Driver using laser jammer banned.

[Nigel Worc's]

reAnimate said:

Nigel Worc's said:

Von

Do you think the world is a better place with all this emphasis on speed limit enforcement, and the resentment towards the Police force it very obviously causes (whether the enforcement is being carried out by the Police or not) ?

What does it matter what Von thinks about the above? He has his job to do and just gets on with it.

Sure, there's resentment but what do expect the Police to do - ignore crime?

And he's hardly gonna read this forum and think "yeah, maybe I'll let off a few speeders"

Edited by reAnimate on Wednesday 27th October 12:22

I've exchanged posts with him, and actually learnt quite a lot from him, over a few years now.

I'm interested in his view

[EU_Foreigner]

Puff the magic.. said:

EU_Foreigner said:

Why? It is a parking sensor, no need for garages.

There is a perfect good reason, as it has many features such as parking sensor, switching on lights when you get home, open the gate, open the garage. The number of opportunities is endless so a perfect reason to buy a multi function unit rather then a cheap non configurable one.

May be worth sending the manufacturer some emails asking when the new features will be available, so in court there is a perfect email trace for you wanting this configurable unit for a whole host of functions.

Again I say good luck because the belief that a Magistrate or Judge will go down the "parking sensor" route when the use is quite plain is, in my opinion, futile.
...

some advertising stuff
...

I agree that you have limited chance with a Magistrate as that is on probability. When going to appeal though it is on court of law, and in law it is not "probable" that you committed an offence so I am pretty sure it would be overturned.

The device is not illegal to buy and own, there is no law stating you can not use it. As it is a higher court, there is no verdict of "you probably wanted to jam a laser gun" as there is no hard evidence for that.

[F i F]

Maybe it isn't relevant and not at all scientific but if one searches for parking sensors most of the hits seem to return devices using ultrasound as the distance finder.

If you search for laser parking sensors, whilst you can find some, there is a very noticeable increase in the emphasis on laser speedmeter blocking as a feature.

That must harm the possibility of a defence I would have thought.

[Stubby Pete]

Puff the magic.. said:

Grommit said:

Thanks for the Links Puff, which one do you recommend?

Nothing to choose between them; if I measured the speed with a laser your unit, whichever one you so desire to use, wouldn't work anyway, so you would waste your cash and have your speed read...Oh!...and need to explain why your parking sensor needed to 'recognise' the instrument I was using.

Well that's ok then, oh hang on, what is this thread all about? Oh yeah, someone in Court and losing his licence for preventing a reading being taken. You do type some crap sometimes!

[Richard C]

vonhosen said:

Gargamel said:

vonhosen said:

runner911 said:

Would you not agree that a more sensible approach to the driver who is subject of this thread , would be to require him to attend a locally run course to educate him on the dangers of exceeding speed limits ? Unfortunately this wouldn't raise any cash but it would probably produce a better driver , and would negate the need for lengthy process culminating in an appearance before the Court with all, the associated costs .

Compelling someone to attend a course is not a good basis for education, if they were interested in the subject matter they'd have been booking themselves onto a course prior to that.

I'm of the opinion that the majority who attend such courses do so out of a desire to avoid points, not to learn anything.

Is this also your considered view on Heroin Addicts too?

Perhaps if they were interested in getting off drugs, they have already booked into re hab ?

No one cares why or when they actually get off drugs, just that they do... same could be applied perhaps to speeding drivers?

After all if they were interested in Speeding they'd have enrolled on track days already ...right?

They aren't going to get off speeding on a speed awareness day & heroin addicts aren't going to get off heroin if they are forced on a days counselling either.
To get off heroin you've got to want to get off it & to adhere to the speed limit you've got to want to do that.

