[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

RE: Valentine/WSP (low Audi content)

There was a pretty good article in Crap & Drivel about precedent-setting
court cases, particularly regarding laser. The arguments put forth by
the defense were pretty interesting, take a peek, get a lawyer.
-Ian Duff.
	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Igor Kessel [SMTP:e6941tb@ix.netcom.com]
	Sent:	Sunday, July 27, 1997 6:41 PM
	To:	Fringe Ryder
	Cc:	quattro@coimbra.ans.net; audi-nw@u.washington.edu
	Subject:	Re: Valentine/WSP (low Audi content)

	Fringe Ryder wrote:

	> 4) The V1 rear laser detection does work, but this isn't going
to do you one
	> whit (whatever a whit is) of good.  You're sunk if it goes

	That's precisely why I elected to buy my V1 without the laser
	I remember posting this a year ago, but the vast majority of the
listers did not 
	agree at that time. Fringe's post is a sad proof of my words.
The coherent laser 
	beam is precise, accurate, has a very narrow volumetric angle of
propagation and 
	does not scatter. That's what makes it deadly. Sure, you can
sense it by a 
	photodiod, but the moment you've senced it you are history.

	Sorry to hear your story , Fringe. Get a good laweyer and fight
those points.
	I remember reading on the list that laser-based citations do not
hold up in court 
	too well. Perhaps the legal crowd on the list can shed some
light on this issue.


	Igor Kessel
	'89 200TQ - 18psi (TAP)
	'97 A4TQ - on the dealer's lot
	Philadelphia, PA