<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_07_037216</id>
	<title>Radar Beats GPS In Court &mdash; Or Does It?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1257588840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>TechnologyResource writes <i>"More than two years ago in California, a police officer wrote Shaun Malone a ticket for going 62mph in a 45-mph zone.  Malone was ordered to pay a $190 fine, but his parents <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/08/07/18/0318228/GPS-Tracking-Device-Beats-Radar-Gun-in-Court">appealed the decision</a>, saying data from a GPS tracking system they installed in his car to monitor his driving proved he was not speeding. What ensued was the longest court battle over a speeding ticket in Sonoma county history.  The case also represented the first time anyone locally had tried to beat a ticket using GPS. The teen's GPS pegged the car at 45 mph in virtually the same location.  At issue was the distance from the stoplight &mdash; site of the first GPS 'ping' that showed Malone stopped &mdash; to the second ping 30 seconds later, when he was going 45 mph. Last week, Commissioner Carla Bonilla ruled the GPS data confirmed the prosecution's contention that <a href="http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20091104/ARTICLES/911049901/1334/NEWS?tc=autorefresh">Malone had to have exceeded the speed limit and would have to pay the $190 fine</a>. 'This case ensures that other law enforcement agencies throughout the state aren't going to have to fight a case like this where GPS is used to cast doubt on radar,' said Sgt. Ken Savano, who oversees the traffic division.  However, Commissioner Bonilla noted the accuracy of the GPS system was not challenged by either side in the dispute, but rather they had different interpretations of the data.  Bonilla ruled the GPS data confirmed the prosecution's contention that Malone had to have exceeded the speed limit."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>TechnologyResource writes " More than two years ago in California , a police officer wrote Shaun Malone a ticket for going 62mph in a 45-mph zone .
Malone was ordered to pay a $ 190 fine , but his parents appealed the decision , saying data from a GPS tracking system they installed in his car to monitor his driving proved he was not speeding .
What ensued was the longest court battle over a speeding ticket in Sonoma county history .
The case also represented the first time anyone locally had tried to beat a ticket using GPS .
The teen 's GPS pegged the car at 45 mph in virtually the same location .
At issue was the distance from the stoplight    site of the first GPS 'ping ' that showed Malone stopped    to the second ping 30 seconds later , when he was going 45 mph .
Last week , Commissioner Carla Bonilla ruled the GPS data confirmed the prosecution 's contention that Malone had to have exceeded the speed limit and would have to pay the $ 190 fine .
'This case ensures that other law enforcement agencies throughout the state are n't going to have to fight a case like this where GPS is used to cast doubt on radar, ' said Sgt .
Ken Savano , who oversees the traffic division .
However , Commissioner Bonilla noted the accuracy of the GPS system was not challenged by either side in the dispute , but rather they had different interpretations of the data .
Bonilla ruled the GPS data confirmed the prosecution 's contention that Malone had to have exceeded the speed limit .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TechnologyResource writes "More than two years ago in California, a police officer wrote Shaun Malone a ticket for going 62mph in a 45-mph zone.
Malone was ordered to pay a $190 fine, but his parents appealed the decision, saying data from a GPS tracking system they installed in his car to monitor his driving proved he was not speeding.
What ensued was the longest court battle over a speeding ticket in Sonoma county history.
The case also represented the first time anyone locally had tried to beat a ticket using GPS.
The teen's GPS pegged the car at 45 mph in virtually the same location.
At issue was the distance from the stoplight — site of the first GPS 'ping' that showed Malone stopped — to the second ping 30 seconds later, when he was going 45 mph.
Last week, Commissioner Carla Bonilla ruled the GPS data confirmed the prosecution's contention that Malone had to have exceeded the speed limit and would have to pay the $190 fine.
'This case ensures that other law enforcement agencies throughout the state aren't going to have to fight a case like this where GPS is used to cast doubt on radar,' said Sgt.
Ken Savano, who oversees the traffic division.
However, Commissioner Bonilla noted the accuracy of the GPS system was not challenged by either side in the dispute, but rather they had different interpretations of the data.
Bonilla ruled the GPS data confirmed the prosecution's contention that Malone had to have exceeded the speed limit.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013666</id>
	<title>GPS speed not accurate 100\% of the time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257599760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How the court can even consider comparing stationary technology that operates up to a few hundred meters with something that is 20,000 kilometers away traveling at 14,000 km/h is beyond me. GPS accuracy is effected by builings, mountains, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How the court can even consider comparing stationary technology that operates up to a few hundred meters with something that is 20,000 kilometers away traveling at 14,000 km/h is beyond me .
GPS accuracy is effected by builings , mountains , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the court can even consider comparing stationary technology that operates up to a few hundred meters with something that is 20,000 kilometers away traveling at 14,000 km/h is beyond me.
GPS accuracy is effected by builings, mountains, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014984</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Calculus</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1257617640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"You idiot, the uncertainty principle only kicks in when objects are small enough to be dominated by quantum effects."</p></div></blockquote><p>Hey, that's my dick you're talkin' about, you insensitive clod!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" You idiot , the uncertainty principle only kicks in when objects are small enough to be dominated by quantum effects .
" Hey , that 's my dick you 're talkin ' about , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You idiot, the uncertainty principle only kicks in when objects are small enough to be dominated by quantum effects.
"Hey, that's my dick you're talkin' about, you insensitive clod!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014466</id>
	<title>Misunderstanding of what is recorded</title>
	<author>WoodstockJeff</author>
	<datestamp>1257612360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of the GPS units I own and have owned show the speed averaged over the last second, even if they only RECORD it every 5, 10, or 15 seconds. So a recording of 0 followed by a 45 does not mean I averaged 45 over 30 seconds (to use the example given in the story), but that I was doing 45 during the second that the position is recorded.</p><p>Either the software in this GPS tracker is wildly non-standard, or someone missed presenting the correct information to the court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of the GPS units I own and have owned show the speed averaged over the last second , even if they only RECORD it every 5 , 10 , or 15 seconds .
So a recording of 0 followed by a 45 does not mean I averaged 45 over 30 seconds ( to use the example given in the story ) , but that I was doing 45 during the second that the position is recorded.Either the software in this GPS tracker is wildly non-standard , or someone missed presenting the correct information to the court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of the GPS units I own and have owned show the speed averaged over the last second, even if they only RECORD it every 5, 10, or 15 seconds.
So a recording of 0 followed by a 45 does not mean I averaged 45 over 30 seconds (to use the example given in the story), but that I was doing 45 during the second that the position is recorded.Either the software in this GPS tracker is wildly non-standard, or someone missed presenting the correct information to the court.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013838</id>
	<title>what's wrong with America</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1257602940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuck the parents and fuck the kid. A good parent would have told the kid "tough luck, we pay the ticket and you pay us back from your allowance". But noooooooooooo, better to make a fucking mountain out of a grain of sand at taxpayers' expense to prove a point that is questionable to anyone with a basic understanding of calculus and physics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck the parents and fuck the kid .
A good parent would have told the kid " tough luck , we pay the ticket and you pay us back from your allowance " .
But noooooooooooo , better to make a fucking mountain out of a grain of sand at taxpayers ' expense to prove a point that is questionable to anyone with a basic understanding of calculus and physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck the parents and fuck the kid.
A good parent would have told the kid "tough luck, we pay the ticket and you pay us back from your allowance".
But noooooooooooo, better to make a fucking mountain out of a grain of sand at taxpayers' expense to prove a point that is questionable to anyone with a basic understanding of calculus and physics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014770</id>
	<title>kid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257615720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the other thing you have to consider, when you put the math aside; would a kid really be stupid enough to speed if he knew his parents had installed a gps speed monitoring unit in his car?<br>maybe..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the other thing you have to consider , when you put the math aside ; would a kid really be stupid enough to speed if he knew his parents had installed a gps speed monitoring unit in his car ? maybe. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the other thing you have to consider, when you put the math aside; would a kid really be stupid enough to speed if he knew his parents had installed a gps speed monitoring unit in his car?maybe..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013814</id>
	<title>Re:Sgt is an idiot</title>
	<author>divisionbyzero</author>
	<datestamp>1257602460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>++</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ +</tokentext>
<sentencetext>++</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30017948</id>
	<title>Re:Average? Or last sample?</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1257599760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>From TFA, the pings noted were actually 30 seconds apart.  My last GPS reported speeds every second.</p></div></blockquote><p>The GPS unit in question doesn't seem to be a GPS navigation system, but rather, a GPS tracker that the parents must have installed in order to be able to record the car's location.  This would explain 30 second pings--the system is designed to tell you reasonably accurately where the car was located at various points in time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA , the pings noted were actually 30 seconds apart .
My last GPS reported speeds every second.The GPS unit in question does n't seem to be a GPS navigation system , but rather , a GPS tracker that the parents must have installed in order to be able to record the car 's location .
This would explain 30 second pings--the system is designed to tell you reasonably accurately where the car was located at various points in time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA, the pings noted were actually 30 seconds apart.
My last GPS reported speeds every second.The GPS unit in question doesn't seem to be a GPS navigation system, but rather, a GPS tracker that the parents must have installed in order to be able to record the car's location.
This would explain 30 second pings--the system is designed to tell you reasonably accurately where the car was located at various points in time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013290</id>
	<title>Standard Calculus</title>
	<author>misosoup7</author>
	<datestamp>1257593340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the average speed is 45 mph, and he was stopped at the end (ie speed 0), then at some point he was going above 45. Especially since you can't stop instantaneously. This is like calculus you learn in High School... If the Judge ruled the other way, the future of America would be even in deeper sh*t than it already is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the average speed is 45 mph , and he was stopped at the end ( ie speed 0 ) , then at some point he was going above 45 .
Especially since you ca n't stop instantaneously .
This is like calculus you learn in High School... If the Judge ruled the other way , the future of America would be even in deeper sh * t than it already is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the average speed is 45 mph, and he was stopped at the end (ie speed 0), then at some point he was going above 45.
Especially since you can't stop instantaneously.
This is like calculus you learn in High School... If the Judge ruled the other way, the future of America would be even in deeper sh*t than it already is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015190</id>
	<title>Re:Radar Guns...</title>
	<author>deprecated</author>
	<datestamp>1257618840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'incurrently' is a perfectly cromulent word</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'incurrently ' is a perfectly cromulent word</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'incurrently' is a perfectly cromulent word</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013926</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Calculus</title>
	<author>jmauro</author>
	<datestamp>1257604140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're screwing up the part of the Uncertainty principle that most people do.   It's not position v. velocity accuracy, but position v momentum.     For most large things like planets, cars, insects, and protozoa the mass part of the momentum calculation can drive the accuracy error of measuring both down to about zero.    The Uncertainty principle only really matters for really small things like molecules, atoms, and quarks where the mass doesn't overwhelm the equation.</p><p>Think about it this way in normal everyday life we're not losing a car because it has a speedometer or the Earth because some one is keeping track of a year.    For things like traffic tickets the accuracy of both speed and position are extremely accurate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're screwing up the part of the Uncertainty principle that most people do .
It 's not position v. velocity accuracy , but position v momentum .
For most large things like planets , cars , insects , and protozoa the mass part of the momentum calculation can drive the accuracy error of measuring both down to about zero .
The Uncertainty principle only really matters for really small things like molecules , atoms , and quarks where the mass does n't overwhelm the equation.Think about it this way in normal everyday life we 're not losing a car because it has a speedometer or the Earth because some one is keeping track of a year .
For things like traffic tickets the accuracy of both speed and position are extremely accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're screwing up the part of the Uncertainty principle that most people do.
It's not position v. velocity accuracy, but position v momentum.
For most large things like planets, cars, insects, and protozoa the mass part of the momentum calculation can drive the accuracy error of measuring both down to about zero.
The Uncertainty principle only really matters for really small things like molecules, atoms, and quarks where the mass doesn't overwhelm the equation.Think about it this way in normal everyday life we're not losing a car because it has a speedometer or the Earth because some one is keeping track of a year.
For things like traffic tickets the accuracy of both speed and position are extremely accurate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30017950</id>
	<title>Re:Traffic court...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257599820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not true in Texas. Traffic violations are criminal and are handled in the same courts as simple assault and petty theft. The plus side is that you can request a jury trial for traffic violations AND appeal any ruling brought against you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not true in Texas .
Traffic violations are criminal and are handled in the same courts as simple assault and petty theft .
The plus side is that you can request a jury trial for traffic violations AND appeal any ruling brought against you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not true in Texas.
Traffic violations are criminal and are handled in the same courts as simple assault and petty theft.
The plus side is that you can request a jury trial for traffic violations AND appeal any ruling brought against you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013360</id>
	<title>Radar Guns...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257594540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Radar Guns aren't completely accurate all of the time. But a 40\% increase is far beyond what you might expect from an incurrently calibrated radar guns. The only realistic alternative is hitting a car travelling in the other direction but since police are trained to only use a radar gun on a straight road and at a certain angle that might be unlikely too.</p><p>So in this case I would side with the police. Unless they're just flat out lying which I cannot discount.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Radar Guns are n't completely accurate all of the time .
But a 40 \ % increase is far beyond what you might expect from an incurrently calibrated radar guns .
The only realistic alternative is hitting a car travelling in the other direction but since police are trained to only use a radar gun on a straight road and at a certain angle that might be unlikely too.So in this case I would side with the police .
Unless they 're just flat out lying which I can not discount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Radar Guns aren't completely accurate all of the time.
But a 40\% increase is far beyond what you might expect from an incurrently calibrated radar guns.
The only realistic alternative is hitting a car travelling in the other direction but since police are trained to only use a radar gun on a straight road and at a certain angle that might be unlikely too.So in this case I would side with the police.
Unless they're just flat out lying which I cannot discount.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015082</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Calculus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257618300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets say he accelerated  off the light and hit 45mph in 4 seconds.  He would be 132 feet down the road ((4/3600)*22.5*5280).  Now he drives 45mpg for the next 26 seconds ((26/3600)*45*5280).  That is another 1716 feet down the road.</p><p>Assuming he never exceeded 45mph, the farthest he could have gone was 1848 ft.  Can't say he was going 62mph, but he was certainly going faster than 45mph.</p><p>Do not pass GO....do not collect $200</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets say he accelerated off the light and hit 45mph in 4 seconds .
He would be 132 feet down the road ( ( 4/3600 ) * 22.5 * 5280 ) .
Now he drives 45mpg for the next 26 seconds ( ( 26/3600 ) * 45 * 5280 ) .
That is another 1716 feet down the road.Assuming he never exceeded 45mph , the farthest he could have gone was 1848 ft. Ca n't say he was going 62mph , but he was certainly going faster than 45mph.Do not pass GO....do not collect $ 200</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets say he accelerated  off the light and hit 45mph in 4 seconds.
He would be 132 feet down the road ((4/3600)*22.5*5280).
Now he drives 45mpg for the next 26 seconds ((26/3600)*45*5280).
