Text 15732, 291 rader
Skriven 2005-11-09 13:56:48 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
  Kommentar till text 15657 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: looters in NO
=====================
09 Nov 05 13:31, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:


 MvdV>>>>> There is indeed no arguing with these robot cops that we have
 MvdV>>>>> here. Actually, most of the time you never see them. You won't
 MvdV>>>>> know you speeded until you find the ticket in the mail.

 >>>> If it's means of detecting your speed is radar or laser, I'll
 >>>> know they're there.

 MvdV>>> How?

 >> Radar/laser detector.

 MvdV> Laser is only used for the manned speed traops. The laser isn't
 MvdV> switched on until the cop sees that you are in range. Nothing to
 MvdV> detect until it is too late. with a bit of luck you may spot the
 MvdV> cop though.

It's even easier, and legal, to jam laser guns. There is also a product on
the market that is called 'laser veil'...it's a liquid that you apply to
reflective surfaces such as license plates and headlights. This reduces
the affective range of laser guns from 77% to 32% at the 1000 foot range
... when you look at the front of my Z28, you'll notice that it has dark
head light covers. They're treated with laser veil. Unfortunately, they
have to be removed for night time driving, which means I have to obey the
speed limit to a certain extent. And the reason for the removal of the
front plate now becomes obvious.

 >> (I wouldn't care if it was illegal)

 MvdV> You would if you got caught with one here.

I didn't care that I got caught for speeding. I paid the fine. The best
part was getting the goat of the CHP officer. Police are trained to
intimidate and he sure had a hard time doing that with me.

 MvdV>>> They use rader for the robot speed traps and they are
 MvdV>>> facing in the same direction as the traffic moves. A
 MvdV>>> radar detector (illegal here) won't see them until you
 MvdV>>> get past them and hit the forward facing beam.

 >> Wrong. Radar dectectors will sense a signal even from the side.

 MvdV> From *your* side if you go through *their* beam.

No...from anywhere they're mounted. They have an expanding footprint the
further the signal travels, you know.

 >> I used to have one that would detect the radar for automatic door
 >> openers at the supermarket while driving by.

 MvdV> Right. When the beam from the thing is in your direction. Now try
 MvdV> to detect that radar door opener from the back of the building!

It will detect it if the radar signal bounces off of any object in the
front of the building. You know, the multipath signal of VHF and up.

 MvdV> Cause that would be more comparable to the situation with the Dutch
 MvdV> unmanned radar speed traps.

And why wouldn't I know they're there, having lived there for some years
like you have? Sure, a visitor might get caught there, but they'd only get
caught once.

 MvdV> Here you see a picture of one of those speed traps.
 MvdV> http://flits.bnet.be/questDetails.jsp?id=18

Yes, they look just like the red light cameras that we have here.

 MvdV> The left one is empty, the right one is loaded. You can see the
 MvdV> camera lens on the top. Click on the image to enlarge.

 MvdV> The "square thing" below the camera lens is the flaslight. The
 MvdV> radar antenna is not visible, but you can bet it has a pretty good
 MvdV> front to back ratio. ;-)

Probably.

 MvdV> Note the brand name on the bottom: "Gatso". "Gatso" is the company
 MvdV> from Maus Gatsonides, a famous Dutch ralley driver. No, not speed
 MvdV> ralleys, economy ralleys where the obect is not to get to the
 MvdV> finish as fast as you can, but to get there with the least amonut
 MvdV> of fuel. When he stopped rallying, he went into bussines and his
 MvdV> first speed trap was the "Gatsometer" with two air tubes laid
 MvdV> across the road.

Ahhh. Those were used back in the 50s...here, anyway.

 MvdV> Here is a picture of the speed trap in sito:
 MvdV> http://users.telenet.be/pzloon/pzloon/img/flitspaal002%20groot.jpg

 MvdV> This picture was taken in Belgium, but they are used in the same
 MvdV> way in The Netherlands. Note that it is facing in the direction of
 MvdV> movement. I this case the driver of the Mercedes could easily spot
 MvdV> the thing and slow down, but ever so often they are placed behind
 MvdV> an obstruction of some kind and you don't see them until it is too
 MvdV> late. As the radar beam is facing forward a rader detector would
 MvdV> have to relay on backscatter. On e does not eneter the prime beam
 MvdV> until it is too late.

Depending on the sensitivity of the detector, it would pick up a signal
from backscatter. Not that you'd be aware of where it was coming from,
until it was probably too late.

 >> Laser detectors won't.
 MvdV>>> And then it is too late. it measures the speed while
 MvdV>>> you are moving away from it and photographs you from behind.
 >> That's where that device I mentioned later comes in handy.
 MvdV> Hmmm....
 >>>> And of course, the red-light cameras are easily
 >>>> defeated with a polarized plate cover.
 MvdV>>> Illegal here.
 >> Here too, yet they're still sold and used. Just like 11mtr
 >> (CB) linear amplifiers, they're also sold and used here.

 MvdV> I have never seen them here. My guess is that here ius no
 MvdV> percentage in it as the chance of being caught is too big.

There is also polarizing paint for the plate. Not detectable by the naked
eye from 2m away.

 >>>> Shades of Big Brother.

 MvdV>>> I don't see it that way. The camara only gets activated when one
 MvdV>>> is speeding. How is that worse than a human cop standing on the
 MvdV>>> side of the road watching traffic?
 >> See US Constitution, Amendment 4.
 MvdV> That means nothing to me.

We're safe from search and seizure in our houses and papers. The USSC also
included cars.

