2. Does speed kill?

The current use of speed cameras (including radars and lidars) is generating hundreds of millions of dollars for State Governments at the expense of Australian lives.

The current NSW Government road safety policy uses a "speed kills" mentality with lower speed limits stringently policed by speed cameras, radar and lidar. Sadly, its justification is based on lies about how many lives speed cameras can save and that speeding above the limit is the major cause of road fatalities.

There is no government scientific data or study available that states how many lives are lost above the speed limit. The major studies and reports referred to by the Government, used to justify speed cameras, are grossly misleading-some would say fraudulent. The vast majority of the data presented is from crashes that occur below the speed limit.

The NSW Speed Problem Definition and Countermeasure Summary(August 2000) is a prime example of a government study used to justify the implementation and use of speed cameras. It claims, "speeding still accounts for around 40% of all fatal crashes in NSW". So far this statement is logical from their interpretation of the data, but then it states, "speeding can also involve travelling too fast for the prevailing conditions, despite travelling under the posted speed limit." (Study available at http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/speedprobl_dl1.html )

Their definition of "speeding" therefore includes data from below as well as above the speed limit. Remember, this is a study used to justify the implementation of speed cameras that can only detect driving above the speed limit, not below it.

The same general definition of "speeding" and other statements such as "involved excessive speed", "caused by speed" etc. are the axes of the lie. The studies invariably avoid segmenting above the speed limit crashes from below the speed limit crashes while using definitions such as "speeding" and "non-speeding" in their place. Many statistics for accidents and fatalities grouped in the "speeding" category include circumstances in which the attending police officer without any forensic investigation makes the assumption that speed was a factor.

So what are the real above and below the speed limit road crash figures? And what is really the danger on our roads? Information is limited but RoadSense.com.au research shows that less than 2% of road deaths are caused by travel above the speed limit (refer figure 1). Importantly this 2% also includes police chases, criminal activity, suicides and more (http://www.roadsense.com.au/misleading_data.html).

This means that 98% of the 1600 road fatalities last year in Australia occurred below the speed limit. Yet not a single study that justifies the use of speed cameras recommends how to reduce the road toll where the vast majority of road crashes occur-below the speed limit. And speed cameras also do not deter speeding on corners where many young drivers come to grief.

Figure1. Graph showing the break-up of the causes of deaths on our roads

Because speed cameras can only possibly reduce the road toll above the speed limit it means these devices can possibly save 32 lives in a year-that is if it were possible to stop everyone from ever exceeding the posted speed limits. Take away the police chases and others that do not involve the average road user then possibly 16 lives could be saved while over 1550 die below the speed limits. Remember this is Australia wide. In NSW it is possible that 4 lives could have been saved.

Compare this number to the 700 people who die in NSW from suicide each year (NSW Health ‚ Suicide Prevention 1999). This massive loss of life due to suicide is attributed to factors such as depression and loss of self esteem. And therefore, it is interesting to note that, drivers who lose their licenses, especially when they were not speeding, can become both extremely depressed and lose self esteem. Unfortunately, there is no study to my knowledge that has examined this link.

Impact collision rather than speed kills.

Whilst impact collision kills people, even in driveways, speed is never the root cause. At best, it can be described as a factor. Yes. Speed is a factor ‚ if two cars were stationery there would be no impact. This is basic physics. Newton's first law states that an object moves with constant velocity unless acted upon by a net external force (in this case impact).

People regularly travel at speeds above those in which car accidents take place. For example, each day millions of people routinely travel by air at speeds in excess of 700km/h and with substantially reduced risks of fatality. What we need to be focusing on is avoiding impact. This can only happen as a result of improving road users' ability to avoid collision. This can be achieved through a number of areas: improved roads with better cambers and more visibility, safer vehicles (better brakes, tyres, steering and safety mechanisms), better road awareness training for young children and more defensive driving training for inexperienced motorists with an emphasis on looking out for hazards.

Current speeding policy is not saving lives

The "speeding" lie would be easier to accept if it was saving lives but it is not. Prior to the introduction of speed cameras the road toll was declining steadily due to common sense policies, more visible police on the road, safer vehicles, improved roads, improved paramedic skills and more. Between 1980 and 1992 the road toll declined by around 40% (ATSB data at http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/stats/current.cfm & graph on RoadSense website.). And as more vehicles are fitted with air bags, electronic stability control and other safety features, we would expect that along with the NSW Government's justification for using speed cameras, the road toll would decline - it has not. It has halted the decline in deaths, abruptly.