To want to get off heroin you have to believe that continued use of heroin is genuinely dangerous. To want to adhere to the speed limit you have to believe that the limit has been professionally and appropriately set and that the posted limit is genuinely the highest safe speed appropriate for virtually all conditions. However when you realise that the majority of limits are set by anything other than these genuine criteria but instead bow to local whims, Brake's and local and National government propaganda ( and are often set against police advice) small wonder that many either obey them only from fear or treat them with contempt.

[fluffnik]

LongLiveTazio said:

Nigel Worc's said:

Von

Do you think the world is a better place with all this emphasis on speed limit enforcement, and the resentment towards the Police force it very obviously causes (whether the enforcement is being carried out by the Police or not) ?

The problem with this statement is that by 'resentment towards the Police force' you might as well be saying '...from the middle classes'.

...perhaps even adding 'who pay for it all'?

I'm yer actual wheelchair using vulnerable adult on a modest fixed income and I resent the misuse of police powers enforcing extra urban speed limits almost entirely at times and places where there can be no safety advantage in enforcing the limit because doing it where the limit might be mostly appropriate would get very, very boring.

LongLiveTazio said:

Driving offences are often not seen as 'criminal' in the same way damage or assault is. Enforcement of legislation pertaining to drugs IMO causes a lot of resentment - partially intelligent middle class but mostly salt of the earth - but would many of the people who say "this is why I don't support the police anymore" etc. agree with groups of yoofs smoking weed on their street corner?

I have no problem with yoofs smoking weed on their street corner, nor on mine, as long as they do it reasonably quietly.

As you know I think all drugs should be legalised and that the problem is the legal status not the substance.

LongLiveTazio said:

Genuine question: do you agree with 30mph limits in residential areas? A *lot* of people speed in conditions that aren't appropriate. Not always, but people do it. IMO enforcement of limits like this are a good thing. I don't like people razzing down my street and I suspect you probably don't either.

I don't approve of arbitrary limits on anything, but residential 30mph limits are amongst the least objectionable.

...and least enforced.

LongLiveTazio said:

In my view motoring errors can be a lot more serious than either assault or criminal damage and a blasé attitude makes it harder for the police to sort out poor driving. Even if people's driving falls below a good standard they assume the bloke in the fluorescent jacket is collecting a levy and (over)react accordingly.

There is no malice aforethought involved in errors, nor for that matter in the deliberate disregarding of speed limits. Recklessness is quite rare too...

LongLiveTazio said:

Regardless whether you agree about the specifics of some motoring laws I don't know anyone who doesn't agree that there needs to be *some* speed regulation, or that doesn't agree with offences for using a mobile phone whilst driving or drink driving.

I'd remove all numerical limits, though I'd agree that speed can be tantamount to reckless endangerment in some circumstances.

I think the mobile phone law is a shockingly badly drafted piece of surplus legislation.

I'd prefer a sobriety test, which would catch all significant intoxication, but at least the current alcohol limit has some basis in science.

LongLiveTazio said:

Yet with both of these offences, which are generally argument-free (both clearly shown to reduce driver ability), are subject to those being caught trying their damndest to get off by trying to exploit police or court procedure and IMO there is a trickle-down effect to other offences.

That's the current state of the game...

LongLiveTazio said:

Graeme Swann has had the privilege of having court adjourned for him twice thanks to 'cricketing commitments' and is contesting his drink driving charge on the basis that it was outside the CPS charging standard. Despite providing multiple positive evidential samples. As someone who drove knowing he'd been drinking, can afford a nice car (and therefore a chauffeur), is it right he is taking the piss out of the police and court system and costing the taxpayer thousands of pounds for contesting a criminal offence purely because he hasn't got the testicles to admit culpability? It is typical arrogance, and this same arrogance is applied to speeding by some people.

It's the flipside of the Fixed Penalty which solicits payment even from the innocent...

The CJS is broken, time to start anew.

LongLiveTazio said:

I'm not saying that all speed limits are correct, I'm not saying that people driving above the limit without any subjective danger are correct to be prosecuted. We all know of speed cameras in stupid places but it's unfair for police to receive stick because of fixed cameras. There's loads of work to be done on improving the roads but it's a slow process - it is happening though. It just won't make any headlines. Nor will the hundreds of people stopped by good officers every day to advise them on their driving without resorting to tickets.

