  Having said that, there ARE circumstances where a laser (detector) can and has, provided adequate warning...

although these are few and far times in between.  Click on the video to the left (allow pop-ups) to watch just how quickly a police laser gun acquires vehicle's speeds.

So what is the best defenses against laser?  Well, as far as a detector goes, the best at detecting laser is the Valentine One.  Granted we just finished convincing you a detector is useless against laser, but the Valentine One, will give you the best chance of detecting "off-axis" laser from the car in front of you being targeted.  For proof that the Valentine is the best unit at detecting laser, you can read Bob's (The Veilguy) Laser Detector test:

"That being stated, these results suggest that, especially in close-range laser encounters, the Valentine 1 is the top performing laser detector, by a wide-margin, followed by the Escort 8500 X50 and more closely, the STi Driver, and the Beltronics RX65 Pro.."

We conducted out own laser jammer test and came to the same conclusions.

But as aforementioned, just detecting the laser won't be enough.  The most cost effective solution is with the use of Veil anti-laser paint.  Veil will give you additional seconds warning time when used in conjunction with a good laser detector.  You can read more about Veil in our laser jammers section.

The best defense against laser is by the use of an active laser jammer.  Unlike most active radar jammers, active laser jammers do work.  An active laser jammer will prevent a speed being displayed for a brief time whilst you adjust your speed if necessary.  The best laser jammers for the Australian model LTI Ultralyte according to the Guys Of Lidar 2007 test are the Laser Interceptor and the Blinder.  You need to look at the results for the Ultralyte 100pps as these are the laser guns used in Australia.  The Laser Pro Park finished fifth in the test against these laser guns.

Multanova Speed Cameras:

The Multanova 6F speed camera operates on Ka-band at 34.3GHz at such a low power level, you require a VERY GOOD detector to achieve any advanced warning, especially when the radar is pointed at the rear of traffic, taking your photo after you have driven past.  The best radar detectors for Multanova speed cameras are ones that either through their fixed or user-adjustable programming, can specifically look for the Multanova's 34.3GHz signal of the Multanova.  This is referred to as "Ka-narrow band" or "Ka-narrow sweep".  Instead of scanning the entire Ka-band of 33.400GHz to 36.000GHz (a range of 2600MHz or 2.6GHz) the detectors with "Ka-narrow" scan a much lower range of around 200MHz.

Think of it like your car's FM radio. If you started at the very bottom of the FM band range, its about 88FM and the top is something like 106FM. Let's say you wanted to pick up an intermittent radio station at 96.1FM

If your radio had to always scan from 88FM all the way up to 106FM when the only station you could possibly pick up was 96.1FM then you see the wasted time in scanning the whole FM band (think Ka-band) for that one signal.

Now lets say you had a FM radio that you could program to only scan from 95.9 to 96.3 FM. Obviously it would detect a 96.1FM signal a LOT faster than one that was scanning the entire range (think Ka super wide band) .

Keeping with this analogy, Australia has a FM radio "band allowance" of 88FM up to 106FM. But lets say USA has an FM allocation of 82FM to 115FM. And if we bought a car radio from the USA and the only intermittent radio station we could detect was 96.1FM, and by design the radio had to scan the entire band, you can see why detectors made for the USA do not perform so well against Multanovas in Western Australia (or anywhere else)

So if we can program our detector to only scan small slices of the Ka-band range, we dramatically improve the sensitivity on low powered, weak signals like the Multanova.

This is similar to how the "Ka-narrow" setting works on radar detectors, such as the Bel 990i, the Bel 975r, Bel 966r, Bel (Target) Euro 550, Euro 330 and the Valentine One.  Popular radar detectors such as the Bel RX65, Bel STi (Bel XR) and Bel XR950 do not have this "Ka-narrow" programming therefore do not perform as well against the Multanova cameras as those detectors that do.  This is why we struggle to see how the so-called "Aus tuned" Beltronics detectors sold in Australia really are tuned for our conditions!

Back to Top

How does each radar detector perform detecting WA radars, lasers & cameras?

Summary for best radar detector for WA:

You can read the detailed test reports in our reviews section, but against all Western Australian threats, the Valentine One in combination with Veil anti-laser paint is the best combination for protection against all current radar, laser and speed cameras.

Back to Top

What are the laws governing the use of radar detectors in WA

In Western Australia there are NO laws banning the use of a radar detector, however you may be fined for obstructing your windscreen if you have it mounted in the middle of the windshield. 

It is unknown why radar detectors have not been banned in WA (whereas they have in all other Australian states), although we suspect some members of the WA parliament have the foresight to see radar detectors save lives - because after all, isn't that what speed cameras are all about?

Below is an excerpt from parliament.wa.gov.au

HON FRANK HOUGH (Agricultural) [11.13 pm]: I will be reasonably brief. It was mentioned in a weekend newspaper that radar detectors in motor vehicles may be banned in Western Australia. I think the reason radar detectors may be banned is to extract more revenue from the cash cow Multanovas. I have a copy of a report on radar detectors in the United Kingdom, which highlights a few facts and figures about the use of radar detectors and the correlation between radar use and accidents caused by speeding or unsafe driving. It is an important report. It states, in part -

The use of radar detectors became legal in the UK on 29/1/98 when a Mr David Foot won an appeal when a High Court judge overturned a conviction for using a detector.