According to RoadSense.com.au, based on Australian Transport Safety Bureau statistics, the road toll would have been less by 500 lives in 2004 had the previous beneficial trend been allowed to continue. (ATSB data at http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/stats/current.cfm & graph on RoadSense website.) Similar trends have been shown in New Zealand at www.fastsafe.org.au and on www.safespeed.org.uk in the United Kingdom.

The main reason for the failure of this "speed kills' policy is that in urban areas driver focus has changed from getting safely to their destination to not getting caught by a speed camera. Speed cameras are a massive distraction. And in addition to this distraction, low speed limits lead to boredom, inattention and drowsiness. And obviously from the statistics, the NSW Government is focusing on the wrong "culprit' of Australia's road deaths.

So the main reason speed cameras are not reducing the road toll, is simply that so few crashes occur because of travel above the speed limit. But while speed cameras exist, along with low speed limits, the average Australian is paying out millions of dollars in fines, while driving safely and to the conditions of the road, their experience and their vehicle.

A brief review of some recent studies and campaigns

The University of Adelaide conducted a government-paid study supposedly to investigate the effects of speed and recommend a response. The study found that 68.2% of accidents were the result of a vehicle turning in front of another vehicle. This massive number of accidents would have been avoided had the driver been following the road rules. Speed may or may not have contributed, but the main message here is about the driver not following the road rules. Questionably, the report suggested that speed cameras are the answer. But the report does not offer solutions for reducing this 68.2% of accidents, caused by driver error or the inability to follow road rules. See http://raru.adelaide.edu.au/speed/index.html and www.roadsense.com.au).

A recent Road Transport Authority (RTA) campaign based on a NSW Government sponsored study through Monash University examines two cars, one travelling at 60km/h and another at 65km/h. It shows that the car travelling at 60km/h hits at 5km/h and the other hits at 32km/h. What it does not show is that had the car travelling at 65km/h steered around and/or accelerated instead of braking, it would have completely missed the accident and the occupants would have remained uninjured. Hence, slowing down was the most dangerous action that the driver could have taken in the circumstances.

Another campaign showed a child running from between two cars. In this instance it would have made no difference if the driver was going at 40km/h or 60km/h. In neither case would the driver have seen the child and in both cases the driver would have hit the child at speed. The real issue here is education and supervision for children who are unable to determine when it is safe to be on the road.

In USA, the government commissioned CATO Institute Report "Speed Does not Kill" (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-346es.html) found that accidents actually decreased when speed limits where raised. In Norway (reported in Aftenposten 27 Mar 2003), accidents have been decreased where speed limits have been increased. In Italy, on implementing increased speed limits the Roads Minister Pietro Lunardi commented on 9 Feb 2003 "All psychologists and doctors say people who go faster, drive better and are more careful. Only 9% of fatal accidents were caused by speeding. Where it is safe to go faster, it is the right thing to do."

The only non-government sponsored research about Australian roads shows that the actual percentage is closer to one tenth of these figures. The Safe Speed in the UK (www.safespeed.org.uk) has scientific estimates of 3.75% and RoadSense (www.roadsense.com.au) in Australia shows figures at about 2% of fatalities are related to people driving in excess of the speed limit. This means that even total compliance to the signed speed limits cannot hope to reduce the road toll by any more than a couple of percentage points.

Problems with lowering speed limits

There are many problems associated with lower speed limits. Lower speed limits mean more congestion, longer delays, higher transport costs, increased pollution, and greater driver fatigue. Motorists become frustrated and may take unnecessary risks, to get to their destination more efficiently. Furthermore, accidents are caused by the implementation of slow speed limits as drivers are distracted from the act of driving and are more concerned with watching their speedometer or watching for speed cameras.

Harsher penalties force motorists to watch their speedometers more, and motorists brake suddenly when approaching fixed radar and speed camera sites. This is backed up by research by British Sociologist, Dr Alan Buckingham. Sudden braking on approaches to speed cameras causes accidents and has been shown by Paul Smith at www.safespeed.co.uk.

