Text 15765, 233 rader
Skriven 2005-11-10 10:52:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 15732 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
Ärende: looters in NO
=====================
 >>> 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

Spraying on the license plate is illegal here.

 > and headlights. This reduces the affective range of laser guns
 > from 77% to 32% at the 1000 foot range ...

So the cop just has to wait until you get a litlle closer.

 > 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.

Yes....

 >>> (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.

I am puzzled with this attitude. You seem to consider the police your enemy. An
enemy that has the be mislead by tricks like "laser veil" and radar jammers. An
enemy that has to be defeated in a war of intimidation.

I see the police as people hired to do job. Hired by my government and paid
from my tax money. These guys are not me enemy, they are working *for* me.

I thought Hazard county was a Hollywood fantasy. Your words seem to indicate
different.

 >>> 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.

But the reflected signal will be 20 to 40 dB weaker than the direct signal.
That means you have to get a lot closer to detect it.

 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?

They keep adding new ones all the time. There are thousands of them. I know of
about a dozen in my direct viscinity. Further out there are too many too keep
track.

 > Sure, a visitor might get caught there, but they'd only get
 > caught once.

And then they get caught again at the next intersection...

 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.

The one in the picture IS a red light camera.


 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.

The signal must be detectable. After all that is how the thing works. But the
signal is a lot weaker than the direct signal, so you have to be real close.
Most likely too close to be of any use.

 > Not that you'd be aware of where it was coming from,
 > until it was probably too late.

That too.

 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.

If it has any effect, it must be detectable. Simply look at it through  the
"eyes of the camera" that it is supposed to defeat.

 >>>>> 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.

Measuring the speed of a car is not searching it.

 > 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.

My licence was never suspended though I have been caught a couple of time on
speeding in my younger years.

 >>> 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.

Same here. The insurance companies however do not have access to police
records. If you are in an accident and do not claim the damage from the
insurance, it does not go in their records and so it has no effect on the
no-claim discount.

 > When I turned 25, my insurance premiums were cut in half, as I
 > became a new member of a different age group.

I don't recall the details that far back. I know that I am in the highest
discount group as I have not been in an accident for over ten years.

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

 > Ahhh, no guts, no glory.

Just simple cold calculation.

When I was young I took my chances with the speed traps en got away with it
most of the time. Now the roads are so crowded that excessive speeding is
irresponsible if not impossible. Can't speed in a traffic jam...

Plus that the methods of detection have improved to the point that there is no
escape. The latest system is "traject controle". Camaras at checkpoint A record
you time of passing and then when you pass checkpoint B five kilometres further
down the road you are clocked again. Arrive their too early and you get the
ticket in the mail.

Yes, forged plates can defeat that system, but the penalty for forgery
multiplied by the chance of detection is substantially higher than the fine for
speeding. And all that just to get there a few minutes earlier? No percentage
in it.

 >>> 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 powered by the RF. Not a passive device...

 > 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.

I have seen similar things. Not for radar jamming but for jamming ham
repeaters. I collected half a dozen when I was the guardian of the local 2
meter repeater....

 >>> 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,

It is over here. It is also illegal to sell them.

 > 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,

An oscillator powered by the rectified signal of another transmitter is not
considered a passive device here. It is in the same class as a transmitter
powered by a solar cell.


 >>> 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.

The source of power is the radar signal.


Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.nodelist.org (2:280/5555)