🚀 go-pugleaf

"MARK F FOLSOM" <FOLSOMMAN@prodigy.net> wrote:

>I think a great use of radar is leaving it on at an accident scene where
>oncoming traffic is likely to come on it without much visual warning.

We already do that but with these new Stalker Ka's most detectors
don't sound off anyway so we have to ask someone with the older x-band
units to turn theirs on.  If visibility at the crash scene is a
problem we'll station an officer or two further down the road so
everyone can have advance warning, not just a select few.

>My detector has paid for itself several times, especially when they have
>those multi-cruiser harvesting operations going.

That's assuming you'd have been stopped without it each time.   Based
on some tests we ran a few years ago the odds are actually higher
because (at that time at least) the detector equipped motorist was
more likely to be speeding thereby greatly increasing the odds.

>Of course, aI know I can
>get nailed anyway, but my odds are better with it than without and the state
>can use a little money once in a while.

Actually the odds are about even here.  If you get stopped without a
detector the officer may issue a warning or make it a no-point cite.
With the detector it's a full blown ticket every time.  We kind of
figure that evens things up a little bit.  On top of that most traffic
court judges will also increase the fines to the max if the evidence
shows the detector was in use. 

By the way, how's the computer program coming along?  I realize it
takes a little time to write so I'm just wondering.

Have a good weekend.

efaubion@oklahoma.net
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/6123/