I don't doubt that you, like most of your colleagues, both here and out in the world, are trying to be a force for good, but you really need to dissociate yourselves from those scallys at ACPO.

Speed limits produce a variant of the "when your only tool's a hammer every problem looks like a nail" problem - just because something is easy to measure doesn't mean it's worth measuring...

LongLiveTazio said:

Edit: and, as above, the stock reaction is: "Shouldn't you be out catching burglars?" What, like the one I caught last week, was in court the next day and then sent home with an electronic tag despite the fact he should be doing a stretch inside as promised by the last government?

Arm the householders!

...or at least the tags.

LongLiveTazio said:

Edit edit: sorry, that's all a bit rambling - I have a crippling headache at the moment. I guess what I'm saying is, no, not all enforcement of speeding is fair, but a lot of it *is*, but the former always seems to outweigh the latter because negative experiences are more impacting than positive ones.

I recommend ibuprofen.

...and warming yourself by a nice bonfire of speedmeters.

[vonhosen]

Richard C said:

vonhosen said:

Gargamel said:

vonhosen said:

runner911 said:

Would you not agree that a more sensible approach to the driver who is subject of this thread , would be to require him to attend a locally run course to educate him on the dangers of exceeding speed limits ? Unfortunately this wouldn't raise any cash but it would probably produce a better driver , and would negate the need for lengthy process culminating in an appearance before the Court with all, the associated costs .

Compelling someone to attend a course is not a good basis for education, if they were interested in the subject matter they'd have been booking themselves onto a course prior to that.

I'm of the opinion that the majority who attend such courses do so out of a desire to avoid points, not to learn anything.

Is this also your considered view on Heroin Addicts too?

Perhaps if they were interested in getting off drugs, they have already booked into re hab ?

No one cares why or when they actually get off drugs, just that they do... same could be applied perhaps to speeding drivers?

After all if they were interested in Speeding they'd have enrolled on track days already ...right?

They aren't going to get off speeding on a speed awareness day & heroin addicts aren't going to get off heroin if they are forced on a days counselling either.
To get off heroin you've got to want to get off it & to adhere to the speed limit you've got to want to do that.

To want to get off heroin you have to believe that continued use of heroin is genuinely dangerous. To want to adhere to the speed limit you have to believe that the limit has been professionally and appropriately set and that the posted limit is genuinely the highest safe speed appropriate for virtually all conditions. However when you realise that the majority of limits are set by anything other than these genuine criteria but instead bow to local whims, Brake's and local and National government propaganda ( and are often set against police advice) small wonder that many either obey them only from fear or treat them with contempt.

No you don't, for instance you can want to get off heroin because of how much it's costing you financially or in your relationships. You can want to adhere to the speed limit for no other reason than to protect your licence/job.

[vonhosen]

Nigel Worc's said:

Von

Do you think the world is a better place with all this emphasis on speed limit enforcement, and the resentment towards the Police force it very obviously causes (whether the enforcement is being carried out by the Police or not) ?

Do I think the world is a better place for speed limits & their enforcement = Yes
Do I think they are a Policing priority = No
Do I think they are emphasised as a priority = No

All that has happened is they are easier to prosecute in larger numbers due to automation.

[Puff the magic..]

EU_Foreigner said:

Puff the magic.. said:

EU_Foreigner said:

Why? It is a parking sensor, no need for garages.

There is a perfect good reason, as it has many features such as parking sensor, switching on lights when you get home, open the gate, open the garage. The number of opportunities is endless so a perfect reason to buy a multi function unit rather then a cheap non configurable one.

May be worth sending the manufacturer some emails asking when the new features will be available, so in court there is a perfect email trace for you wanting this configurable unit for a whole host of functions.