That is another 1716 feet down the road.Assuming he never exceeded 45mph, the farthest he could have gone was 1848 ft.  Can't say he was going 62mph, but he was certainly going faster than 45mph.Do not pass GO....do not collect $200</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014512</id>
	<title>They knew they were guilty the whole time</title>
	<author>whoda</author>
	<datestamp>1257612780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The kids dad was the one who fought this the whole time.<br>The dad got the GPS because of prior infractions by his son.<br>The kid got 2 other motor-vehicle infractions while this case was proceeding.<br>Halfway through the case, the dad changed their defense from "The radar gun was wrong", to "It was an illegal speed trap."</p><p>They knew they were going to lose the whole time, they just hoped the county wouldn't put out the money.<br>Example:<br>They waited until the county had paid the expenses for an expert to come fly cross country and testify. Right before he was to testify, the kids lawyer got a continuation so the expert had to go home and get paid again to come out later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The kids dad was the one who fought this the whole time.The dad got the GPS because of prior infractions by his son.The kid got 2 other motor-vehicle infractions while this case was proceeding.Halfway through the case , the dad changed their defense from " The radar gun was wrong " , to " It was an illegal speed trap .
" They knew they were going to lose the whole time , they just hoped the county would n't put out the money.Example : They waited until the county had paid the expenses for an expert to come fly cross country and testify .
Right before he was to testify , the kids lawyer got a continuation so the expert had to go home and get paid again to come out later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The kids dad was the one who fought this the whole time.The dad got the GPS because of prior infractions by his son.The kid got 2 other motor-vehicle infractions while this case was proceeding.Halfway through the case, the dad changed their defense from "The radar gun was wrong", to "It was an illegal speed trap.
"They knew they were going to lose the whole time, they just hoped the county wouldn't put out the money.Example:They waited until the county had paid the expenses for an expert to come fly cross country and testify.
Right before he was to testify, the kids lawyer got a continuation so the expert had to go home and get paid again to come out later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30018582</id>
	<title>Re:radar accuracy coverup</title>
	<author>u801e</author>
	<datestamp>1257606660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>RADAR is pretty much accurate most of the time.  The problem is that the officer cannot be certain which object is responsible for the speed reading.  Also, the greater the distance, the more area the radar beam covers, so if you're 1000 feet away from the source of RADAR, the beam will cover all lanes of the highway you're on and possibly some of the opposing side (assuming no physical obstruction).<br> <br>

In your case, it sounds like the officer used the RADAR unit, got a speed, and identified you as the source even though you weren't.  This is because police officers almost never follow established procedure in terms of speed enforcement.  That is, they're required to visually estimate the speed of the vehicle, and then confirm the speed with RADAR.  They'll testify that they did so in court, but in reality, that's almost never the case due to the way they try to conceal themselves when conducting speed enforcement.  That is, they cannot see you until you're almost on top of them and they just use the RADAR unit without actually visually estimating your speed first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>RADAR is pretty much accurate most of the time .
The problem is that the officer can not be certain which object is responsible for the speed reading .
Also , the greater the distance , the more area the radar beam covers , so if you 're 1000 feet away from the source of RADAR , the beam will cover all lanes of the highway you 're on and possibly some of the opposing side ( assuming no physical obstruction ) .
In your case , it sounds like the officer used the RADAR unit , got a speed , and identified you as the source even though you were n't .
This is because police officers almost never follow established procedure in terms of speed enforcement .
That is , they 're required to visually estimate the speed of the vehicle , and then confirm the speed with RADAR .
They 'll testify that they did so in court , but in reality , that 's almost never the case due to the way they try to conceal themselves when conducting speed enforcement .
That is , they can not see you until you 're almost on top of them and they just use the RADAR unit without actually visually estimating your speed first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RADAR is pretty much accurate most of the time.
The problem is that the officer cannot be certain which object is responsible for the speed reading.
Also, the greater the distance, the more area the radar beam covers, so if you're 1000 feet away from the source of RADAR, the beam will cover all lanes of the highway you're on and possibly some of the opposing side (assuming no physical obstruction).
In your case, it sounds like the officer used the RADAR unit, got a speed, and identified you as the source even though you weren't.
This is because police officers almost never follow established procedure in terms of speed enforcement.
That is, they're required to visually estimate the speed of the vehicle, and then confirm the speed with RADAR.
They'll testify that they did so in court, but in reality, that's almost never the case due to the way they try to conceal themselves when conducting speed enforcement.
That is, they cannot see you until you're almost on top of them and they just use the RADAR unit without actually visually estimating your speed first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014526</id>
	<title>radar accuracy coverup</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1257613020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think theres a massive cover-up about the accuracy of radar guns. I think the cops and courts all know it but its a massive income generator so they wont do anything about it.</p><p>I got stopped by a cop with radar claiming he detected me doing 85 in a 65mph limit. He even showed me 85 on the radar. It was rush hour and the freeway was bumper to bumper stop-go traffic and there was no way I ever got over about 45. I was also surrounded with other cars so I have no idea how he could single me out with a radar. My wife was in the car too and told him I couldn't have been speeding but he didnt believe her either. I went to court to fight it and they made a deal before my case got heard to reduce the speed down to 78 but I still had to pay a fine. It seems to me they wouldnt have done a deal if they thought the radar was truly accurate.</p><p>It seems everyone fights based on the accuracy of the radar, but I haven't ever herad of anyone the lack of evidence that the cop was actually pointing the radar at your car and not someone elses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think theres a massive cover-up about the accuracy of radar guns .
I think the cops and courts all know it but its a massive income generator so they wont do anything about it.I got stopped by a cop with radar claiming he detected me doing 85 in a 65mph limit .
He even showed me 85 on the radar .
It was rush hour and the freeway was bumper to bumper stop-go traffic and there was no way I ever got over about 45 .
I was also surrounded with other cars so I have no idea how he could single me out with a radar .
My wife was in the car too and told him I could n't have been speeding but he didnt believe her either .
I went to court to fight it and they made a deal before my case got heard to reduce the speed down to 78 but I still had to pay a fine .
It seems to me they wouldnt have done a deal if they thought the radar was truly accurate.It seems everyone fights based on the accuracy of the radar , but I have n't ever herad of anyone the lack of evidence that the cop was actually pointing the radar at your car and not someone elses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think theres a massive cover-up about the accuracy of radar guns.
I think the cops and courts all know it but its a massive income generator so they wont do anything about it.I got stopped by a cop with radar claiming he detected me doing 85 in a 65mph limit.
He even showed me 85 on the radar.
It was rush hour and the freeway was bumper to bumper stop-go traffic and there was no way I ever got over about 45.
I was also surrounded with other cars so I have no idea how he could single me out with a radar.
My wife was in the car too and told him I couldn't have been speeding but he didnt believe her either.
I went to court to fight it and they made a deal before my case got heard to reduce the speed down to 78 but I still had to pay a fine.
It seems to me they wouldnt have done a deal if they thought the radar was truly accurate.It seems everyone fights based on the accuracy of the radar, but I haven't ever herad of anyone the lack of evidence that the cop was actually pointing the radar at your car and not someone elses?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015166</id>
	<title>Re:Radar Guns...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257618720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering that a wall has already been clocked doing 58mph in a standing still zone, I wouldn't bragg too much about accuracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that a wall has already been clocked doing 58mph in a standing still zone , I would n't bragg too much about accuracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering that a wall has already been clocked doing 58mph in a standing still zone, I wouldn't bragg too much about accuracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014502</id>
	<title>Re:what's wrong with America</title>
	<author>mooingyak</author>
	<datestamp>1257612600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The parents didn't understand the math involved, you can fault them for that.  But if I were in a situation where one of my kids was accused of something and I genuinely believed that they didn't do it (and had what I believed was proof too), then HELL YES they should fight it.</p><p>They might be ignorant, but they weren't wrong in a moral sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The parents did n't understand the math involved , you can fault them for that .
But if I were in a situation where one of my kids was accused of something and I genuinely believed that they did n't do it ( and had what I believed was proof too ) , then HELL YES they should fight it.They might be ignorant , but they were n't wrong in a moral sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parents didn't understand the math involved, you can fault them for that.
But if I were in a situation where one of my kids was accused of something and I genuinely believed that they didn't do it (and had what I believed was proof too), then HELL YES they should fight it.They might be ignorant, but they weren't wrong in a moral sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30018034</id>
	<title>The larger issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257600660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that the mathematics tell us that it's at least more likely that he was going over the speed limit than not.  That aside, it raises some serious issues that need to be addressed in the USA.</p><p>First off, I'm not sure about other states, but in Indiana, the prosecution does not have to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that you exceeded the speed limit.  They only have to prove 51\%.  Why?  Because in Indiana, it's considered a "civil" case.  WTF???  So now, because of a semantic game, I can be convicted of breaking the law on a lower standard.  If it's your word against the officer, you lose.  Period.  Case closed.  I'm sorry, but it was little things like this that birthed  the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".  You can't dismiss it with a play on words.  This needs to be addressed at least by Indiana lawmakers.  But it won't be.  It's "too minor".  What's next -- shoplifting?  And then armed robbery???  Let's face it -- while most cops out there are gold, there are cops that lie.</p><p>Second, most speed limits are set extremely badly.  In my town, we have a road where the speed limit is thirty miles per hour.  No one does it unless the police are clocking.  If you go thirty, I can practically guarantee you will be tailgated, passed, and/or get the bird.  Probably with a lot of profanities involved.  It seems like every time I turn around, the government is coming up with more excuses to come up with 25MPH speed limits (at least in my town).  Oh, and then there's the place where there are two speed limit signs less than 100 feet apart.  The first one you see reads 50, the next one 20.  The police clock there all the time.  You can't tell me that's not a racket.</p><p>Third, cops target red cars and sports cars.  WHY on earth would you do that?  If any car is safe to speed in, wouldn't it be a car that can maneuver without worrying about turning it over??? (*cough*SUV*cough*)  And before anyone says they don't target sports cars, I've actually heard retired police officers admit that they do.  On multiple occasions.  Why don't you pull over that guy in a minivan that just passed me like I'm standing still?  Does the law somehow apply to him less?</p><p>Sorry for the long rant, but this sort of touched a nerve.  I've had to PROVE (beyond a reasonable doubt, by the way) that I wasn't speeding on four separate occasions now.  I shouldn't have to prove my innocence.  I won all four, by the way.</p><p>What it boils down to is traffic law is hopelessly screwed up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the mathematics tell us that it 's at least more likely that he was going over the speed limit than not .
That aside , it raises some serious issues that need to be addressed in the USA.First off , I 'm not sure about other states , but in Indiana , the prosecution does not have to " prove beyond a reasonable doubt " that you exceeded the speed limit .
They only have to prove 51 \ % .
Why ? Because in Indiana , it 's considered a " civil " case .
WTF ? ? ? So now , because of a semantic game , I can be convicted of breaking the law on a lower standard .
If it 's your word against the officer , you lose .
Period. Case closed .
I 'm sorry , but it was little things like this that birthed the concept of " innocent until proven guilty " .
You ca n't dismiss it with a play on words .
This needs to be addressed at least by Indiana lawmakers .
But it wo n't be .
It 's " too minor " .
What 's next -- shoplifting ?
And then armed robbery ? ? ?
Let 's face it -- while most cops out there are gold , there are cops that lie.Second , most speed limits are set extremely badly .
In my town , we have a road where the speed limit is thirty miles per hour .
No one does it unless the police are clocking .
If you go thirty , I can practically guarantee you will be tailgated , passed , and/or get the bird .
Probably with a lot of profanities involved .
It seems like every time I turn around , the government is coming up with more excuses to come up with 25MPH speed limits ( at least in my town ) .
Oh , and then there 's the place where there are two speed limit signs less than 100 feet apart .
The first one you see reads 50 , the next one 20 .
The police clock there all the time .
You ca n't tell me that 's not a racket.Third , cops target red cars and sports cars .
WHY on earth would you do that ?
If any car is safe to speed in , would n't it be a car that can maneuver without worrying about turning it over ? ? ?
( * cough * SUV * cough * ) And before anyone says they do n't target sports cars , I 've actually heard retired police officers admit that they do .
On multiple occasions .
Why do n't you pull over that guy in a minivan that just passed me like I 'm standing still ?
Does the law somehow apply to him less ? Sorry for the long rant , but this sort of touched a nerve .
I 've had to PROVE ( beyond a reasonable doubt , by the way ) that I was n't speeding on four separate occasions now .
I should n't have to prove my innocence .
I won all four , by the way.What it boils down to is traffic law is hopelessly screwed up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that the mathematics tell us that it's at least more likely that he was going over the speed limit than not.
That aside, it raises some serious issues that need to be addressed in the USA.First off, I'm not sure about other states, but in Indiana, the prosecution does not have to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that you exceeded the speed limit.
They only have to prove 51\%.
Why?  Because in Indiana, it's considered a "civil" case.
WTF???  So now, because of a semantic game, I can be convicted of breaking the law on a lower standard.
If it's your word against the officer, you lose.
Period.  Case closed.
I'm sorry, but it was little things like this that birthed  the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".
You can't dismiss it with a play on words.
This needs to be addressed at least by Indiana lawmakers.
But it won't be.
It's "too minor".
What's next -- shoplifting?
And then armed robbery???
Let's face it -- while most cops out there are gold, there are cops that lie.Second, most speed limits are set extremely badly.
In my town, we have a road where the speed limit is thirty miles per hour.
No one does it unless the police are clocking.
If you go thirty, I can practically guarantee you will be tailgated, passed, and/or get the bird.
Probably with a lot of profanities involved.
It seems like every time I turn around, the government is coming up with more excuses to come up with 25MPH speed limits (at least in my town).
Oh, and then there's the place where there are two speed limit signs less than 100 feet apart.
The first one you see reads 50, the next one 20.
The police clock there all the time.
You can't tell me that's not a racket.Third, cops target red cars and sports cars.
WHY on earth would you do that?
If any car is safe to speed in, wouldn't it be a car that can maneuver without worrying about turning it over???
(*cough*SUV*cough*)  And before anyone says they don't target sports cars, I've actually heard retired police officers admit that they do.
On multiple occasions.
Why don't you pull over that guy in a minivan that just passed me like I'm standing still?
Does the law somehow apply to him less?Sorry for the long rant, but this sort of touched a nerve.
I've had to PROVE (beyond a reasonable doubt, by the way) that I wasn't speeding on four separate occasions now.
I shouldn't have to prove my innocence.
I won all four, by the way.What it boils down to is traffic law is hopelessly screwed up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013500</id>
	<title>Forget the math, you're missing the point here...</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1257597000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This ruling establishes case law from here forward.  Her ruling was in favor of the Police and their technology.  Lawyers from here forward will stand a snowballs chance in hell of appealing, <i>even if the GPS data is right</i> and the radar gun is wrong.  THAT was the point of this ruling, and unfortunately, it smacks of corruption.</p><p>Criminal, you might still stand a chance in proving your innocence these days. Civil?  You might as well bend over now.  Pisses me off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This ruling establishes case law from here forward .
Her ruling was in favor of the Police and their technology .
Lawyers from here forward will stand a snowballs chance in hell of appealing , even if the GPS data is right and the radar gun is wrong .
THAT was the point of this ruling , and unfortunately , it smacks of corruption.Criminal , you might still stand a chance in proving your innocence these days .
Civil ? You might as well bend over now .
Pisses me off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This ruling establishes case law from here forward.