 MvdV>>> Not here. I have never seen movable plates or even heard of them.
 MvdV>>> The point is that over here nearly all these tricks to evade
 MvdV>>> speed traps carry a much higher penalty than just the speeding.
 MvdV>>> Speeding is mere violation of the traffic laws. You pay the fine
 MvdV>>> and that's it.

 >> Not really. You admit guilt on any of those charges and you're
 >> license is in jeopardy for a loss of points.
 MvdV> We don't have a point system. Yet...

My license was suspended once when I was 16 for having too many points
deducted due to too many moving violations. Since I was a minor, the
points system was even harsher than it was for adults.

 >> Not to mention, that when you get a moving violation, your
 >> insurance premiums are subject to an increase.

 MvdV> How would they know? Big Brother telling them?

Yeup. Insurance rates are determined by your age, driving record and in
some states, by your credit rating. When I turned 25, my insurance
premiums were cut in half, as I became a new member of a different age
group.

 MvdV>>> But deliberately manipulating plates to avoid detection
 MvdV>>> is forgery. And forgery is a crime. That means that when
 MvdV>>> convicted you are marked for life.

 >> Mounting them on a hinge isn't changing the plates...

 MvdV> But using the hinge to turn the plate out of view is manipulation
 MvdV> to avoid detection.

Awwww.

 MvdV> I do not know if that legally qualifies as forgery. I do know that
 MvdV> I'd rather pay the fine for speeding than be caught in an attempt
 MvdV> to avoid detection with a thing like that.

Ahhh, no guts, no glory.

 >>>> Radar is easily defeated with a radar jammer. It detects the
 >>>> radar signal and adds some white noise to the reflected signal,
 >>>> confusing the radar gun. And, unlike radar jammers on the market,
 >>>> it's quite legal to use.

 MvdV>>> Over here it would not be legal. If only because using such a
 MvdV>>> thing without a license is a violation of the radio regulations.

 >> You don't need a license to use a passive device.

 MvdV> Explain to me how one can add white noise to the reflected signal
 MvdV> with a 100% passive device.

I honestly don't remember what the device is. It's a diode device
activated by RF and all I can tell you at the moment is that I first found
it in a HAM magazine project written back in the 80s. What I find on the
market today isn't in the same category from my perspective.

 MvdV> Mind you, rectifying the signal and using it's power to feed an
 MvdV> oscillator is not a 100% passive device...

 >> It'd be no different than mounting a reflector around your
 >> license plate frame.

 MvdV> I am not sure if that is legal here. If its color is anything but
 MvdV> red, it sure is. Even then, I suspect it could be construed as
 MvdV> obstruction of justice...

 MvdV>>> And then there is always "obstructing a police officer
 MvdV>>> carrying out his duty"...

 >> He wouldn't know, as the device is passive and only adds white
 >> noise to a reflected radar signal.

 MvdV> He would notice that his speed trap is not working as expected.
 MvdV> That would make him suspicious and take a closer look. Over here
 MvdV> cops are not stupid. He might spot it.

Any radar jammer here has to be type accepted and licensed by the FCC.
It's not illegal to have one, but then, from the reports I've read, none
of them work anyway. However, it's not illegal to build and operate a
passive device, nor is it required to be licensed. Whether it works or
not.

 >> It draws no current, nor is it electrified until
 >> it sees that radar signal.

 MvdV> Aha, sso when in operation it *does* draw current.

It can't draw current from a source it doesn't have.

 >> Of course, you can buy one that's not passive,
 >> but those are illegal here too.

 MvdV> If that "passive" device of yours is what I suspect it is, I am
 MvdV> pretty sure it is illegal here.

 MvdV>>> Not here I think. But then there is the catch all of
 MvdV>>> "reckless driving"....

 >> Which is what the write you for if you exceed 100mph.

 MvdV> Ah, but here "reckless driving" is not limited to excessive speed.
 MvdV> Perhaps comparing it to that "failure to see safe way" that was
 MvdV> mentioned here before.

That'd be hard to enforce.

 MvdV>>> Over here cops never patrol alone. So they have each other as
 MvdV>>> witness...

 >> Here there's a team, which is commanded by a field sargent. He
 >> has his own vehicle and is capable of traveling to any trouble
 >> spot because he doesn't have a regular patrol area. And like I
 >> said before, a judge is going to believe an officer of the
 >> court before he'll believe a citizen.

 MvdV> In principle that is the same here, but if it is two citizens
 MvdV> against one cop, it is different. Plus that technical evidence can
 MvdV> override the testimony of either one.

That's the same thing here. Photo evidence didn't do any good in one case,
as the judge believed the officers word anyway.

 >> In that case, a jury trial is your best bet, if you're right.

 MvdV> No such thig here. No jury.

They give you a choice here, judge or jury.

 MvdV>>> They are stricter here. The robot speeds traps are set to trigger
 MvdV>>> at plus 3kph at speeds below 100 kph and at plus 3% for speeds
 MvdV>>> above that.

 >> I think there's a big difference between your country and the
 >> wide open spaces of West Texas. Or any of the roads between
 >> cities in the western US. Long stretches of nothing but mountains,
 >> cactus and coyotes for scenary.

 MvdV> Yes, there indeed is big diffenerce. Here it is rare if there is no
 MvdV> other car in sight. Having no other car in sight for longer than
 MvdV> five minutes is *very* rare.

That's almost always the case here on the main roads across America.
However, one can go for more than an hour on some of the side roads
without seeing another car.

 MvdV> In South Africa I have driven in places where one could drive for
 MvdV> an hour without seeing another car...

You can find roads like that in the deserts of the Southwest.



Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: Hacienda de Rio de Guadalupe * South * Texas, USA * (1:1/22)