Allegations regarding RADAR can often be countered by what type of evidence?

The correct answer revolves around the ability to demonstrate consistency and reliability in the use of RADAR systems through empirical data. Gradual changes in patrol speeds serve as concrete evidence that can indicate how speeds were measured over time, providing a clear context for how RADAR readings were obtained. This type of evidence can highlight patterns in speed enforcement and support the credibility of the RADAR data collected.

Using gradual changes in patrol speeds allows for the assessment of the officer's actions and the functioning of the RADAR technology during a specific time frame. It can be particularly useful in contesting claims that RADAR was inaccurately or improperly used at the time of the alleged violation, especially in showing that an officer accurately monitored traffic speeds over a period rather than relying on a single isolated incident.

The other options, while they might have relevance in different contexts, do not provide the same level of objective and quantifiable support that gradual changes in patrol speeds can offer. Subjective testimony relies heavily on individual perceptions and opinions, while technical specifications pertain more to the equipment's design and standards rather than to its practical application in enforcement. Visual observations can be valuable but may be less reliable than the measurable data provided by gradual speed changes, as they can be influenced by a person's perspective or