Her ruling was in favor of the Police and their technology.
Lawyers from here forward will stand a snowballs chance in hell of appealing, even if the GPS data is right and the radar gun is wrong.
THAT was the point of this ruling, and unfortunately, it smacks of corruption.Criminal, you might still stand a chance in proving your innocence these days.
Civil?  You might as well bend over now.
Pisses me off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014674</id>
	<title>data...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257614700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from the wording of the story there are only two gps data samples being taken into account, two pings that were sent to the parents.<br>the first shows the car at 0, stopped. and the second, 30 seconds later going 45<br>that's simply not enough data to know how fast the kid was going.<br>we don't know if he reached 45 within those 30 seconds and then held there, of if he just happened to be going 45 during that ping on his way to 60 or some higher speed.</p><p>it does seem that he at least held 45 for a few moments, after all it's a bit unlikely that the 2nd ping would happen to occur at the exact instant that he was at the speed limit yet accelerating.  Still there's no conclusive proof one way or the other with only two pings.</p><p>maybe the defense brought in more gps data recorded by the in-car unit and not sent out to his parents, I don't know.</p><p>can you plot two points on a graph and tell me weather the function is linear or quadratic?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from the wording of the story there are only two gps data samples being taken into account , two pings that were sent to the parents.the first shows the car at 0 , stopped .
and the second , 30 seconds later going 45that 's simply not enough data to know how fast the kid was going.we do n't know if he reached 45 within those 30 seconds and then held there , of if he just happened to be going 45 during that ping on his way to 60 or some higher speed.it does seem that he at least held 45 for a few moments , after all it 's a bit unlikely that the 2nd ping would happen to occur at the exact instant that he was at the speed limit yet accelerating .
Still there 's no conclusive proof one way or the other with only two pings.maybe the defense brought in more gps data recorded by the in-car unit and not sent out to his parents , I do n't know.can you plot two points on a graph and tell me weather the function is linear or quadratic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from the wording of the story there are only two gps data samples being taken into account, two pings that were sent to the parents.the first shows the car at 0, stopped.
and the second, 30 seconds later going 45that's simply not enough data to know how fast the kid was going.we don't know if he reached 45 within those 30 seconds and then held there, of if he just happened to be going 45 during that ping on his way to 60 or some higher speed.it does seem that he at least held 45 for a few moments, after all it's a bit unlikely that the 2nd ping would happen to occur at the exact instant that he was at the speed limit yet accelerating.
Still there's no conclusive proof one way or the other with only two pings.maybe the defense brought in more gps data recorded by the in-car unit and not sent out to his parents, I don't know.can you plot two points on a graph and tell me weather the function is linear or quadratic?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30027472</id>
	<title>Speedy speed trap</title>
	<author>TRRosen</author>
	<datestamp>1257690540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one bewildered by the fact that the cop was writing a ticket every 4 minutes!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one bewildered by the fact that the cop was writing a ticket every 4 minutes ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one bewildered by the fact that the cop was writing a ticket every 4 minutes!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013486</id>
	<title>Average? Or last sample?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257596580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA, the pings noted were actually 30 seconds apart.<br>My last GPS reported speeds every second.<br>So, the question is, what was the ping rate of the GPS on the car?  Was the logged value the average of the past 30 seconds of pings, or just the most recent ping?<br>(Yes, in all likelyhood, it's an average of values, the kid was speeding, and figured that if he didn't go over 75 and trigger the auto-phone-home-warning, his parents wouldn't find out.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA , the pings noted were actually 30 seconds apart.My last GPS reported speeds every second.So , the question is , what was the ping rate of the GPS on the car ?
Was the logged value the average of the past 30 seconds of pings , or just the most recent ping ?
( Yes , in all likelyhood , it 's an average of values , the kid was speeding , and figured that if he did n't go over 75 and trigger the auto-phone-home-warning , his parents would n't find out .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA, the pings noted were actually 30 seconds apart.My last GPS reported speeds every second.So, the question is, what was the ping rate of the GPS on the car?
Was the logged value the average of the past 30 seconds of pings, or just the most recent ping?
(Yes, in all likelyhood, it's an average of values, the kid was speeding, and figured that if he didn't go over 75 and trigger the auto-phone-home-warning, his parents wouldn't find out.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014506</id>
	<title>Stupid ex-cop dad thought he could beat the system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257612660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The kids dad was the one who fought this the whole time.<br>
The dad got the GPS because of prior infractions by his son.<br>
The kid got 2 other motor-vehicle infractions while this case was proceeding.<br>
Halfway through the case, the dad changed their defense from "The radar gun was wrong", to "It was an illegal speed trap."<br>
<br>

They knew they were going to lose the whole time, they just hoped the county wouldn't put out the money.<br>
Example:<br>
They waited until the county had paid the expenses for an expert to come fly cross country and testify.  Right before he was to testify, the kids lawyer got a continuation so the expert had to go home and get paid again to come out later.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The kids dad was the one who fought this the whole time .
The dad got the GPS because of prior infractions by his son .
The kid got 2 other motor-vehicle infractions while this case was proceeding .
Halfway through the case , the dad changed their defense from " The radar gun was wrong " , to " It was an illegal speed trap .
" They knew they were going to lose the whole time , they just hoped the county would n't put out the money .
Example : They waited until the county had paid the expenses for an expert to come fly cross country and testify .
Right before he was to testify , the kids lawyer got a continuation so the expert had to go home and get paid again to come out later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The kids dad was the one who fought this the whole time.
The dad got the GPS because of prior infractions by his son.
The kid got 2 other motor-vehicle infractions while this case was proceeding.
Halfway through the case, the dad changed their defense from "The radar gun was wrong", to "It was an illegal speed trap.
"


They knew they were going to lose the whole time, they just hoped the county wouldn't put out the money.
Example:
They waited until the county had paid the expenses for an expert to come fly cross country and testify.
Right before he was to testify, the kids lawyer got a continuation so the expert had to go home and get paid again to come out later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30017216</id>
	<title>Re:Radar Guns...</title>
	<author>Dare nMc</author>
	<datestamp>1257592740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but what they are trained to do takes constant effort.  Personally always on radar should be banned,  because what it leads to is the cop sets in the car and waits for a winning number on the gun, then picks out the winner.  They are trained that they have to be able to clearly pick out the fastest vehicle, then take a number.  Anyone with a radar detector knows that is not usually how they do it.  Personally I think they should integrate GPS with radar, a cop who triggers on non speeders half the time should be repramanded, if a cop looks at me and knows I am speeding, I deserve the ticket.  If I am not speeding, a cop shouldn't be gathering evidence against me without any cause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but what they are trained to do takes constant effort .
Personally always on radar should be banned , because what it leads to is the cop sets in the car and waits for a winning number on the gun , then picks out the winner .
They are trained that they have to be able to clearly pick out the fastest vehicle , then take a number .
Anyone with a radar detector knows that is not usually how they do it .
Personally I think they should integrate GPS with radar , a cop who triggers on non speeders half the time should be repramanded , if a cop looks at me and knows I am speeding , I deserve the ticket .
If I am not speeding , a cop should n't be gathering evidence against me without any cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but what they are trained to do takes constant effort.
Personally always on radar should be banned,  because what it leads to is the cop sets in the car and waits for a winning number on the gun, then picks out the winner.
They are trained that they have to be able to clearly pick out the fastest vehicle, then take a number.
Anyone with a radar detector knows that is not usually how they do it.
Personally I think they should integrate GPS with radar, a cop who triggers on non speeders half the time should be repramanded, if a cop looks at me and knows I am speeding, I deserve the ticket.
If I am not speeding, a cop shouldn't be gathering evidence against me without any cause.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013382</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Calculus</title>
	<author>kdemetter</author>
	<datestamp>1257594840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What i find strange is that there is only an average recorded speed. My gps can tell me my speed at the exact moment, so if i would record that , it would show my speed , exactly over time . Then you would also be able to see where i stopped , and when exactly when i speeded. So it would be much more acurate then a radar.</p><p>So , bad GPS tracking system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What i find strange is that there is only an average recorded speed .
My gps can tell me my speed at the exact moment , so if i would record that , it would show my speed , exactly over time .
Then you would also be able to see where i stopped , and when exactly when i speeded .
So it would be much more acurate then a radar.So , bad GPS tracking system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What i find strange is that there is only an average recorded speed.
My gps can tell me my speed at the exact moment, so if i would record that , it would show my speed , exactly over time .
Then you would also be able to see where i stopped , and when exactly when i speeded.
So it would be much more acurate then a radar.So , bad GPS tracking system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30017032</id>
	<title>Re:radar accuracy coverup</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1257591000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got pulled over by a cop saying I was doing 76 in a 60. Thing was, I'd JUST entered the freeway from a stop sign, and the instant I did I got passed by a blue Mini like I was standing still-- I drive a PT Cruiser, there's no way my car could accelerate from 0 to 76 when the cop turned on his lights. I talked to the officer, admitted I'd been speeding, but I said I was only 5-7 MPH over the limit, which I believe was true... at least, that's the speed I was going when I saw his lights.</p><p>Anyway, he didn't saw as much, but I think he knew he had the wrong car. I got a warning and no ticket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got pulled over by a cop saying I was doing 76 in a 60 .
Thing was , I 'd JUST entered the freeway from a stop sign , and the instant I did I got passed by a blue Mini like I was standing still-- I drive a PT Cruiser , there 's no way my car could accelerate from 0 to 76 when the cop turned on his lights .
I talked to the officer , admitted I 'd been speeding , but I said I was only 5-7 MPH over the limit , which I believe was true... at least , that 's the speed I was going when I saw his lights.Anyway , he did n't saw as much , but I think he knew he had the wrong car .
I got a warning and no ticket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got pulled over by a cop saying I was doing 76 in a 60.
Thing was, I'd JUST entered the freeway from a stop sign, and the instant I did I got passed by a blue Mini like I was standing still-- I drive a PT Cruiser, there's no way my car could accelerate from 0 to 76 when the cop turned on his lights.
I talked to the officer, admitted I'd been speeding, but I said I was only 5-7 MPH over the limit, which I believe was true... at least, that's the speed I was going when I saw his lights.Anyway, he didn't saw as much, but I think he knew he had the wrong car.
I got a warning and no ticket.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014048</id>
	<title>dutch car driver</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257605760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GPS beat SPECS-speed camera In Court in the Netherlands in 2008.</p><p>From: http://www.wegenforum.nl/viewtopic.php?f=49&amp;t=11692</p><p>In Holland we have the so called  SPECS-speed cameras. These camera's measure the average speed over a traject of a fixed distance.<br>This article describes a case where the lawyer doubts (after GPS data was presented) if the measurement of the SPECS-speed camera was right. Ultimately, the offender did not get a fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GPS beat SPECS-speed camera In Court in the Netherlands in 2008.From : http : //www.wegenforum.nl/viewtopic.php ? f = 49&amp;t = 11692In Holland we have the so called SPECS-speed cameras .
These camera 's measure the average speed over a traject of a fixed distance.This article describes a case where the lawyer doubts ( after GPS data was presented ) if the measurement of the SPECS-speed camera was right .
Ultimately , the offender did not get a fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GPS beat SPECS-speed camera In Court in the Netherlands in 2008.From: http://www.wegenforum.nl/viewtopic.php?f=49&amp;t=11692In Holland we have the so called  SPECS-speed cameras.
These camera's measure the average speed over a traject of a fixed distance.This article describes a case where the lawyer doubts (after GPS data was presented) if the measurement of the SPECS-speed camera was right.
Ultimately, the offender did not get a fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013716</id>
	<title>Re:Radar Guns...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257600780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So basically you're saying the police is right unless they are not.<br>Here you go, +4 insightful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically you 're saying the police is right unless they are not.Here you go , + 4 insightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically you're saying the police is right unless they are not.Here you go, +4 insightful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015414</id>
	<title>Re:Sgt is an idiot</title>
	<author>vehicle tracking</author>
	<datestamp>1257620280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are 100\% correct.  It appears to me that Sgt. Ken Savano is trying to be a hero to every other law enforcement agency.  What he fails to realize is that many other law enforcement agencies are in support of GPS tracking use for the safety of others.  He also fails to realize that many other law enforcement agencies rely on GPS for surveillance and to track their own patrol vehicles to ensure that want-to-be heros, like Sgt. Ken Savano, are doing their job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are 100 \ % correct .
It appears to me that Sgt .
Ken Savano is trying to be a hero to every other law enforcement agency .
What he fails to realize is that many other law enforcement agencies are in support of GPS tracking use for the safety of others .
He also fails to realize that many other law enforcement agencies rely on GPS for surveillance and to track their own patrol vehicles to ensure that want-to-be heros , like Sgt .
Ken Savano , are doing their job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are 100\% correct.
It appears to me that Sgt.
Ken Savano is trying to be a hero to every other law enforcement agency.
What he fails to realize is that many other law enforcement agencies are in support of GPS tracking use for the safety of others.
He also fails to realize that many other law enforcement agencies rely on GPS for surveillance and to track their own patrol vehicles to ensure that want-to-be heros, like Sgt.
Ken Savano, are doing their job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30019012</id>
	<title>Re:radar accuracy coverup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257612720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... It seems to me they wouldn't have done a deal if they thought the radar was truly accurate.</p><p>It seems everyone fights based on the accuracy of the radar, but I haven't ever heard of anyone [challenging] the lack of evidence that the cop was actually pointing the radar at your car and not someone else's?</p></div><p>I have heard of someone getting a speeding ticket dismissed because he requested the dates of calibration for the radar gun and found that the radar gun had not had it's accuracy checked within the period of time specified by law.<br>The gp post brings up another point. How do we know the officer that tickets you even knows how to operate the radar gun? Do they get training? Are they ever tested? Is there any certification involved? Is there a way to test whether the officer had actually been aiming a radar gun at your vehicle? Perhaps, in these CCTV and videotaped traffic stop days we need a sort of black box in our cars that records things like radar pings, our speed, etc. for a counter to what the police are claiming. Theoretically the 5th amendment should protect us from using that evidence against ourselves.<br>It seems to me that if someone clever enough could bring these things up in court they might be able to overturn tickets and possibly force law enforcement to be more rigorous in method in their application of the law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... It seems to me they would n't have done a deal if they thought the radar was truly accurate.It seems everyone fights based on the accuracy of the radar , but I have n't ever heard of anyone [ challenging ] the lack of evidence that the cop was actually pointing the radar at your car and not someone else 's ? I have heard of someone getting a speeding ticket dismissed because he requested the dates of calibration for the radar gun and found that the radar gun had not had it 's accuracy checked within the period of time specified by law.The gp post brings up another point .
How do we know the officer that tickets you even knows how to operate the radar gun ?
Do they get training ?
Are they ever tested ?
Is there any certification involved ?
Is there a way to test whether the officer had actually been aiming a radar gun at your vehicle ?
Perhaps , in these CCTV and videotaped traffic stop days we need a sort of black box in our cars that records things like radar pings , our speed , etc .
for a counter to what the police are claiming .