The United Kingdom is now in line with most European states, including Germany, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Greece, Italy and Portugal, in allowing the free use of radar detectors. The United States has in the vicinity of 15 million radar detectors in cars. They can be bought from such stores as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Mori poll research of 19 May 2001 reported that United Kingdom radar users are involved in 24 per cent fewer accidents. As a result of that survey in the United Kingdom, motoring organisations, such as the Royal Automobile Club and the Association of British Drivers, are now supporting their use. The statistics resulting from the Mori poll support an earlier United States survey by Yankelovich, Clancy and Schulman, which disclosed a figure of 23 per cent fewer accidents and motorists driving almost 60 000 more miles between accidents. My car has a radar and so do the cars of many other members.

Hon Ken Travers: You do not speed anyway.

Hon FRANK HOUGH: I do not speed, but the radar detector has a tendency to keep me awake. It beeps at various times and makes me aware of my speed. Radar detectors are a very good thing.

Many British police officers, when questioned, said that they support the use of radar detectors. They argue that radar detector users are regularly made aware of both their speed and the police presence, which in turn has a moderating or calming influence on other traffic. Radar detector users are more regularly confronted with their own speed through the false alarm condition of a detector. My radar detector goes off regularly. It makes me look at my speed. When there is a car in front, or a service station or a shopping centre with electronic doors, the radar detector continually beeps. However, when the car passes a Multanova or a radar speed detector, it has a slightly different tone. At times when I have passed a radar speed detector, fortunately I have been within the speed limit.

The Government should look at radar detectors. The Mori poll survey supports this. After purchasing a detector, 76 per cent of users agree that they have become more conscious about keeping to the speed limit; 59 per cent agree that they have become safer drivers; 78 per cent agree that they are more aware of the speed limit in the areas in which they are driving; and 81 per cent agree that they have become more aware of speed generally. I could go on and on about this, but I will not.

Hon Kim Chance: Only for another five minutes and four seconds.

Hon FRANK HOUGH: I do have five minutes but I will not use them.

It worries me that this is becoming another area of cash-cow-type income for the Government. I guess that one could refer to it as a road tax. Radar detectors are important. If one drives in the country or at night, the radar detector keeps one aware of what is going on. It would be a crying shame for this State to ban or outlaw radar detectors.

If the Minister for Police is considering banning radar detectors, I suggest that she do her homework with great care to make sure that she gets her facts right. Rather than look at another income opportunity, she should look at the safety factors that are very clearly reported, particularly in the United Kingdom and the United States; that is, that radar detectors do help motorists and make them aware that keeping within the speed limit is important.

Contrary to what Australian police and most politicians believe, the majority of radar detector owners did not buy their radar detector as a "license to speed".  In fact the small minority of those drivers that did buy a detector for that purpose quickly realize their mistake by means a costly speeding fine.  A radar

We applaud Frank Hough for taking an objective view and looking at the benefits and safety of using radar detectors in other countries around the world.

Download the Mori report which (among many things) shows radar detector owners have fewer accidents.

Back to Top

Can the police determine if you are using a radar detector?

Because there are no anti-detector laws, there are no police Radar Detector Detectors (RDD's) used in W.A.

Back to Top

What are the Speeding Fines for WA? (source)

Less than 9 km/h   - $75    plus 0 Demerit Points      (was $50  0 Points)
10 km/h - 19 km/h - $150   plus 2 Demerit Points      (was $100 1 Point)
20 km/h - 29 km/h - $250   plus 3 Demerit Points      (was $150 3 Points)
30 km/h - 40 km/h - $350   plus 5 Demerit Points      (was $250 4 Points)
More than 40 km/h - $1000 plus 7 Demerit Points    (was $350 6 Points)

 

Offence captured by a red light camera: $150 plus three demerit points.

 

1st March 2008 - new fines for not wearing a seatbelt:

1/3/08 - Using a hand-held mobile phone while driving - $250 and 3 demerit points

 

Back to Top

If I wasn't speeding, how can I challenge/beat a speeding fine?

If you have been booked for speeding, and you were, then you should face the music and cough-up.  But what if you weren't actually speeding?

Remember that when you are pulled over and booked for speeding, the incident is alleged… not proven! The following rules will ensure you do not make the mistake of answering the police’s questions the wrong way.

Quite often the first question a policeman asks you is "Do you know why I pulled you over"?  Here, the policeman is looking for an admission of guilt.  By answering him "because I was going too fast?" immediately incriminates you by admitting you were speeding (even if you weren't). 

The other question commonly asked by a policeman when he pulls you over is "Why were you speeding?" Again, he or she is looking for an admission of guilt.  Do not admit that you were speeding or may have been speeding. There will be no chance of defending yourself in court later on. Remember that you are not under arrest and your only obligation is to hand over your driving license and registration.

Remember the 3 rules when pulled over:

Rule number one is your answer to the question, "Why were you speeding?" Simply reply:

"I was not speeding Officer, I was sitting exactly on the posted speed limit"

Rule number two is your answer to the Officer if he persists in repeating question 1 by saying his equipment (Radar / Laser) has shown that you were speeding. Simply reply,

"I was not speeding Officer, if your equipment says I was then I would strongly suggest that it is faulty. Will you show me the last infringement notice you issued so I may compare to see if their speed was the same as the one you are claiming I was doing?"

In most cases, the policeman will show you your reading but refuse to show you his or her previous infringement fine, citing that he is not obliged to do so.

The third rule is perhaps the most important of all. Under the National Safety Committee guidelines for the use and implementation of Police Speed detection devices, the police are only supposed to be operating them in known "Black Spot" or high accident areas. Innocently ask the question to the policeman,,