This thread demonstrates how a flawed understanding of metrology can lead to all sorts of weird and wonderful results. Lets separate out the component parts.
I think all now understand that the FCC/Industry Canada Certifications in the User manual have nearly nothing to do with the accuracy/precision of the speed measuring function of a particular the lidar/radar unit.
It must be understood that independent calibration/records and operator/instrument self checks are two very necessary, but different and separate, items.
Unfortunately for Radar Identified, in the real world of Metrology, independent certified calibrations trump operator test and internal self-checks, always, every time. Seriously, get this straight. I don't care what the courts have been convinced to accept as expeditious, independent calibrations are not optional and cannot be replaced by operator anything. Also, no records promptly produced on demand, no evidence of valid calibrations. Period, end of discussion.
Independent calibration establishes the accuracy/precision of the instrument against, and traceable to, a KNOWN, INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED STANDARD. Depending on the measurement involved, the calibration may eventually be traceable to something as tangible as the ISO Standard Meter in Paris, or to the something as intangible as the wavelength of the light emanating from a certain atom at particular set of conditions. Without regular checks against a Known Standard, any measuring instrument cannot be assumed by the operator or the courts to be accurate or precise. If the courts have ruled radar/lidar do not need regular independent calibrations, they are flying in the face of hundreds, if not thousands, of years of measurement history and practical knowledge. 50 years ago, universal ISO compliance was mostly a pipedream, but today is is basic boilerplate in any industry you can name. The courts need to step into the 20th Century. (Jibe intended.)
The operator and self checks are merely interim tests to assure the operator and the "consumer" (in this case, the defendant and the court) that there is no immediate indication of a malfunction. These operator checks do not compare the instrument function against a KNOWN external Standard. This means these cannot be held to carry the same weight as full independent calibrations, they are merely expedient means to demonstrate due diligence and a basic operator competence. The "the officer didn't correctly and completely follow the test procedure in the manual" defense still holds if that is the case. In other words, if an officer isn't competent to do the test/self-checks properly, he/she is not competent to take speed readings with it, no matter what training certificates awarded.
So we have established that both periodic independent calibrations/documentation AND "each shift" operator/self-tests/notations are required to verify that a particular radar or lidar unit is CAPABLE giving accurate readings IF OPERATED PROPERLY and can be demonstrated not to be subject to other error conditions beyond calibration errors.
The "records" at the detachment may indeed show the radar/lidar is "calibrated". But if these are not readily available to be presented and found to be 100% correct/complete every time, they are next to useless. Given that no (ex)officer here replied to my direct question as to whether they had seen calibration stickers/seals on any radar/lidar unit, we must assume the only "calibrations" generally done were before the original purchase or after "repairs by the vendor". (Again, the vendor is not generally considered an "independent, third party" testing facility.) That aside, EVERY disclosure request should at a minimum note the certificate # and date of the last calibration, as well as any operator/self-checks.
As for "operator error" and "situational/conditions errors". There was a time when hand-held video/radar/lidar units were unavailable. You all know there are now many radar/lidar units that overlay all the information on either a still or video record. These were created to eliminate as many operator and sensing "errors" as possible. But in Ontario, we leave the Mahony-Bruers to literally make up whatever numbers they like. An extreme case, perhaps, but try to tell us that no officer anywhere EVER fudged the numbers up to "teach a young pup a lesson".
Enough already. Why is there so much effort spent defending a speed enforcement scheme which depends on woefully inadequate assurances of accuracy/precision and is totally dependent on the officer's ability to remain impartial and scrupulously honest.
In the end, this issue only exists because of the intransigence of the enforcement/prosecutorial community to open scrutiny, and compliance to the same standards as the rest of us. It is not about the legalistic ballet that happens before the courts. If speed enforcement was a product or service handled by the industrial sector, it would be brought into compliance with ISO and Industry Canada Standards in a matter of weeks.
) at 100 km/h because I pulled the needle off and placed it exactly on the line. It's slightly off at other speeds but nothing to be worried about - when it says 50 km/h I'm actually going 52. Our new Buick Regal has a digital speedometer which is almost dead on - when it reads 100 km/h I'm actually going 101 km/h.