Theoretically the 5th amendment should protect us from using that evidence against ourselves.It seems to me that if someone clever enough could bring these things up in court they might be able to overturn tickets and possibly force law enforcement to be more rigorous in method in their application of the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... It seems to me they wouldn't have done a deal if they thought the radar was truly accurate.It seems everyone fights based on the accuracy of the radar, but I haven't ever heard of anyone [challenging] the lack of evidence that the cop was actually pointing the radar at your car and not someone else's?I have heard of someone getting a speeding ticket dismissed because he requested the dates of calibration for the radar gun and found that the radar gun had not had it's accuracy checked within the period of time specified by law.The gp post brings up another point.
How do we know the officer that tickets you even knows how to operate the radar gun?
Do they get training?
Are they ever tested?
Is there any certification involved?
Is there a way to test whether the officer had actually been aiming a radar gun at your vehicle?
Perhaps, in these CCTV and videotaped traffic stop days we need a sort of black box in our cars that records things like radar pings, our speed, etc.
for a counter to what the police are claiming.
Theoretically the 5th amendment should protect us from using that evidence against ourselves.It seems to me that if someone clever enough could bring these things up in court they might be able to overturn tickets and possibly force law enforcement to be more rigorous in method in their application of the law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013920</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Calculus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257604080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You idiot, the uncertainty principle only kicks in when objects are small enough to be dominated by quantum effects.</p><p>Like a European car...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You idiot , the uncertainty principle only kicks in when objects are small enough to be dominated by quantum effects.Like a European car.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You idiot, the uncertainty principle only kicks in when objects are small enough to be dominated by quantum effects.Like a European car...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30018824</id>
	<title>Re:You can't beat the system</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1257610380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happened to you is very common place.<br>Simply showing up is usually enough to get a ticket 'plea-bargained' down.<br>They know that if anything more than a tiny fraction of people were to contest their tickets, the entire system would fall apart from overload.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to you is very common place.Simply showing up is usually enough to get a ticket 'plea-bargained ' down.They know that if anything more than a tiny fraction of people were to contest their tickets , the entire system would fall apart from overload .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to you is very common place.Simply showing up is usually enough to get a ticket 'plea-bargained' down.They know that if anything more than a tiny fraction of people were to contest their tickets, the entire system would fall apart from overload.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013746</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Calculus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257601200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not really a problem because the distances are well-known -- they're on the map, and they know where the radar readings were taken for comparison.  The math then becomes simple, and you can easily apply an uncertainty level to everything to determine whether the story is plausible or not.  At the time of the first articles about the case there were some articles that provided a map (the father was holding it up in one of the newspaper shots), including the positions of the widely-spaced GPS coordinates.  I'll see if I can find it.</p><p>Let's face it -- 30 second pings allows for a lot of variation in speed (slower and/or faster) to yield the same average speed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really a problem because the distances are well-known -- they 're on the map , and they know where the radar readings were taken for comparison .
The math then becomes simple , and you can easily apply an uncertainty level to everything to determine whether the story is plausible or not .
At the time of the first articles about the case there were some articles that provided a map ( the father was holding it up in one of the newspaper shots ) , including the positions of the widely-spaced GPS coordinates .
I 'll see if I can find it.Let 's face it -- 30 second pings allows for a lot of variation in speed ( slower and/or faster ) to yield the same average speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really a problem because the distances are well-known -- they're on the map, and they know where the radar readings were taken for comparison.
The math then becomes simple, and you can easily apply an uncertainty level to everything to determine whether the story is plausible or not.
At the time of the first articles about the case there were some articles that provided a map (the father was holding it up in one of the newspaper shots), including the positions of the widely-spaced GPS coordinates.
I'll see if I can find it.Let's face it -- 30 second pings allows for a lot of variation in speed (slower and/or faster) to yield the same average speed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014524</id>
	<title>Cop may have been fishing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257613020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another explanation is that the cop was fishing.  When the plates were clean and the kid did not turn out to be drunk or on drugs he made up a number and wrote a speeding ticket.  Happens all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another explanation is that the cop was fishing .
When the plates were clean and the kid did not turn out to be drunk or on drugs he made up a number and wrote a speeding ticket .
Happens all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another explanation is that the cop was fishing.
When the plates were clean and the kid did not turn out to be drunk or on drugs he made up a number and wrote a speeding ticket.
Happens all the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014372</id>
	<title>You can't beat the system</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1257610860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was once ticketed for doing 45 in a 30 in a woefully underpowered car.  The ticket the cop wrote (which I did not see in full until my day in court) claimed I was 30-40 feet from a stoplight where not only did I stop, but I made a right-hand turn.  I had two guys in my car with me, which didn't help the car accelerating on flat ground (this was a very flat area of a very flat state).  So basically for the ticket to be correct, this car which made around 70hp on a good day needed to be accelerating at Porsche speed while turning.  <br> <br>
The ticket that the officer gave me that day (which was missing some of the critical information such as the location where he claimed I was) had a court date on it, so I went to court armed with information on how I could not possibly have been going as fast as claimed.<br> <br>
Instead I was greeted by a DA for that county.  I had the option to come back later to be heard by the judge, but the county was quite a ways away from home and I didn't really want to go back.  The DA offered me a "plea bargain" since I had no tickets on my record prior.  They said I could enter a plea of "guilty not accepted", under which they would accept a lesser fine from me than the original ticket (the DA essentially changed the reported speed from 45 to 38, still in a 30), and as long as I was not pulled over in their county again for the next 12 months the ticket would not be reported to my insurance company (I was a young man at the time so that part was important to me).<br> <br>
I accepted that deal, wrote them a check that day, and I haven't returned to that county since.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was once ticketed for doing 45 in a 30 in a woefully underpowered car .
The ticket the cop wrote ( which I did not see in full until my day in court ) claimed I was 30-40 feet from a stoplight where not only did I stop , but I made a right-hand turn .
I had two guys in my car with me , which did n't help the car accelerating on flat ground ( this was a very flat area of a very flat state ) .
So basically for the ticket to be correct , this car which made around 70hp on a good day needed to be accelerating at Porsche speed while turning .
The ticket that the officer gave me that day ( which was missing some of the critical information such as the location where he claimed I was ) had a court date on it , so I went to court armed with information on how I could not possibly have been going as fast as claimed .
Instead I was greeted by a DA for that county .
I had the option to come back later to be heard by the judge , but the county was quite a ways away from home and I did n't really want to go back .
The DA offered me a " plea bargain " since I had no tickets on my record prior .
They said I could enter a plea of " guilty not accepted " , under which they would accept a lesser fine from me than the original ticket ( the DA essentially changed the reported speed from 45 to 38 , still in a 30 ) , and as long as I was not pulled over in their county again for the next 12 months the ticket would not be reported to my insurance company ( I was a young man at the time so that part was important to me ) .
I accepted that deal , wrote them a check that day , and I have n't returned to that county since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was once ticketed for doing 45 in a 30 in a woefully underpowered car.
The ticket the cop wrote (which I did not see in full until my day in court) claimed I was 30-40 feet from a stoplight where not only did I stop, but I made a right-hand turn.
I had two guys in my car with me, which didn't help the car accelerating on flat ground (this was a very flat area of a very flat state).
So basically for the ticket to be correct, this car which made around 70hp on a good day needed to be accelerating at Porsche speed while turning.
The ticket that the officer gave me that day (which was missing some of the critical information such as the location where he claimed I was) had a court date on it, so I went to court armed with information on how I could not possibly have been going as fast as claimed.
Instead I was greeted by a DA for that county.
I had the option to come back later to be heard by the judge, but the county was quite a ways away from home and I didn't really want to go back.
The DA offered me a "plea bargain" since I had no tickets on my record prior.
They said I could enter a plea of "guilty not accepted", under which they would accept a lesser fine from me than the original ticket (the DA essentially changed the reported speed from 45 to 38, still in a 30), and as long as I was not pulled over in their county again for the next 12 months the ticket would not be reported to my insurance company (I was a young man at the time so that part was important to me).
I accepted that deal, wrote them a check that day, and I haven't returned to that county since.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013346</id>
	<title>Amazing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257594360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" At issue was the distance from the stoplight -- site of the first GPS 'ping' that showed Malone stopped -- to the second ping 30 seconds later, when he was going 45 mph." No matter what, a car that goes from 0 to 45 in 30 seconds is crawling. Gimme one, I am that old fart in front of you in the fast lane:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" At issue was the distance from the stoplight -- site of the first GPS 'ping ' that showed Malone stopped -- to the second ping 30 seconds later , when he was going 45 mph .
" No matter what , a car that goes from 0 to 45 in 30 seconds is crawling .
Gim me one , I am that old fart in front of you in the fast lane : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" At issue was the distance from the stoplight -- site of the first GPS 'ping' that showed Malone stopped -- to the second ping 30 seconds later, when he was going 45 mph.
" No matter what, a car that goes from 0 to 45 in 30 seconds is crawling.
Gimme one, I am that old fart in front of you in the fast lane:P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30019820</id>
	<title>That section of Lakeville Hwy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257712920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That section of Lakeville Hwy is pretty busy during the daytime,  I dont know if he was first in the front of the line at the light but if he was not then it is likely he was flowing with the traffic off the line.</p><p>To give you an idea of the attitude of local LEOs there in Petaluma in that area, I was coming out of a coworker's house at about 1:30 AM on a week night and entered my parked and dew covered car, a cop who had been sitting down the block with his lights off (I saw him there as I was walking to my car) came screaming down the street, did a U turn, lit up his floodlight, came over and started grilling me about where I was, what I was doing in that neighborhood, etc.  All unlawful questions as he was not investing a crime, just pure harassment of citizens - he did not ask for my id or papers because he knew I hadn't done anything, not even pulled out of the parking space. BTW, white, middle aged, no tattoos, Honda sedan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That section of Lakeville Hwy is pretty busy during the daytime , I dont know if he was first in the front of the line at the light but if he was not then it is likely he was flowing with the traffic off the line.To give you an idea of the attitude of local LEOs there in Petaluma in that area , I was coming out of a coworker 's house at about 1 : 30 AM on a week night and entered my parked and dew covered car , a cop who had been sitting down the block with his lights off ( I saw him there as I was walking to my car ) came screaming down the street , did a U turn , lit up his floodlight , came over and started grilling me about where I was , what I was doing in that neighborhood , etc .
All unlawful questions as he was not investing a crime , just pure harassment of citizens - he did not ask for my id or papers because he knew I had n't done anything , not even pulled out of the parking space .
BTW , white , middle aged , no tattoos , Honda sedan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That section of Lakeville Hwy is pretty busy during the daytime,  I dont know if he was first in the front of the line at the light but if he was not then it is likely he was flowing with the traffic off the line.To give you an idea of the attitude of local LEOs there in Petaluma in that area, I was coming out of a coworker's house at about 1:30 AM on a week night and entered my parked and dew covered car, a cop who had been sitting down the block with his lights off (I saw him there as I was walking to my car) came screaming down the street, did a U turn, lit up his floodlight, came over and started grilling me about where I was, what I was doing in that neighborhood, etc.
All unlawful questions as he was not investing a crime, just pure harassment of citizens - he did not ask for my id or papers because he knew I hadn't done anything, not even pulled out of the parking space.
BTW, white, middle aged, no tattoos, Honda sedan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013458</id>
	<title>The path travelled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257596040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since the article didn't give enough information (and manages to misspell one of the street names), I googled around and figured out the path taken (from <a href="http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20071002/NEWS/710020308?Title=Case-pits-police-radar-against-GPS-in-teen-s-car#" title="pressdemocrat.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20071002/NEWS/710020308?Title=Case-pits-police-radar-against-GPS-in-teen-s-car#</a> [pressdemocrat.com]): <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&amp;gl=us&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;oe=UTF8&amp;msa=0&amp;msid=105238595049957684644.000477c5e46e20fe9dff3&amp;ll=38.2325,-122.591393&amp;spn=0.010956,0.010257&amp;z=16" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&amp;gl=us&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;oe=UTF8&amp;msa=0&amp;msid=105238595049957684644.000477c5e46e20fe9dff3&amp;ll=38.2325,-122.591393&amp;spn=0.010956,0.010257&amp;z=16</a> [google.com]
<br> <br>
The first point is when he was stopped at the intersection, the middle is (probably) where the cop got him on radar, and the end is where the GPS clocked him at 45 MPH.
<br> <br>
I estimate that's about 2.2k feet from a dead stop in 30 seconds, which puts his average speed at 50. It's pretty much a given he was speeding when the cop radar'd him and he put on the braked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the article did n't give enough information ( and manages to misspell one of the street names ) , I googled around and figured out the path taken ( from http : //www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20071002/NEWS/710020308 ? Title = Case-pits-police-radar-against-GPS-in-teen-s-car # [ pressdemocrat.com ] ) : http : //maps.google.com/maps/ms ? hl = en&amp;gl = us&amp;ie = UTF8&amp;oe = UTF8&amp;msa = 0&amp;msid = 105238595049957684644.000477c5e46e20fe9dff3&amp;ll = 38.2325,-122.591393&amp;spn = 0.010956,0.010257&amp;z = 16 [ google.com ] The first point is when he was stopped at the intersection , the middle is ( probably ) where the cop got him on radar , and the end is where the GPS clocked him at 45 MPH .
I estimate that 's about 2.2k feet from a dead stop in 30 seconds , which puts his average speed at 50 .
It 's pretty much a given he was speeding when the cop radar 'd him and he put on the braked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the article didn't give enough information (and manages to misspell one of the street names), I googled around and figured out the path taken (from http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20071002/NEWS/710020308?Title=Case-pits-police-radar-against-GPS-in-teen-s-car# [pressdemocrat.com]): http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&amp;gl=us&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;oe=UTF8&amp;msa=0&amp;msid=105238595049957684644.000477c5e46e20fe9dff3&amp;ll=38.2325,-122.591393&amp;spn=0.010956,0.010257&amp;z=16 [google.com]
 
The first point is when he was stopped at the intersection, the middle is (probably) where the cop got him on radar, and the end is where the GPS clocked him at 45 MPH.
I estimate that's about 2.2k feet from a dead stop in 30 seconds, which puts his average speed at 50.
It's pretty much a given he was speeding when the cop radar'd him and he put on the braked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014266</id>
	<title>You're misconstruing the point</title>
	<author>belthize</author>
	<datestamp>1257609180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not implied at all except by the personal statements of the Sgt who has no say in the matter.</p><p>The GPS data *was* right and it showed one thing conclusively,  the teenager had been driving in excess of 45mph during some fraction of the last 30 seconds.   The GPS is not capable of making statements about your current speed, it can only state your average speed since the last data point.</p><p>To go from a stop to averaging 45mph would require a top speed in excess of 45mph.   All you can do is bracket his speed with the GPS not specify it, there are too many unknowns.<br>1) How long was he stopped at the light from the last ping to when it turned green<br>2) What was his rate of acceleration<br>3) After reaching top speed was his speed constant</p><p>If he sat at the red light an additional 8 seconds and then instantaneously began moving at 62mph he'd average 45mph over the previous 30 seconds. (62mph for 22seconds is ~= 45mph for 30 seconds).</p><p>If he took 12 seconds to accelerate to 62 mph he'd average 45mph over 30 seconds.</p><p>GPS data will be perfectly permissible in court, your civil rights haven't been trampled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not implied at all except by the personal statements of the Sgt who has no say in the matter.The GPS data * was * right and it showed one thing conclusively , the teenager had been driving in excess of 45mph during some fraction of the last 30 seconds .