Any form of defensive driving teaches drivers to watch out for potential accidents and plan to avoid them. When people watch their speedometers, they reduce their ability to do this. The average delay in terms of brake reaction time for a person watching their speedometer, according to a study conducted by Department of Psychology, Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki was 2.1 seconds longer for you to react to brake lights on the car ahead. (Accident Analysis and Prevention Vol 30, No. 4). The same study found that more experienced drivers tended to watch further ahead. Safespeed (www.safespeed.org.uk ) conducted a study that found that it takes 1.1 sec to check your speedometer before you are focused on the road again. It also found drivers take 3-5 speedometer checks to slow down before a speed camera.

Dr Buckingham's research further highlighted the following:

3. Do our speed detection systems work?

In NSW there are four main ways that NSW government can deem you as having been speeding.

a.      Radar (eg. A Silver Eagle Series radar)

b.     Lidar (eg. Kustom Pro Laser Series)

c.      Speed Camera using piezo triggers

d.     Visual assessment by a police officer

All of these systems have major problems and flaws. However, the NSW Government would have you believe that our system is perfect.

a)     Radar

The radar is based on Doppler physics. That means that it is bound by the laws associated with the scientific principles involved

According to the NSW Police Academy Silver Eagle Program ‚ Radar Operation Manual "By directing electromagnetic waves at a target and analysing the echo ... Measuring the length of time taken for a reflection to return allows calculation of range..." Radar basically sends an electromagnetic wave out and it bounces back off any reflective surfaces. The time taken to bounce back is used to calculate the distance. Subsequent beams are sent out and the distance is again measured. The velocity (speed) is then calculated by subtracting one distance from the second distance and dividing the result by the time between the two signals. This is all well and good when there is a straight flat road with no reflective surfaces in the path of the radar except the target vehicle, and the police vehicle is stationery. Unfortunately, in reality this is rarely the case and the constraints of radar are not acknowledged in practice.

Even the NSW Police Academy Silver Eagle Program-Radar Operation Manual details a number of circumstances where the radar is not to be used because it cannot give accurate results.

Part 4.1 of the manual explains that "...The radar operator must fully understand this subject so that action can be taken to avoid mistakes due to interference...." Hence, the device relies on the police officer to use the device correctly. Furthermore part 4.2 explains that it is possible for a speed to be displayed in the absence of a target. 

Moreover, part 4.3 explains that there are a number of issues that can cause interference and hence incorrect readings. "Large trees, bushes and signs moved by the wind, heavy rain or snow, windblown dust, in fact any particulate matter in the air ... It has been found that heavy, driven rain falling non perpendicular to the roadway can add to or subtract from correct patrol speed depending upon the relative direction of the radar... Movement constant enough to produce a frequency change equal to or greater than the threshold could produce a speed reading... Man made interference is by far the most troublesome ad constitutes the largest category. Large advertising signs if rotating or swinging may reflect the beam. Large broad bladed fans may also reflect sufficient energy to cause a speed reading. Electronic emissions from fluorescent lights, power transformers, x-ray and medical diathermy machines, high voltage transmission lines with leaky insulators, radio transmitters, mobile phones, automobile inverters, etc may in some circumstances cause a speed reading or a reduction in effective range. " The document even concedes that it is possible for a bird flying in close proximity to the radar to cause a reading.

The main circumstances where the radar is being used, against guidelines and therefore, deeming law abiding motorists as criminals, are:

The Herald Sun on 4 August 2005 explained that the Victorian Police rule book shows that specific restrictions are placed on the mobile speed cameras to address problems with reflective objects corrupting speed readings. According to the article, the rule book states cameras should not be setup near an overpass, or facing an elevated adjacent road that may carry traffic past the extended speed camera radar beam. Other sources of reflection are pole-mounted electricity supply transformers, metal signs such as for-sale or auction signs and Armco road barriers. Metal bus stop shelters, public telephone booths, Australia Post letter boxes, sheet metal garage doors, fences, factory walls and closely spaced iron picket fences are all listed as possible reflectors capable of distorting speed readings.

The Western Australian on 8 June 2001 reported “Queensland Police have stopped using the Kustom Silver Eagle mobile radar because mobile telephones interfere with it. About 50 Queensland traffic police cars were fitted with the Kustom Radar”.