The GPS is not capable of making statements about your current speed , it can only state your average speed since the last data point.To go from a stop to averaging 45mph would require a top speed in excess of 45mph .
All you can do is bracket his speed with the GPS not specify it , there are too many unknowns.1 ) How long was he stopped at the light from the last ping to when it turned green2 ) What was his rate of acceleration3 ) After reaching top speed was his speed constantIf he sat at the red light an additional 8 seconds and then instantaneously began moving at 62mph he 'd average 45mph over the previous 30 seconds .
( 62mph for 22seconds is ~ = 45mph for 30 seconds ) .If he took 12 seconds to accelerate to 62 mph he 'd average 45mph over 30 seconds.GPS data will be perfectly permissible in court , your civil rights have n't been trampled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not implied at all except by the personal statements of the Sgt who has no say in the matter.The GPS data *was* right and it showed one thing conclusively,  the teenager had been driving in excess of 45mph during some fraction of the last 30 seconds.
The GPS is not capable of making statements about your current speed, it can only state your average speed since the last data point.To go from a stop to averaging 45mph would require a top speed in excess of 45mph.
All you can do is bracket his speed with the GPS not specify it, there are too many unknowns.1) How long was he stopped at the light from the last ping to when it turned green2) What was his rate of acceleration3) After reaching top speed was his speed constantIf he sat at the red light an additional 8 seconds and then instantaneously began moving at 62mph he'd average 45mph over the previous 30 seconds.
(62mph for 22seconds is ~= 45mph for 30 seconds).If he took 12 seconds to accelerate to 62 mph he'd average 45mph over 30 seconds.GPS data will be perfectly permissible in court, your civil rights haven't been trampled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015692</id>
	<title>Re:GPS speed not accurate 100\% of the time</title>
	<author>RJFerret</author>
	<datestamp>1257622260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How the court can even consider comparing stationary technology that operates up to a few hundred meters with something that is 20,000 kilometers away traveling at 14,000 km/h is beyond me. GPS accuracy is effected by builings, mountains, etc.</p></div><p>How can you consider your vision accurate based on signals reflected from a sun 149,476,000 km away?</p><p>GPSr LOCATION accuracy is affected by satellite constellation, reflected signals, signal blockage and atmospheric conditions.</p><p>However SPEED is known by doppler shift of the signal right at the antenna, which is not particularly impacted by any of those things.</p><p>But don't take my word for it, Dr. Stephen Heppe, the expert in the case, with a doctorate in electrical engineering and communications points out, "accurate...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...to within 1 mph on speed. Dr. Heppe also pointed out that the GPS device released instantaneous data, and not data averaged over a distance."</p><p>PS: There was a great article from Goddard on knowing Earth location and GPS satellite locations from distant quasars (which appear fixed from us), let me dig it up from my Twitter account last week...  Here you go: <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2009/icrf2.html" title="nasa.gov">Celestial Map Gives Directions for GPS</a> [nasa.gov]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How the court can even consider comparing stationary technology that operates up to a few hundred meters with something that is 20,000 kilometers away traveling at 14,000 km/h is beyond me .
GPS accuracy is effected by builings , mountains , etc.How can you consider your vision accurate based on signals reflected from a sun 149,476,000 km away ? GPSr LOCATION accuracy is affected by satellite constellation , reflected signals , signal blockage and atmospheric conditions.However SPEED is known by doppler shift of the signal right at the antenna , which is not particularly impacted by any of those things.But do n't take my word for it , Dr. Stephen Heppe , the expert in the case , with a doctorate in electrical engineering and communications points out , " accurate... ...to within 1 mph on speed .
Dr. Heppe also pointed out that the GPS device released instantaneous data , and not data averaged over a distance .
" PS : There was a great article from Goddard on knowing Earth location and GPS satellite locations from distant quasars ( which appear fixed from us ) , let me dig it up from my Twitter account last week... Here you go : Celestial Map Gives Directions for GPS [ nasa.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the court can even consider comparing stationary technology that operates up to a few hundred meters with something that is 20,000 kilometers away traveling at 14,000 km/h is beyond me.
GPS accuracy is effected by builings, mountains, etc.How can you consider your vision accurate based on signals reflected from a sun 149,476,000 km away?GPSr LOCATION accuracy is affected by satellite constellation, reflected signals, signal blockage and atmospheric conditions.However SPEED is known by doppler shift of the signal right at the antenna, which is not particularly impacted by any of those things.But don't take my word for it, Dr. Stephen Heppe, the expert in the case, with a doctorate in electrical engineering and communications points out, "accurate... ...to within 1 mph on speed.
Dr. Heppe also pointed out that the GPS device released instantaneous data, and not data averaged over a distance.
"PS: There was a great article from Goddard on knowing Earth location and GPS satellite locations from distant quasars (which appear fixed from us), let me dig it up from my Twitter account last week...  Here you go: Celestial Map Gives Directions for GPS [nasa.gov]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013424</id>
	<title>i just got off the toilet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257595380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i shit out an obama.<br> <br>PLOP!</htmltext>
<tokenext>i shit out an obama .
PLOP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i shit out an obama.
PLOP!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014438</id>
	<title>He would of been better off x-examining the witnes</title>
	<author>Bruha</author>
	<datestamp>1257611940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go to court, plead not guilty, cop shows up states you are, ask to see the witness.  Cop says he's the witness, nope he's a 3rd party to the witness.  The actual witness is that radar detector he claims he was using.  When was it purchased, was it dash mounted, has it ever been dropped if it's hand held, how is it handled (I've seen cops toss them into the passenger seat and fly after speeders), and most importantly.  Produce the calibration certification and it's calibration requirements.   I'm sure 90\% of police districts are too cheap to calibrate these devices on time if at all.</p><p>This shit flys for traffic cameras as well.  You're allowed by law to face your accuser, in both cases the cop is not the accuser, it's the devices the use to contend your're speeding.</p><p>Just dont be fighting it if you know you were actually speeding.  Also I wonder how much those parents spent to fight this.  Surely it was more than 190 dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go to court , plead not guilty , cop shows up states you are , ask to see the witness .
Cop says he 's the witness , nope he 's a 3rd party to the witness .
The actual witness is that radar detector he claims he was using .
When was it purchased , was it dash mounted , has it ever been dropped if it 's hand held , how is it handled ( I 've seen cops toss them into the passenger seat and fly after speeders ) , and most importantly .
Produce the calibration certification and it 's calibration requirements .
I 'm sure 90 \ % of police districts are too cheap to calibrate these devices on time if at all.This shit flys for traffic cameras as well .
You 're allowed by law to face your accuser , in both cases the cop is not the accuser , it 's the devices the use to contend your 're speeding.Just dont be fighting it if you know you were actually speeding .
Also I wonder how much those parents spent to fight this .
Surely it was more than 190 dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go to court, plead not guilty, cop shows up states you are, ask to see the witness.
Cop says he's the witness, nope he's a 3rd party to the witness.
The actual witness is that radar detector he claims he was using.
When was it purchased, was it dash mounted, has it ever been dropped if it's hand held, how is it handled (I've seen cops toss them into the passenger seat and fly after speeders), and most importantly.
Produce the calibration certification and it's calibration requirements.
I'm sure 90\% of police districts are too cheap to calibrate these devices on time if at all.This shit flys for traffic cameras as well.
You're allowed by law to face your accuser, in both cases the cop is not the accuser, it's the devices the use to contend your're speeding.Just dont be fighting it if you know you were actually speeding.
Also I wonder how much those parents spent to fight this.
Surely it was more than 190 dollars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014230</id>
	<title>Re:Radar Guns...</title>
	<author>Stray7Xi</author>
	<datestamp>1257608640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only realistic alternative is hitting a car travelling in the other direction but since police are trained to only use a radar gun on a straight road and at a certain angle that might be unlikely too.</p></div><p>Really in this day of mobile technology, radar guns should be much more advanced.  When a reading is being taken it should take several photos of where the gun is aimed.  The photos should be timestamped, show a GPS coordinate where reading was taken, and show date of last calibration of gun, then signed by the gun.  If the officer pulls the person over, it would be uploaded to central server.  Time, GPS, Speed, and Calibration will also be printed on ticket, along with a hash of uploaded photos.  Both the officer and driver will sign and get a copy.</p><p>Yes it's still based on officer's judgment, but we should not be relying solely on their witness account.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only realistic alternative is hitting a car travelling in the other direction but since police are trained to only use a radar gun on a straight road and at a certain angle that might be unlikely too.Really in this day of mobile technology , radar guns should be much more advanced .
When a reading is being taken it should take several photos of where the gun is aimed .
The photos should be timestamped , show a GPS coordinate where reading was taken , and show date of last calibration of gun , then signed by the gun .
If the officer pulls the person over , it would be uploaded to central server .
Time , GPS , Speed , and Calibration will also be printed on ticket , along with a hash of uploaded photos .
Both the officer and driver will sign and get a copy.Yes it 's still based on officer 's judgment , but we should not be relying solely on their witness account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only realistic alternative is hitting a car travelling in the other direction but since police are trained to only use a radar gun on a straight road and at a certain angle that might be unlikely too.Really in this day of mobile technology, radar guns should be much more advanced.
When a reading is being taken it should take several photos of where the gun is aimed.
The photos should be timestamped, show a GPS coordinate where reading was taken, and show date of last calibration of gun, then signed by the gun.
If the officer pulls the person over, it would be uploaded to central server.
Time, GPS, Speed, and Calibration will also be printed on ticket, along with a hash of uploaded photos.
Both the officer and driver will sign and get a copy.Yes it's still based on officer's judgment, but we should not be relying solely on their witness account.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30016348</id>
	<title>Re:GPS speed not accurate 100\% of the time</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1257627240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>GPS accuracy is <a href="http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Strategy=*&amp;Form=Dict1&amp;Database=*&amp;Query=effected" title="dict.org" rel="nofollow">effected</a> [dict.org] by builings, mountains, etc.</p></div></blockquote><p>You're claiming that GPS would be inaccurate in the desert, and I really doubt that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>GPS accuracy is effected [ dict.org ] by builings , mountains , etc.You 're claiming that GPS would be inaccurate in the desert , and I really doubt that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GPS accuracy is effected [dict.org] by builings, mountains, etc.You're claiming that GPS would be inaccurate in the desert, and I really doubt that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014590</id>
	<title>Re:Radar Guns...</title>
	<author>lastchance\_000</author>
	<datestamp>1257613800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only way that will happen is if there's a ballot initiative forcing the police to implement it. And it will be fought tooth and nail all the way. There's too much money in traffic enforcement for anyone on the receiving end to want to change things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way that will happen is if there 's a ballot initiative forcing the police to implement it .
And it will be fought tooth and nail all the way .
There 's too much money in traffic enforcement for anyone on the receiving end to want to change things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way that will happen is if there's a ballot initiative forcing the police to implement it.
And it will be fought tooth and nail all the way.
There's too much money in traffic enforcement for anyone on the receiving end to want to change things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013632</id>
	<title>Traffic court...</title>
	<author>7-Vodka</author>
	<datestamp>1257599100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Are you serious? The article is treating traffic court to some kind of regular court standards... Traffic court is a fucking kangaroo court with dubious legality and no oversight. <br> Everything about it stinks to high heaven from the magistrate who is supposed to be unbiased but is really trying to con you to the judge who acts as judge, jury and prosecutor.</p><p>
The judicial system is only supposed to adjudicate over a matter when one party can show damages caused by another. I'm sure this is not the case for silly traffic tickets. </p><p>
I wish some lawyer who is familiar with how the real court system works would chime in and list all of the differences here.</p><p>
I have witnessed many times people making illogical arguments and fining drivers when clearly under any type of innocent until proven guilty system the drivers should have gone free. </p><p>
Traffic court systems are chaotic, disorderly and inconsistent cesspools of nonsensical arguments and big egos...</p><p>
There is only one way to describe the whole traffic court system: <b>unconstitutional.</b> <br>
The only reason it remains is because of the sheer massive size of the monstrosity, how much income and how many jobs depend on the entire thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you serious ?
The article is treating traffic court to some kind of regular court standards... Traffic court is a fucking kangaroo court with dubious legality and no oversight .
Everything about it stinks to high heaven from the magistrate who is supposed to be unbiased but is really trying to con you to the judge who acts as judge , jury and prosecutor .
The judicial system is only supposed to adjudicate over a matter when one party can show damages caused by another .
I 'm sure this is not the case for silly traffic tickets .
I wish some lawyer who is familiar with how the real court system works would chime in and list all of the differences here .
I have witnessed many times people making illogical arguments and fining drivers when clearly under any type of innocent until proven guilty system the drivers should have gone free .
Traffic court systems are chaotic , disorderly and inconsistent cesspools of nonsensical arguments and big egos.. . There is only one way to describe the whole traffic court system : unconstitutional .
The only reason it remains is because of the sheer massive size of the monstrosity , how much income and how many jobs depend on the entire thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Are you serious?
The article is treating traffic court to some kind of regular court standards... Traffic court is a fucking kangaroo court with dubious legality and no oversight.
Everything about it stinks to high heaven from the magistrate who is supposed to be unbiased but is really trying to con you to the judge who acts as judge, jury and prosecutor.
The judicial system is only supposed to adjudicate over a matter when one party can show damages caused by another.
I'm sure this is not the case for silly traffic tickets.
I wish some lawyer who is familiar with how the real court system works would chime in and list all of the differences here.
I have witnessed many times people making illogical arguments and fining drivers when clearly under any type of innocent until proven guilty system the drivers should have gone free.
Traffic court systems are chaotic, disorderly and inconsistent cesspools of nonsensical arguments and big egos...
There is only one way to describe the whole traffic court system: unconstitutional.
The only reason it remains is because of the sheer massive size of the monstrosity, how much income and how many jobs depend on the entire thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30016968</id>
	<title>Carla Bonilla's Reputation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257590220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First: I'm a liberal. In west Sonoma County, a VERY liberal county. I feel that there is a lot wrong with the way our government and our country is running these days. I'm a cynical guy.</p><p>I have had the... yes, pleasure of arguing my case before Commissioner Bonilla. I was ticketed for the first time in 19 years for going over the speed limit on an emergency call to take a stranded friend to an emergency surgery. Please understand that vast tracts of this part of this county are extremely rural, and waiting for an ambulance for 20 minutes or more is not an option at times. I researched the case, and decided without doubt that it was an illegal speed trap and was prepared to fight it.</p><p>I was the last case called and had the opportunity to observe two hours of Carla Bonillas' judgement.</p><p>I left that courtroom heartened by the fairness, consideration and thoughtfulness the woman displayed in working through legal requirements placed upon her, yet managing to help a large number of people who were cited for perversions of logic and law. She demonstrated an awareness and a humanity about her decisions that really impressed me. I mentioned to several friends that I was relieved and uplifted to see that kind of behavior on the bench.</p><p>I'm quite certain that in this case she would have done as I witnessed in other cases and acknowledged the limitations of her knowledge on a given subject, asked for input, and ruled in a way that would provide the most reasonable solution.<br>Her reasoning is sound, and she explains it to the court.</p><p>Disclaimers: I don't know Commissioner Bonilla, I don't have association or knowledge of any of the parties, and I'm not associated with law enforcement or the County of Sonoma other than living here. Also know that she is an appointee, and does not run for office. She states this at the beginning of each court session.</p><p>FYI, She ruled in my favor after hearing my arguments, followed as the law stipulated and dismissed the case.<br>My opinion of her methods had already been formed by that point, and encouraged me to get up there and argue, comfortable with the idea that this judge would be fair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First : I 'm a liberal .
In west Sonoma County , a VERY liberal county .
I feel that there is a lot wrong with the way our government and our country is running these days .
I 'm a cynical guy.I have had the... yes , pleasure of arguing my case before Commissioner Bonilla .
I was ticketed for the first time in 19 years for going over the speed limit on an emergency call to take a stranded friend to an emergency surgery .
Please understand that vast tracts of this part of this county are extremely rural , and waiting for an ambulance for 20 minutes or more is not an option at times .
I researched the case , and decided without doubt that it was an illegal speed trap and was prepared to fight it.I was the last case called and had the opportunity to observe two hours of Carla Bonillas ' judgement.I left that courtroom heartened by the fairness , consideration and thoughtfulness the woman displayed in working through legal requirements placed upon her , yet managing to help a large number of people who were cited for perversions of logic and law .
She demonstrated an awareness and a humanity about her decisions that really impressed me .
I mentioned to several friends that I was relieved and uplifted to see that kind of behavior on the bench.I 'm quite certain that in this case she would have done as I witnessed in other cases and acknowledged the limitations of her knowledge on a given subject , asked for input , and ruled in a way that would provide the most reasonable solution.Her reasoning is sound , and she explains it to the court.Disclaimers : I do n't know Commissioner Bonilla , I do n't have association or knowledge of any of the parties , and I 'm not associated with law enforcement or the County of Sonoma other than living here .
Also know that she is an appointee , and does not run for office .
She states this at the beginning of each court session.FYI , She ruled in my favor after hearing my arguments , followed as the law stipulated and dismissed the case.My opinion of her methods had already been formed by that point , and encouraged me to get up there and argue , comfortable with the idea that this judge would be fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First: I'm a liberal.
In west Sonoma County, a VERY liberal county.
I feel that there is a lot wrong with the way our government and our country is running these days.
I'm a cynical guy.I have had the... yes, pleasure of arguing my case before Commissioner Bonilla.
I was ticketed for the first time in 19 years for going over the speed limit on an emergency call to take a stranded friend to an emergency surgery.
Please understand that vast tracts of this part of this county are extremely rural, and waiting for an ambulance for 20 minutes or more is not an option at times.
I researched the case, and decided without doubt that it was an illegal speed trap and was prepared to fight it.I was the last case called and had the opportunity to observe two hours of Carla Bonillas' judgement.I left that courtroom heartened by the fairness, consideration and thoughtfulness the woman displayed in working through legal requirements placed upon her, yet managing to help a large number of people who were cited for perversions of logic and law.
She demonstrated an awareness and a humanity about her decisions that really impressed me.
I mentioned to several friends that I was relieved and uplifted to see that kind of behavior on the bench.I'm quite certain that in this case she would have done as I witnessed in other cases and acknowledged the limitations of her knowledge on a given subject, asked for input, and ruled in a way that would provide the most reasonable solution.Her reasoning is sound, and she explains it to the court.Disclaimers: I don't know Commissioner Bonilla, I don't have association or knowledge of any of the parties, and I'm not associated with law enforcement or the County of Sonoma other than living here.
Also know that she is an appointee, and does not run for office.
She states this at the beginning of each court session.FYI, She ruled in my favor after hearing my arguments, followed as the law stipulated and dismissed the case.My opinion of her methods had already been formed by that point, and encouraged me to get up there and argue, comfortable with the idea that this judge would be fair.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014114</id>
	<title>Re:Traffic court...</title>
	<author>KiahZero</author>
	<datestamp>1257606780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're forgetting that traffic infractions are a civil offense, not a criminal offense. As such, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard doesn't apply, replaced by the civil standard of "preponderance of the evidence." That means the prosecution just has to prove it's more likely than not that the person was speeding. Because police officers are generally seen as credible witnesses under most circumstances, that's a hard standard to meet for the defense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're forgetting that traffic infractions are a civil offense , not a criminal offense .
As such , the " beyond a reasonable doubt " standard does n't apply , replaced by the civil standard of " preponderance of the evidence .
" That means the prosecution just has to prove it 's more likely than not that the person was speeding .
Because police officers are generally seen as credible witnesses under most circumstances , that 's a hard standard to meet for the defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're forgetting that traffic infractions are a civil offense, not a criminal offense.
As such, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard doesn't apply, replaced by the civil standard of "preponderance of the evidence.
" That means the prosecution just has to prove it's more likely than not that the person was speeding.
Because police officers are generally seen as credible witnesses under most circumstances, that's a hard standard to meet for the defense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014886</id>
	<title>Re:Sgt is an idiot</title>
	<author>camg188</author>
	<datestamp>1257616800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But Bonilla sided with the officer, stating he received a clear Doppler tone indicating no interference. Given Johnson's experience, including 15 years in the traffic division, and his observations on the morning in question, &ldquo;the notion that he may have picked up a different vehicle is speculation,&rdquo; Bonilla wrote.</p></div></blockquote><p>How would his 15 years of traffic division experience be relevant if he has been using the radar incorrectly for 15 years? He should have to prove that he knows how to use the radar correctly. <br>In every speeding case, the police officer should be required to testify as to how radar actually measures speed and and list what factors could interfere with that measurement or give a false measurement. <br> <br>Could you imagine if a scientist had to testify about some scientific measurement and his validation was that the "clear indicator tone showed I did it correctly"?  He'd be torn apart under cross examination.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But Bonilla sided with the officer , stating he received a clear Doppler tone indicating no interference .
Given Johnson 's experience , including 15 years in the traffic division , and his observations on the morning in question ,    the notion that he may have picked up a different vehicle is speculation ,    Bonilla wrote.How would his 15 years of traffic division experience be relevant if he has been using the radar incorrectly for 15 years ?
He should have to prove that he knows how to use the radar correctly .
In every speeding case , the police officer should be required to testify as to how radar actually measures speed and and list what factors could interfere with that measurement or give a false measurement .
Could you imagine if a scientist had to testify about some scientific measurement and his validation was that the " clear indicator tone showed I did it correctly " ?
He 'd be torn apart under cross examination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Bonilla sided with the officer, stating he received a clear Doppler tone indicating no interference.
Given Johnson's experience, including 15 years in the traffic division, and his observations on the morning in question, “the notion that he may have picked up a different vehicle is speculation,” Bonilla wrote.How would his 15 years of traffic division experience be relevant if he has been using the radar incorrectly for 15 years?
He should have to prove that he knows how to use the radar correctly.
In every speeding case, the police officer should be required to testify as to how radar actually measures speed and and list what factors could interfere with that measurement or give a false measurement.
Could you imagine if a scientist had to testify about some scientific measurement and his validation was that the "clear indicator tone showed I did it correctly"?
He'd be torn apart under cross examination.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013490</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Calculus</title>
	<author>notarockstar1979</author>
	<datestamp>1257596640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it can't:  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty\_principle" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty\_principle</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it ca n't : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty \ _principle [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it can't:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty\_principle [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013422</id>
	<title>Sgt is an idiot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257595380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>'This case ensures that other law enforcement agencies throughout the state aren't going to have to fight a case like this where GPS is used to cast doubt on radar,' said Sgt. Ken Savano,</b></p><p>Well if the summary is true (and I know it might not be), it actually means the opposite since the GPS data was considered at the trial. That means others may try to present their GPS data in future. It certainly doesn't mean that people can't try that defense. There was no precedent set that the GPS data was less reliable than the radar. It's just that the GPS data could be interpretted to be in agreement with the radar data. Also, this is only applicable to one kind of GPS unit under one very limited set of circumstances.</p><p>In other words Sgt. Ken Savano is either misrepresenting the whole situation or is incompetent when it comes to the prosecution of speeding violations. Either way he's coming across as dim witted and it raises serious doubts for me about his ability to perform his duties as a police officer, since he can't seem to understand the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'This case ensures that other law enforcement agencies throughout the state are n't going to have to fight a case like this where GPS is used to cast doubt on radar, ' said Sgt .
Ken Savano,Well if the summary is true ( and I know it might not be ) , it actually means the opposite since the GPS data was considered at the trial .
That means others may try to present their GPS data in future .
It certainly does n't mean that people ca n't try that defense .
There was no precedent set that the GPS data was less reliable than the radar .
It 's just that the GPS data could be interpretted to be in agreement with the radar data .
Also , this is only applicable to one kind of GPS unit under one very limited set of circumstances.In other words Sgt .
Ken Savano is either misrepresenting the whole situation or is incompetent when it comes to the prosecution of speeding violations .
Either way he 's coming across as dim witted and it raises serious doubts for me about his ability to perform his duties as a police officer , since he ca n't seem to understand the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'This case ensures that other law enforcement agencies throughout the state aren't going to have to fight a case like this where GPS is used to cast doubt on radar,' said Sgt.
Ken Savano,Well if the summary is true (and I know it might not be), it actually means the opposite since the GPS data was considered at the trial.
That means others may try to present their GPS data in future.
It certainly doesn't mean that people can't try that defense.
There was no precedent set that the GPS data was less reliable than the radar.
It's just that the GPS data could be interpretted to be in agreement with the radar data.
Also, this is only applicable to one kind of GPS unit under one very limited set of circumstances.In other words Sgt.
Ken Savano is either misrepresenting the whole situation or is incompetent when it comes to the prosecution of speeding violations.
Either way he's coming across as dim witted and it raises serious doubts for me about his ability to perform his duties as a police officer, since he can't seem to understand the law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013562</id>
	<title>Re:Sgt is an idiot</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1257598080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...he's coming across as dim witted and it raises serious doubts for me about his ability to perform his duties as a police officer, since he can't seem to understand the law.</p></div><p>What a shame this kid wasn't stopped by one of the vast majority of smart, intelligent, helpful, and caring police officers instead of an ignorant bully boy with a chip on his shoulder.</p><p>I'm being sarcastic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...he 's coming across as dim witted and it raises serious doubts for me about his ability to perform his duties as a police officer , since he ca n't seem to understand the law.What a shame this kid was n't stopped by one of the vast majority of smart , intelligent , helpful , and caring police officers instead of an ignorant bully boy with a chip on his shoulder.I 'm being sarcastic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...he's coming across as dim witted and it raises serious doubts for me about his ability to perform his duties as a police officer, since he can't seem to understand the law.What a shame this kid wasn't stopped by one of the vast majority of smart, intelligent, helpful, and caring police officers instead of an ignorant bully boy with a chip on his shoulder.I'm being sarcastic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013808</id>
	<title>Re:Traffic court...</title>
	<author>mikelieman</author>
	<datestamp>1257602160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The only reason it remains is because of the sheer massive size of the monstrosity, how much income and how many jobs depend on the entire thing.</p></div></blockquote><p>

That -- and the little fact that you <b>agreed</b> to these crazy rules when you signed that driver's license application and vehicle registration application.

Caveat Emptor applies to transactions with the State, too.

But hey, the value of a good set of Papers is without measure, so it's generally worth the extra hassle.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason it remains is because of the sheer massive size of the monstrosity , how much income and how many jobs depend on the entire thing .
That -- and the little fact that you agreed to these crazy rules when you signed that driver 's license application and vehicle registration application .
Caveat Emptor applies to transactions with the State , too .
But hey , the value of a good set of Papers is without measure , so it 's generally worth the extra hassle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason it remains is because of the sheer massive size of the monstrosity, how much income and how many jobs depend on the entire thing.
That -- and the little fact that you agreed to these crazy rules when you signed that driver's license application and vehicle registration application.
Caveat Emptor applies to transactions with the State, too.
But hey, the value of a good set of Papers is without measure, so it's generally worth the extra hassle.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014058</id>
	<title>Re:GPS speed not accurate 100\% of the time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257605940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL, you fail at understanding what GPS is.</p><p>It's accurate and in this case all the pieces <b>do</b> fit together.  The GPS can over average speed across two points in time.  This kid's GPS used a period of 30 seconds.  The first data point was the kid stopped at 0 MPH.  The second point was like half a mile later and show an average of 45 MPH, that includes accelerating from 0 within that time frame as well so the average speed <b>had</b> to be above 45 MPH.  The GPS data is accurate and shows he was speeding (although not by how much; in this case the cops radar was an instant data point that also showed him speeding).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL , you fail at understanding what GPS is.It 's accurate and in this case all the pieces do fit together .
The GPS can over average speed across two points in time .
This kid 's GPS used a period of 30 seconds .
The first data point was the kid stopped at 0 MPH .
The second point was like half a mile later and show an average of 45 MPH , that includes accelerating from 0 within that time frame as well so the average speed had to be above 45 MPH .
The GPS data is accurate and shows he was speeding ( although not by how much ; in this case the cops radar was an instant data point that also showed him speeding ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL, you fail at understanding what GPS is.It's accurate and in this case all the pieces do fit together.
The GPS can over average speed across two points in time.
This kid's GPS used a period of 30 seconds.
The first data point was the kid stopped at 0 MPH.
The second point was like half a mile later and show an average of 45 MPH, that includes accelerating from 0 within that time frame as well so the average speed had to be above 45 MPH.
The GPS data is accurate and shows he was speeding (although not by how much; in this case the cops radar was an instant data point that also showed him speeding).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013776</id>
	<title>Re:GPS speed not accurate 100\% of the time</title>
	<author>bmr91</author>
	<datestamp>1257601680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet we can still beam HDTV to thousands of people at the same distance but if somebody stands in front of the TV my remote doesn't work.
<br> <br>
The question is not the accuracy of GPS, it's the fact that the car's speed was only recorded at 30 seconds intervals, and anything could have gone on in between those intervals as long as it brought his average speed to 45 mile/hr.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet we can still beam HDTV to thousands of people at the same distance but if somebody stands in front of the TV my remote does n't work .
The question is not the accuracy of GPS , it 's the fact that the car 's speed was only recorded at 30 seconds intervals , and anything could have gone on in between those intervals as long as it brought his average speed to 45 mile/hr .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet we can still beam HDTV to thousands of people at the same distance but if somebody stands in front of the TV my remote doesn't work.
The question is not the accuracy of GPS, it's the fact that the car's speed was only recorded at 30 seconds intervals, and anything could have gone on in between those intervals as long as it brought his average speed to 45 mile/hr.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30016356</id>
	<title>Radars sometimes fails!</title>
	<author>Trukutu</author>
	<datestamp>1257627360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Spain the last year a driver was fined to lead to 750 km/h. They didn't not cancel the punish because it was accept that the radars fail.

The new, in spanish..