The Herald Sun 7 June 2001 explained that Senior Police had told them that an electronic glitch caused by mobile phones and possibly mobile phone towers may cause the Silver Eagle radars to give inflated speed readings. The article explained that the devices were not designed to be used with the telephone networks used in Australia. It explained that QLD had withdrawn the Silver Eagle from service for this reason. A Current Affair 18 July 2005 also reported that QLD and WA had both stopped using the Silver Eagle Series Radar. But NSW Police still use Kustom Silver Eagle radars.

On Today Tonight 18 November, 2003 mobile radar operator Jeff Bowtell blew the whistle on mobile radar stating “his camera would go off even there wasn’t even a car in sight.” In the same article radar expert Dr Wolf Garwoli says “the manual instructs operators to avoid metal signs, mail boxes, real estate signs, trains, trams, electricity transformers and even garage doors, which can cause wrong readings”

In another interview (Today Tonight 19 November 2002), Dr Garwoli stated “it has been proven in court that 128 different factors can affect a speed camera or radar's accuracy, not to mention a car speedometer's accuracy.” Dr Garwoli believes that people are being wrongly booked. "I have no question about it" he said.

The Herald Sun on 4 August 2005 explained that Graeme Marr a defence witness and former camera operator, stated that drivers had been banned from the road because of wrongly issued speeding fines and that driving licenses had been suspended and cancelled as a result of the incorrect tickets. He said problems caused by reflected radar beams were rife in camera operations. Radar beams reflected off metal objects can corrupt speed readings and lead to an incorrect ticket being issued. Mr Marr stated that camera operators routinely set up in areas that breached the provisions of the manual, by having reflective surfaces in the path of the radar beam.

The Herald Sun on 17 April 2005 explained how Thomas Mulcare, a radar expert hired by the Victorian Government to test and assess the accuracy of radar had told a QLD court that motorists were being fined when police were using radars contrary to the Traffic Camera Office Manual and the Manufacturers manuals. It explains that “The manuals states that reflections from metal objects may distort the target vehicle’s speed, therefore such images are not suitable for prosecution.”

On A Current Affair on 18 July 2005, video evidence provided by Radar expert Roy Zegers was shown, demonstrating police officers breaking the law to infringe innocent motorists. The officers in question were using radar in ways that it was not designed for and thus producing inaccurate results. He stated that the number of people who should be challenging readings was as high as 60%. He also explained how police would routinely lower their radar antenna in order to infringe motorists illegally. Furthermore, in the same interview, Police Superintendent, John Lipman (who also prepared material for the NSW Police Academy Silver Eagle Program—Radar Operation Manual), explained that if officers followed guidelines that the Silver Eagle Radar was accurate. However, he was unable to confirm their accuracy if guidelines were not followed. Furthermore, he explained that the guidelines required that the radar only be used in rural areas. However, he conceded that police were using the devices to infringe motorists in built up areas, contrary to guidelines.

Harry Berelsford, in his book Under the Radar explains how he received a ticket and was found guilty even though he was not speeding due, probably to the high tension wires overhead. The police guidelines explain that radar is not to be used in these circumstances and yet he was found guilty of a crime he did not commit.

Phil Jones (Police v Phillip Jones 15 September 2004 at Nowra Local Court) was found guilty of speeding even though he proved he was not speeding. In his case, the police officer was using a radar in circumstances where it was not allowed to be used and had recorded a speed well above what Phil was actually travelling. Phil successfully proved his case. However, because the magistrate held the Silver Eagle Program – Radar Operation Manual and the mathematic calculations to be “guidelines only”, Phil was found guilty of speeding, even though he wasn’t.

Even the NSW Ombudsman report Speedometers and speeding fines April 2003 concedes that people are likely to receive speeding fines when they are not speeding. In fact in 1999, the NSW Ombudsman conducted an audit of 3 Subarus used in Operation Sibu that resulted in 530 fines being refunded where the speedometers were not accurate enough. (NSW Ombudsman publication Speedometers and speeding fines: 
A review of police practice June 2002).

The Sunday Courier Mail on 7 August 2005 reported that police would temporarily withdraw 180 mobile speed cameras from use in Queensland after they were found to be “too sensitive” to vehicle movement. The car mounted radars were picking up readings from oncoming cars that the operator could not see. 

In many cases, the issue of a speeding infringement comes down to the word of a police officer who has an incentive to infringe motorists. Their word is held in high esteem in the court system. It is no longer possible to sue them for damages for their false allegations. The Police Legislation Amendment (Civil Liability) Bill changed this on 13/11/2003 making it easy for corrupt police to easily get away with false allegations and wrongful infringements without being held accountable.