<a href="http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/galicia/2008/06/19/0003\_6917433.htm" title="lavozdegalicia.es" rel="nofollow">http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/galicia/2008/06/19/0003\_6917433.htm</a> [lavozdegalicia.es]</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Spain the last year a driver was fined to lead to 750 km/h .
They did n't not cancel the punish because it was accept that the radars fail .
The new , in spanish. . http : //www.lavozdegalicia.es/galicia/2008/06/19/0003 \ _6917433.htm [ lavozdegalicia.es ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Spain the last year a driver was fined to lead to 750 km/h.
They didn't not cancel the punish because it was accept that the radars fail.
The new, in spanish..
http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/galicia/2008/06/19/0003\_6917433.htm [lavozdegalicia.es]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30017356</id>
	<title>You guys are missing the point...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257594360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This case started right after CA bought Lidar guns to use as speed enforcement in the state. Lidar, unlike radar, does not measure speed but distance. It takes multiple distance readings, does some simple math, and then finds the average speed from those readings.</p><p>So right when our state upgrades to technology that is near identical to GPS the courts throw out GPS as an accurate source of data because GPS does not measure speed but a mean of multiple distance readings.</p><p>If I get a speeding ticket via lidar in the future I'm going to have to pull up this case and turn the tables around because this is ridiculous and ironic, if anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This case started right after CA bought Lidar guns to use as speed enforcement in the state .
Lidar , unlike radar , does not measure speed but distance .
It takes multiple distance readings , does some simple math , and then finds the average speed from those readings.So right when our state upgrades to technology that is near identical to GPS the courts throw out GPS as an accurate source of data because GPS does not measure speed but a mean of multiple distance readings.If I get a speeding ticket via lidar in the future I 'm going to have to pull up this case and turn the tables around because this is ridiculous and ironic , if anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This case started right after CA bought Lidar guns to use as speed enforcement in the state.
Lidar, unlike radar, does not measure speed but distance.
It takes multiple distance readings, does some simple math, and then finds the average speed from those readings.So right when our state upgrades to technology that is near identical to GPS the courts throw out GPS as an accurate source of data because GPS does not measure speed but a mean of multiple distance readings.If I get a speeding ticket via lidar in the future I'm going to have to pull up this case and turn the tables around because this is ridiculous and ironic, if anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015020</id>
	<title>Bring your GPX file to court</title>
	<author>beej</author>
	<datestamp>1257617940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That data's impossible to fake.</p><p>Honestly, is the Court going to believe the measurement of a piece of equipment on the defendant's car?  The defense might as well include a photo of the speedometer at 35 MPH proving innocence!  I have all kinds of data showing that I wasn't speeding, believe me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That data 's impossible to fake.Honestly , is the Court going to believe the measurement of a piece of equipment on the defendant 's car ?
The defense might as well include a photo of the speedometer at 35 MPH proving innocence !
I have all kinds of data showing that I was n't speeding , believe me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That data's impossible to fake.Honestly, is the Court going to believe the measurement of a piece of equipment on the defendant's car?
The defense might as well include a photo of the speedometer at 35 MPH proving innocence!
I have all kinds of data showing that I wasn't speeding, believe me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014138</id>
	<title>Re:Sgt is an idiot</title>
	<author>KiahZero</author>
	<datestamp>1257607260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've got it right: Sgt. Savano seems to be operating under the mistaken premise that, because the State won, that means that GPS is forever discredited and can never be raised as defense evidence in the future. That's obviously not the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got it right : Sgt .
Savano seems to be operating under the mistaken premise that , because the State won , that means that GPS is forever discredited and can never be raised as defense evidence in the future .
That 's obviously not the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got it right: Sgt.
Savano seems to be operating under the mistaken premise that, because the State won, that means that GPS is forever discredited and can never be raised as defense evidence in the future.
That's obviously not the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015850</id>
	<title>Re:Sgt is an idiot</title>
	<author>Baloo Uriza</author>
	<datestamp>1257623220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Police don't prosecute crimes, they take people in on suspicion of breaking the law.  Jurisdictions almost always have prosecutors for prosecution, police would function as a witness for the prosecution for that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Police do n't prosecute crimes , they take people in on suspicion of breaking the law .
Jurisdictions almost always have prosecutors for prosecution , police would function as a witness for the prosecution for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Police don't prosecute crimes, they take people in on suspicion of breaking the law.
Jurisdictions almost always have prosecutors for prosecution, police would function as a witness for the prosecution for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013756</id>
	<title>I calculate a peak speed of between 68-70 mph</title>
	<author>sitech</author>
	<datestamp>1257601380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So assuming he gunned it as hard as he could and he accelerated and decelerated linearly, I estimate his max speed to be between 68 to 70 mph over a period of 8.83 seconds.

That is at the max acceleration he can achieve that would fit the data (60 mph in 7.74 seconds). Any other peak speed would require slower acceleration (its like a parabola).

He could have accelerated faster than that, but 7.74 seconds is reasonable for an average car.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So assuming he gunned it as hard as he could and he accelerated and decelerated linearly , I estimate his max speed to be between 68 to 70 mph over a period of 8.83 seconds .
That is at the max acceleration he can achieve that would fit the data ( 60 mph in 7.74 seconds ) .
Any other peak speed would require slower acceleration ( its like a parabola ) .
He could have accelerated faster than that , but 7.74 seconds is reasonable for an average car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So assuming he gunned it as hard as he could and he accelerated and decelerated linearly, I estimate his max speed to be between 68 to 70 mph over a period of 8.83 seconds.
That is at the max acceleration he can achieve that would fit the data (60 mph in 7.74 seconds).
Any other peak speed would require slower acceleration (its like a parabola).
He could have accelerated faster than that, but 7.74 seconds is reasonable for an average car.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013342</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Calculus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257594300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem of this calculus you mention wasnt the speed at the end, nor even the beginning. we're missing a piece of information to properly go through this. distance. it says at a stop light, he was 0, then the next ping was 45. but the problem becomes distance covered in that 30 seconds. tie in the math, etc. if it says 45 on the ping, thats worthless. we need to know how far he traveled in 35 seconds to get an average speed, and, for the sake of argument, his vehicles 0-60 speed as well to get the stats on how quickly he could have possibly gone up to 60, nearly where they "clocked" him. obviously, his average speeds worthless, and his speed 30 seconds after his initial of 0 is worthless. we need the distance traveled in that 30 seconds. And TFA says "virtually" the same location. For all we know, he spotted the cop, hit his brakes and was doing 45 when he was pinged.

Distance is key<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... notice how TFA forgets that wonderful detail.

And, I'm sure as a teenager, with a GPS, he knew that if he hit 70, theyd get an email alert. Heck, he probably knew that if he wanted to, he could go 69, wait for a ping, if he had timed them right, speed up to 100 and brake to 69 again, all before the second ping... I guess the parents forgot that Teenager + Technology is generally &gt; Parents + technology</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem of this calculus you mention wasnt the speed at the end , nor even the beginning .
we 're missing a piece of information to properly go through this .
distance. it says at a stop light , he was 0 , then the next ping was 45. but the problem becomes distance covered in that 30 seconds .
tie in the math , etc .
if it says 45 on the ping , thats worthless .
we need to know how far he traveled in 35 seconds to get an average speed , and , for the sake of argument , his vehicles 0-60 speed as well to get the stats on how quickly he could have possibly gone up to 60 , nearly where they " clocked " him .
obviously , his average speeds worthless , and his speed 30 seconds after his initial of 0 is worthless .
we need the distance traveled in that 30 seconds .
And TFA says " virtually " the same location .
For all we know , he spotted the cop , hit his brakes and was doing 45 when he was pinged .
Distance is key ... notice how TFA forgets that wonderful detail .
And , I 'm sure as a teenager , with a GPS , he knew that if he hit 70 , theyd get an email alert .
Heck , he probably knew that if he wanted to , he could go 69 , wait for a ping , if he had timed them right , speed up to 100 and brake to 69 again , all before the second ping... I guess the parents forgot that Teenager + Technology is generally &gt; Parents + technology</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem of this calculus you mention wasnt the speed at the end, nor even the beginning.
we're missing a piece of information to properly go through this.
distance. it says at a stop light, he was 0, then the next ping was 45. but the problem becomes distance covered in that 30 seconds.
tie in the math, etc.
if it says 45 on the ping, thats worthless.
we need to know how far he traveled in 35 seconds to get an average speed, and, for the sake of argument, his vehicles 0-60 speed as well to get the stats on how quickly he could have possibly gone up to 60, nearly where they "clocked" him.
obviously, his average speeds worthless, and his speed 30 seconds after his initial of 0 is worthless.
we need the distance traveled in that 30 seconds.
And TFA says "virtually" the same location.
For all we know, he spotted the cop, hit his brakes and was doing 45 when he was pinged.
Distance is key ... notice how TFA forgets that wonderful detail.
And, I'm sure as a teenager, with a GPS, he knew that if he hit 70, theyd get an email alert.
Heck, he probably knew that if he wanted to, he could go 69, wait for a ping, if he had timed them right, speed up to 100 and brake to 69 again, all before the second ping... I guess the parents forgot that Teenager + Technology is generally &gt; Parents + technology</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015296</id>
	<title>Re:Radar Guns...</title>
	<author>vehicle tracking</author>
	<datestamp>1257619500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Radar Guns aren't completely accurate all of the time.</p></div><p>Not true.  A radar gun relies on calibration, which is required once per year.  In addition, before and after every ticket is written, the office should be checking the calibration with tunning forks.  This confirms the calibration is still accurate.

I have seen radar guns give innacurate readings due to some outside interference.  For example, radar clocked the vehicle at 500 mph when I could visibly see the vehicle was traveling at a much slower speed, like 45 mph.  Things that can cause interference are: fans in the patrol car, method employed (stationary or mobile radar), number of vehicles or a single vehicle in the target zone, hills and turns in the road.

There are also a lot of human error factors than can play into this.  For example, did the office stop the correct vehicle.  The office MUST visually confirm the speed and correctly identify the vehicle speeding.  Can't just rely on the radar.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Radar Guns are n't completely accurate all of the time.Not true .
A radar gun relies on calibration , which is required once per year .
In addition , before and after every ticket is written , the office should be checking the calibration with tunning forks .
This confirms the calibration is still accurate .
I have seen radar guns give innacurate readings due to some outside interference .
For example , radar clocked the vehicle at 500 mph when I could visibly see the vehicle was traveling at a much slower speed , like 45 mph .
Things that can cause interference are : fans in the patrol car , method employed ( stationary or mobile radar ) , number of vehicles or a single vehicle in the target zone , hills and turns in the road .
There are also a lot of human error factors than can play into this .
For example , did the office stop the correct vehicle .
The office MUST visually confirm the speed and correctly identify the vehicle speeding .
Ca n't just rely on the radar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Radar Guns aren't completely accurate all of the time.Not true.
A radar gun relies on calibration, which is required once per year.
In addition, before and after every ticket is written, the office should be checking the calibration with tunning forks.
This confirms the calibration is still accurate.
I have seen radar guns give innacurate readings due to some outside interference.
For example, radar clocked the vehicle at 500 mph when I could visibly see the vehicle was traveling at a much slower speed, like 45 mph.
Things that can cause interference are: fans in the patrol car, method employed (stationary or mobile radar), number of vehicles or a single vehicle in the target zone, hills and turns in the road.
There are also a lot of human error factors than can play into this.
For example, did the office stop the correct vehicle.
The office MUST visually confirm the speed and correctly identify the vehicle speeding.
Can't just rely on the radar.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30021544</id>
	<title>Re:radar accuracy coverup</title>
	<author>tsstahl</author>
	<datestamp>1257694320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IIt seems everyone fights based on the accuracy of the radar, but I haven't ever herad of anyone the lack of evidence that the cop was actually pointing the radar at your car and not someone elses?</p></div><p>The vast majority of modern radar guns snap a photo at the pull of the trigger, too.  A lot of departments use older tech on purpose; you can guess at motive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IIt seems everyone fights based on the accuracy of the radar , but I have n't ever herad of anyone the lack of evidence that the cop was actually pointing the radar at your car and not someone elses ? The vast majority of modern radar guns snap a photo at the pull of the trigger , too .
A lot of departments use older tech on purpose ; you can guess at motive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIt seems everyone fights based on the accuracy of the radar, but I haven't ever herad of anyone the lack of evidence that the cop was actually pointing the radar at your car and not someone elses?The vast majority of modern radar guns snap a photo at the pull of the trigger, too.
A lot of departments use older tech on purpose; you can guess at motive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013822</id>
	<title>Re:Standard Calculus</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1257602640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What i find strange is that there is only an average recorded speed. <b>My gps can tell me my speed at the exact moment</b>, so if i would record that , it would show my speed , exactly over time . Then you would also be able to see where i stopped , and when exactly when i speeded. So it would be much more acurate then a radar.</p><p>So , bad GPS tracking system.</p></div><p>No, it can't. Law of physics dude, not unless you have a GPS based on 'funny action at a distance' quantum mechanics star-trek hocus pocus.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What i find strange is that there is only an average recorded speed .
My gps can tell me my speed at the exact moment , so if i would record that , it would show my speed , exactly over time .
Then you would also be able to see where i stopped , and when exactly when i speeded .
So it would be much more acurate then a radar.So , bad GPS tracking system.No , it ca n't .
Law of physics dude , not unless you have a GPS based on 'funny action at a distance ' quantum mechanics star-trek hocus pocus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What i find strange is that there is only an average recorded speed.
My gps can tell me my speed at the exact moment, so if i would record that , it would show my speed , exactly over time .
Then you would also be able to see where i stopped , and when exactly when i speeded.
So it would be much more acurate then a radar.So , bad GPS tracking system.No, it can't.
Law of physics dude, not unless you have a GPS based on 'funny action at a distance' quantum mechanics star-trek hocus pocus.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015204</id>
	<title>Re:Forget the math, you're missing the point here.</title>
	<author>Manfre</author>
	<datestamp>1257618960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing this ruling establishes is that if you're going to use your GPS data as evidence, make sure it actually proves you were not speeding, instead of agreeing with the radar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing this ruling establishes is that if you 're going to use your GPS data as evidence , make sure it actually proves you were not speeding , instead of agreeing with the radar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing this ruling establishes is that if you're going to use your GPS data as evidence, make sure it actually proves you were not speeding, instead of agreeing with the radar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014140</id>
	<title>Re:Traffic court...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257607320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How they get away with that is that the traffic stuff is slotted in under the Civil code in most places and is deemed "quasi-criminal".  Messy sort of thing, "quasi-criminal" stuff is...</p><p>And, yeah, "Unconstitutional" would be a fairly good description thereof- but trying to get it invalidated is not worth the effort in most cases there.  There's a set of those types of laws that are...but this stuff's so penny-ante compared to the stuff worth going to the SCOTUS over it'll just probably keep getting done like that for some time to come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How they get away with that is that the traffic stuff is slotted in under the Civil code in most places and is deemed " quasi-criminal " .
Messy sort of thing , " quasi-criminal " stuff is...And , yeah , " Unconstitutional " would be a fairly good description thereof- but trying to get it invalidated is not worth the effort in most cases there .