Australian Standard AS 2898.2—2003 details the following which need to be taken into account to comply with the standard which has the status of law in Australia.

2.4.2 Electromagnetic interference (EMI)

The operator shall ensure that the effects of electromagnetic interference are minimized by careful site selection.

2.4.3 Reflections from stationary objects

The operator shall ensure that the radar beam is not being reflected away from the direction in which it is being aimed by stationary objects as this may lead to incorrect target identification.

NOTE: Typical stationary reflective objects are advertising hoardings, traffic signs, parked vehicles, metallic fences, sheds and phone boxes.

2.4.4 Detection area

The operator shall take into account the full detection area and the fact that the speed of any moving object within the detection area could be being measured at any given time.

NOTE: The detection area varies with different makes of radar devices.

2.4.5 Traffic density

The operator shall take into account the traffic density at the site at the time of measurement to ensure that targets can be clearly identified.

2.4.6 Extraneous moving objects

The operator shall take into account the fact that moving objects which are not on the roadway being monitored can be within the detection area.

NOTE: Such objects can be on adjacent service roads or highways, on the other side of divided roads, on properties bordering the roadway, or there may be trains on adjacent railways.

2.4.7 Alignment

The operator shall ensure the beam of the radar device is related to the flow of traffic as follows:

(a) For slant radar devices, as near as possible to being parallel to the plane of the roadway and at the angle specified by the manufacturer, within the manufacturer’s specified tolerances.

NOTE: The operator should be aware of the fact that if a slant radar antenna is not aligned in accordance with the manufacturer’s specification, the speed measured by the radar device will be greater or less than the true speed of the target according to whether the angle to the flow of traffic is smaller or larger than specified.

(b) For direct radar devices, as close as possible to being directly in line with the direction of travel of the target.

NOTE: The operator should be aware of the fact that if a direct radar antenna is not aligned with the direction of travel of the target the speed measured by the radar device can be less than the true speed of the target. This is referred to as the ‘cosine angle effect’ because the measured speed is equal to the true speed multiplied by the cosine of the angle between the antenna and the direction of travel of the target and hence cannot be higher than the true speed.

Unfortunately, as we have seen from Roy Zegers video evidence, police officers do not always comply with the law.

The Sydney Morning Herald 5 November 2005 reported that in Goulburn Court 27th October 2005, Jerry Simotas proved that the Silver Eagle should not be used at all and that the radars could not be proved to be accurate. Jerry Simotas stated “In terms of accuracy, our expert, who is an electronics engineer, showed that police had only ever done half of the tests required by the manufacturer.” As a result, an internal memo was sent to area commanders in NSW to withdraw the use of the Silver Eagle radar at once.

b)    Lidar

The lidar works based on Doppler physics. That means that it is bound by the laws associated with the scientific principles involved

A lidar works similarly to radar. Even the NSW Police Academy Pro Laser II Training Manual shows a number of circumstances in which the lidar is not to be used because it cannot give accurate results. Whilst the lidar is relatively accurate, there are circumstances in which it does not work, mainly because the person shooting is only human and not even an Olympic marksman. Shooting a LIDAR gun is like trying to shoot a bullseye at the range of the vehicle. If you miss you could be hitting another vehicle. A person who sneezes, attempts to shoot at too greater range, shoots across lanes of traffic, etc. Because the LIDAR uses a wavelength close to that of visible light, it means that even headlights can cause problems with range.

Australian Standard AS4691.2-2003 explains that

"the operator shall take into account the detection area and the fact that the speed of any moving object within the detection area could be being measured at any given time... The operator shall take into account the traffic density at the site at the time of measurement to ensure that targets can be clearly identified... For speed measurements, the operator should ensure that the beam of the laser-based device is as close as practical to being directly in line with the direction of travel of the target to minimize the cosine angle effect... A valid speed measurement shall only be taken when the target vehicle is clearly identifiable by direct observation or by means of an image capture system... The operator shall visually monitor the object under investigation for sufficient time to identify it as the target. If the operator has any doubt that the speed measured by the device is not that of the object under investigation, that the speed measurement shall be considered invalid. Mirrors shall not be used to observe the object under investigation... The operator shall monitor the audible tones of the laser device to identify when the target is in aim and when a valid speed measurement has been taken."

It further explains that the operator shall be trained to understand the cosine angle effect and the causes of interference and limitations of laser eg. Sweeping and panning.

The NSW Police Academy, Radar Engineering Unit, Pro Laser II Training Program Manual explains that as an optional test, an officer may have another officer drive a patrol vehicle at a known speed and verify the Pro Laser II's speed against the patrol vehicle's reading. This is interesting as the patrol vehicle's speedometer may only be accurate to ±10% as required by "Australian Design Rule 18' (the vehicle's speedometer must indicate the actual vehicle speed, for all speeds above 40 km/h, to an accuracy of ±10%.) even though the Kustom Pro Laser II claims accuracy of +2/-3 km/h. The document further highlights that weather conditions affect the Lidar unit including:

"any weather affecting visual sight will affect the laser's ability to detect a target at greater distances. Rain, fog, snow blowing and dust affect the laser's range." It explains "having a clear line of sight to the target vehicle is mandatory. Items such as power pole guy wires, radio antennas on passing vehicles, fences, tree branches and other objects will interfere with the ProLaser II. Weather conditions play a major role in the maximum target acquisition distance. Fog, snow, rain and blowing dust can all interfere with the ability of the ProLaser II to obtain a speed reading on a target vehicle... the range of the target will be reduced.

This can mean higher than true speed measurements being calculated on the Lidar. The manual states

"Of all the external effects on the ProLaser II, operator motion or jitter while targeting a vehicle will have the most effect...[such as] any additional motion by the operator such as hand motion, motion caused by wind or motion caused when the operator is attempting to track a target vehicle".

The manual explain that if the operator's sweep causes the Lidar to move from the target vehicle's grille to its windscreen, this will cause higher readings than what the target vehicle was actually travelling at. It notes "The range of the ProLaser II may be affected by Halogen high beams. This is a white hot light source that contains some IR which may interfere with the laser's ability to detect the reflected laser pulse.

The manual's operational guidelines explain the following:

d)    Police Officers

Police Officers are human. This means that they are fallible. They also have different agendas as has been shown above. Video evidence showed that they do not use their radar in accordance with guidelines on A Current Affair on 18 July 2005.

Furthermore, according to 4 Corners 22 July 2002, NSW Police Commissioner Ryan commented that "the service is driven by fear which causes officers to lie and cheat and perjure themselves rather than admit simple mistakes". It is this fear that is causing them to issue fines once they have pulled over a motorist and not to reverse the fines once issued even when they know or ought to know that they should never have issued them.

There is a growing rift between the police and the community. What is thought of as "old school policing', where the police work with the community and the community works with the police, is no longer in existence. The police are now, rightfully (from the evidence), seen as working only to raise revenue. This is causing many of the better police officers who used to work with the community to leave the force.

On 23 May 2005 "PM' on ABC Radio reported that last year almost 200 officers left the force after being found medically unfit due to a psychological disorder. It is understood from a number of old school ex police officers that a large proportion of these police officers were unhappy with the current revenue focused police force ethos.

4. Other examples of the road being used for revenue over safety

The Daily Telegraph 12 August 2005 highlighted "a new standard in shameless revenue raising, blocking a crucial free route North" in order to charge an estimated 25000 motorists an extra $1.63 per day to travel less than 1km.

• Infringing officer
• Infringing officer's police station
• Regional Police Commissioner
• Director Infringement Processing
• Police Headquarters
• Legal Aid
• NSW Ombudsman
• NSW Police - Freedom of Information
• NSW Police Minister
• Premier
• Prime Minister
• Police Integrity Commission
• ICAC
• Legal Representation
• Court System
• Motoring Organisations

a) Infringing Officer

Just imagine: the arresting officer has pulled you over incorrectly. He may know this or he may not have been trained sufficiently to know that he has pulled you over when the reading on his device was not measuring your speed accurately. He does not want to admit that he has pulled you over when he should not have. He may have already called in your vehicle to report that he is pulling you over and would look bad at his station.

This is a situation that happens every day. In my situation, ignoring the police harassment I received (threats and verbal abuse by police officers), I said to the officer "I was travelling at 60km/h. My speedo said 60km/h. How is it possible that your radar showed 80km/h?". The police officer stated: "Your speedo must have been wrong".

If he was indeed trained on radar then he should have known better than that. According to the manager of Tweed Instruments whom I called shortly after, advised me that it is not possible