There 's a set of those types of laws that are...but this stuff 's so penny-ante compared to the stuff worth going to the SCOTUS over it 'll just probably keep getting done like that for some time to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How they get away with that is that the traffic stuff is slotted in under the Civil code in most places and is deemed "quasi-criminal".
Messy sort of thing, "quasi-criminal" stuff is...And, yeah, "Unconstitutional" would be a fairly good description thereof- but trying to get it invalidated is not worth the effort in most cases there.
There's a set of those types of laws that are...but this stuff's so penny-ante compared to the stuff worth going to the SCOTUS over it'll just probably keep getting done like that for some time to come.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015344</id>
	<title>Re:radar accuracy coverup</title>
	<author>Xtravar</author>
	<datestamp>1257619800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what saint city you live in, but here there is NO shortage of speeders such that cops would have to make things up.  Plus, they make all of their "BS money" off of parking tickets so they don't need to harass drivers.  I only get speeding tickets on the highway through the middle of nowhere... where, of course, I'm speeding.</p><p>But if there indeed is a massive conspiracy, perhaps radar guns should be outfitted with cameras as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what saint city you live in , but here there is NO shortage of speeders such that cops would have to make things up .
Plus , they make all of their " BS money " off of parking tickets so they do n't need to harass drivers .
I only get speeding tickets on the highway through the middle of nowhere... where , of course , I 'm speeding.But if there indeed is a massive conspiracy , perhaps radar guns should be outfitted with cameras as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what saint city you live in, but here there is NO shortage of speeders such that cops would have to make things up.
Plus, they make all of their "BS money" off of parking tickets so they don't need to harass drivers.
I only get speeding tickets on the highway through the middle of nowhere... where, of course, I'm speeding.But if there indeed is a massive conspiracy, perhaps radar guns should be outfitted with cameras as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013634</id>
	<title>Re:Radar Guns...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257599160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We had a case up here of a police officer shooting a plane behind the car, and then claiming that the car was travelling almost 400KM/h.</p><p>As it looks to me, that judgement is in effect creating a blanket permission to officers to "make up" speeding tickets without having the tickets challenged.</p><p>Heavily stupid sentence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We had a case up here of a police officer shooting a plane behind the car , and then claiming that the car was travelling almost 400KM/h.As it looks to me , that judgement is in effect creating a blanket permission to officers to " make up " speeding tickets without having the tickets challenged.Heavily stupid sentence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We had a case up here of a police officer shooting a plane behind the car, and then claiming that the car was travelling almost 400KM/h.As it looks to me, that judgement is in effect creating a blanket permission to officers to "make up" speeding tickets without having the tickets challenged.Heavily stupid sentence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30027550</id>
	<title>GPS vs Radar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257691020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I don't have enough data, but the ticket was for doing 62 MPH at a certain moment, as gathered by radar? Instantaneous speed, no averaging.</p><p>GPS says he was doing 45 MPH at about that moment, no averaging, instantaneous.</p><p>One has to be wrong. The most obvious, different moments.</p><p>I would like to be able to trust a unit installed in my son's car to report accurately if I'm going to pay for that service, and accelerating faster than the speeed limit is wreckless on behalf of the son, as he should have no idea when data is gathered and transmitted.</p><p>Personally, I believe the GPS, if the manufacturer is in court and proves their technology accurate. Afterall, aren't they thinking of going to robotic cars with GPS based spped control?</p><p>Larry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I do n't have enough data , but the ticket was for doing 62 MPH at a certain moment , as gathered by radar ?
Instantaneous speed , no averaging.GPS says he was doing 45 MPH at about that moment , no averaging , instantaneous.One has to be wrong .
The most obvious , different moments.I would like to be able to trust a unit installed in my son 's car to report accurately if I 'm going to pay for that service , and accelerating faster than the speeed limit is wreckless on behalf of the son , as he should have no idea when data is gathered and transmitted.Personally , I believe the GPS , if the manufacturer is in court and proves their technology accurate .
Afterall , are n't they thinking of going to robotic cars with GPS based spped control ? Larry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I don't have enough data, but the ticket was for doing 62 MPH at a certain moment, as gathered by radar?
Instantaneous speed, no averaging.GPS says he was doing 45 MPH at about that moment, no averaging, instantaneous.One has to be wrong.
The most obvious, different moments.I would like to be able to trust a unit installed in my son's car to report accurately if I'm going to pay for that service, and accelerating faster than the speeed limit is wreckless on behalf of the son, as he should have no idea when data is gathered and transmitted.Personally, I believe the GPS, if the manufacturer is in court and proves their technology accurate.
Afterall, aren't they thinking of going to robotic cars with GPS based spped control?Larry</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30016178</id>
	<title>Was it really 30 seconds?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257625560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apologies if this has been mentioned (I did look through the comments)</p><p>But can anyone explain how it was really 30 seconds?  The GPS ping isn't a stop watch and has no clue what the vehicle is doing.  it just does a check in every 30 seconds.  So if the 1st ping hit say 5 seconds before he left then he was moving for only 25 seconds instead of 30 thereby increasing his rate of travel. The odds are 1 in 30 that he left within 1 second of the first ping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apologies if this has been mentioned ( I did look through the comments ) But can anyone explain how it was really 30 seconds ?
The GPS ping is n't a stop watch and has no clue what the vehicle is doing .
it just does a check in every 30 seconds .
So if the 1st ping hit say 5 seconds before he left then he was moving for only 25 seconds instead of 30 thereby increasing his rate of travel .
The odds are 1 in 30 that he left within 1 second of the first ping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apologies if this has been mentioned (I did look through the comments)But can anyone explain how it was really 30 seconds?
The GPS ping isn't a stop watch and has no clue what the vehicle is doing.
it just does a check in every 30 seconds.
So if the 1st ping hit say 5 seconds before he left then he was moving for only 25 seconds instead of 30 thereby increasing his rate of travel.
The odds are 1 in 30 that he left within 1 second of the first ping.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014392</id>
	<title>That was badly defended</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1257611100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does the radar reading have a time stamp?  If not, then the case should have gone to the GPS since the accuracy of both were brought into question.  That being said, what kind of crappy GPS only samples every 30 seconds?  That's useless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the radar reading have a time stamp ?
If not , then the case should have gone to the GPS since the accuracy of both were brought into question .
That being said , what kind of crappy GPS only samples every 30 seconds ?
That 's useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the radar reading have a time stamp?
If not, then the case should have gone to the GPS since the accuracy of both were brought into question.
That being said, what kind of crappy GPS only samples every 30 seconds?
That's useless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014664</id>
	<title>So easy to get to the truth...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257614580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet the morons who spent $15.000 on an expert witness and countless hours of the courts time debating mathematical theories never thought to take the car and GPS for a test drive and find the truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet the morons who spent $ 15.000 on an expert witness and countless hours of the courts time debating mathematical theories never thought to take the car and GPS for a test drive and find the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet the morons who spent $15.000 on an expert witness and countless hours of the courts time debating mathematical theories never thought to take the car and GPS for a test drive and find the truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014588</id>
	<title>Fighting traffic prosecutions...</title>
	<author>Entropius</author>
	<datestamp>1257613740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a case to be made that the entire speeding prosecution system in the US has gone way, way overboard, and that it's morally justified to fight speeding tickets just to make it more difficult on the people who perpetrate this bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a case to be made that the entire speeding prosecution system in the US has gone way , way overboard , and that it 's morally justified to fight speeding tickets just to make it more difficult on the people who perpetrate this bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a case to be made that the entire speeding prosecution system in the US has gone way, way overboard, and that it's morally justified to fight speeding tickets just to make it more difficult on the people who perpetrate this bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30017098</id>
	<title>Re:Traffic court...</title>
	<author>Dread\_ed</author>
	<datestamp>1257591600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The new deal:  Unconstitutional<br>Defrauding states of independence and their constituents of their rights through centralization of federal powers:  Unconstitutional<br>Increasing scope and power of all branches of the federal government and their accomapnying beaurecracies:  Unconstitutional<br>Government run health care:  Unconstitutional</p><p>And you are concerned with the consitutinal validity of traffic court?  Cook your minnows.  I'm looking for a larger pan, for there are much larger fish to fry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The new deal : UnconstitutionalDefrauding states of independence and their constituents of their rights through centralization of federal powers : UnconstitutionalIncreasing scope and power of all branches of the federal government and their accomapnying beaurecracies : UnconstitutionalGovernment run health care : UnconstitutionalAnd you are concerned with the consitutinal validity of traffic court ?
Cook your minnows .
I 'm looking for a larger pan , for there are much larger fish to fry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new deal:  UnconstitutionalDefrauding states of independence and their constituents of their rights through centralization of federal powers:  UnconstitutionalIncreasing scope and power of all branches of the federal government and their accomapnying beaurecracies:  UnconstitutionalGovernment run health care:  UnconstitutionalAnd you are concerned with the consitutinal validity of traffic court?
Cook your minnows.
I'm looking for a larger pan, for there are much larger fish to fry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014186</id>
	<title>The actual calculation</title>
	<author>jonnat</author>
	<datestamp>1257607860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article has important details about why the commissioner believes the GPS data supports the ticket. </p><p>http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20081206/NEWS/812060371/1334/NEWS</p><p>Apparently, the GPS logs position, time and speed every 30s. Regardless of how the system calculates speed, whether by averaging between each logged point or using much smaller time intervals, the data shows that the car was stopped at some t = 0 and had moved 2,040 ft after 30s. That results in an average of (2040 ft) / (30 s) = 46.36 mph. </p><p>Assuming a linear acceleration profile, he would have had to reach a speed of 92.72 mpg to run the 2040 ft in 30 s, but that's an unfair assumption. He was driving a 200 Toyota Celica GTS, which accelerates from 0-60 mph in 6.6s, thus at a maximum he can increase his velocity by 9.1 mph each second (assuming constant acceleration). Thus, the absolute minimal velocity the driver must have reached is 51 mpg, reaching this velocity in 5.6s and maintaining it for the remainder of the path to the next logged point. </p><p>The article does not specify where exactly was the police officer read the car's speed, which is crucial to understand if the 62 mpg reading is possible, but the conclusion is that the GPS data by itself does prove that the driver must have been above 45 mpg but does not guarantee that a speed of 62 mph must have been reached. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article has important details about why the commissioner believes the GPS data supports the ticket .
http : //www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20081206/NEWS/812060371/1334/NEWSApparently , the GPS logs position , time and speed every 30s .
Regardless of how the system calculates speed , whether by averaging between each logged point or using much smaller time intervals , the data shows that the car was stopped at some t = 0 and had moved 2,040 ft after 30s .
That results in an average of ( 2040 ft ) / ( 30 s ) = 46.36 mph .
Assuming a linear acceleration profile , he would have had to reach a speed of 92.72 mpg to run the 2040 ft in 30 s , but that 's an unfair assumption .
He was driving a 200 Toyota Celica GTS , which accelerates from 0-60 mph in 6.6s , thus at a maximum he can increase his velocity by 9.1 mph each second ( assuming constant acceleration ) .
Thus , the absolute minimal velocity the driver must have reached is 51 mpg , reaching this velocity in 5.6s and maintaining it for the remainder of the path to the next logged point .
The article does not specify where exactly was the police officer read the car 's speed , which is crucial to understand if the 62 mpg reading is possible , but the conclusion is that the GPS data by itself does prove that the driver must have been above 45 mpg but does not guarantee that a speed of 62 mph must have been reached .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article has important details about why the commissioner believes the GPS data supports the ticket.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20081206/NEWS/812060371/1334/NEWSApparently, the GPS logs position, time and speed every 30s.
Regardless of how the system calculates speed, whether by averaging between each logged point or using much smaller time intervals, the data shows that the car was stopped at some t = 0 and had moved 2,040 ft after 30s.
That results in an average of (2040 ft) / (30 s) = 46.36 mph.
Assuming a linear acceleration profile, he would have had to reach a speed of 92.72 mpg to run the 2040 ft in 30 s, but that's an unfair assumption.
He was driving a 200 Toyota Celica GTS, which accelerates from 0-60 mph in 6.6s, thus at a maximum he can increase his velocity by 9.1 mph each second (assuming constant acceleration).
Thus, the absolute minimal velocity the driver must have reached is 51 mpg, reaching this velocity in 5.6s and maintaining it for the remainder of the path to the next logged point.
The article does not specify where exactly was the police officer read the car's speed, which is crucial to understand if the 62 mpg reading is possible, but the conclusion is that the GPS data by itself does prove that the driver must have been above 45 mpg but does not guarantee that a speed of 62 mph must have been reached. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014654</id>
	<title>Re:Sgt is an idiot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257614520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I actually did get out of a ticket using GPS, this happened in California this May.</p><p>I was testing a survey-grade gps recording system on my car to see if we could use it on a boat (the logic being that if it tracks a car OK, it will do a good job at sea where altitude is known and line of sight to the sats is usually much better). Anyway, I run a stop sign, and am pulled over for it. I also find out that I am being cited for speeding, which I'm later told is something they do as a matter of course.</p><p>Then the cop asks me what all the gear in the car is for, and a somewhat amicable conversation follows. I show him how the system works (moving-line RTK twenty times a second if you're interested) and he ends up revising the ticket, which I did eventually pay because, well, I did run the stop sign.</p><p>This said, in my overall experience US cops are scary. What is a good way to defend oneself from them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually did get out of a ticket using GPS , this happened in California this May.I was testing a survey-grade gps recording system on my car to see if we could use it on a boat ( the logic being that if it tracks a car OK , it will do a good job at sea where altitude is known and line of sight to the sats is usually much better ) .
Anyway , I run a stop sign , and am pulled over for it .
I also find out that I am being cited for speeding , which I 'm later told is something they do as a matter of course.Then the cop asks me what all the gear in the car is for , and a somewhat amicable conversation follows .
I show him how the system works ( moving-line RTK twenty times a second if you 're interested ) and he ends up revising the ticket , which I did eventually pay because , well , I did run the stop sign.This said , in my overall experience US cops are scary .
What is a good way to defend oneself from them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I actually did get out of a ticket using GPS, this happened in California this May.I was testing a survey-grade gps recording system on my car to see if we could use it on a boat (the logic being that if it tracks a car OK, it will do a good job at sea where altitude is known and line of sight to the sats is usually much better).
Anyway, I run a stop sign, and am pulled over for it.
I also find out that I am being cited for speeding, which I'm later told is something they do as a matter of course.Then the cop asks me what all the gear in the car is for, and a somewhat amicable conversation follows.
I show him how the system works (moving-line RTK twenty times a second if you're interested) and he ends up revising the ticket, which I did eventually pay because, well, I did run the stop sign.This said, in my overall experience US cops are scary.
What is a good way to defend oneself from them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013422</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30017216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30019012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30017948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30016348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30018824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30017950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30018582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30021544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30017098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30017032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_037216_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_037216.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_037216.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30017948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_037216.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_037216.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30017032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30018582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30019012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30021544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_037216.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30018824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_037216.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_037216.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_037216.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30017356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_037216.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30016348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_037216.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013490
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013926
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013920
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_037216.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_037216.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30017216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_037216.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_037216.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_037216.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30016178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_037216.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30017098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30017950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_037216.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_037216.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30013562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30014886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_037216.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_037216.30015020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