Again I say good luck because the belief that a Magistrate or Judge will go down the "parking sensor" route when the use is quite plain is, in my opinion, futile.
...

some advertising stuff
...

I agree that you have limited chance with a Magistrate as that is on probability. When going to appeal though it is on court of law, and in law it is not "probable" that you committed an offence so I am pretty sure it would be overturned.

The device is not illegal to buy and own, there is no law stating you can not use it. As it is a higher court, there is no verdict of "you probably wanted to jam a laser gun" as there is no hard evidence for that.

Oh dear! Seems Mr. Eady may have accepted your advice but you didn't find out what happened to him after he used a Judge and Jury to test it. That court thought it "probable".
As before, good luck.





Garage door gadget blinds police speed guns

By John Steele, Crime Correspondent
Published: 12:01AM BST 31 Aug 2007
Comment

John Eady was found guilty of using the device to block speed detector guns
A laser transmitter designed to open gates or garage doors automatically also blocks police speed guns, it has emerged.
A businessman with nine points on his driving licence has been convicted of perverting the course of justice after a jury found he used the device - known as the Target LT (Laser Track) 400 - to block detector guns and avoid a further speeding conviction.

John Eady, 61, from Sheffield, was disqualified from driving for 12 months and fined £5,000 at Doncaster Crown Court after he was found guilty earlier this month.
Last night, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, Meredydd Hughes, the head of roads policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said he believed Eady was the first person to be convicted for using such a device.
He added: "Roads policing officers have been briefed on how to detect the devices in action and the appropriate steps to be taken to ensure the successful prosecution of the law-breakers who use them."
Eady's claim that he did not know the device had been fitted to his Range Rover was not accepted by the jury.
The LT400 is said to be the first device of its kind available in Britain and is sold with the warning that it should only be used for the purposes for which it was designed - opening things.
However, sales literature makes clear it interferes with other radar devices, including police speed guns, though it maintains that when it senses a police gun it switches off after five seconds.
One sales page points out that "as well as functioning as an automatic remote control system, the LT400 is also an effective counter-measure against police speed laser guns.
The system will alert you effectively to the presence of police laser and whilst ensuring that no speed reading is obtained.
"Please note that this is not legal in all countries and you should check local laws before use. "
Another page states: "Please be aware that to use it to actively interfere with police laser guns may be deemed an offence."
The device retails from around £290.
Police were alerted on June 6 last year when Eady, who owns a laboratory equipment business, drove through a 40mph zone where a mobile speed check was taking place.
Believing Eady to be speeding, an officer aimed a laser speed gun at the Range Rover but the speed was not registered and the gun instead showed an error message. He was traced to his home and police discovered the device.
There were no similar devices fitted to the door of his garage, which was used for storage. The LT400 can be bought as a car-only device or as one with a home fitting to go on a garage.
Judge Jacqueline Davies told Eady, who had driven more than 140,000 miles in the last four years: "I am satisfied that you took deliberate action in acquiring this equipment with a view to avoiding further points from a laser gun."

Edited by Puff the magic.. on Wednesday 27th October 20:49

[Puff the magic..]

vonhosen said:

Nigel Worc's said:

Von

Do you think the world is a better place with all this emphasis on speed limit enforcement, and the resentment towards the Police force it very obviously causes (whether the enforcement is being carried out by the Police or not) ?

Do I think the world is a better place for speed limits & their enforcement = Yes
Do I think they are a Policing priority = No
Do I think they are emphasised as a priority = No

All that has happened is they are easier to prosecute in larger numbers due to automation.

Is there widespread resentment against the police? No.

[Nigel Worc's]

Puff the magic.. said:

vonhosen said:

Nigel Worc's said:

Von

Do you think the world is a better place with all this emphasis on speed limit enforcement, and the resentment towards the Police force it very obviously causes (whether the enforcement is being carried out by the Police or not) ?

Do I think the world is a better place for speed limits & their enforcement = Yes
Do I think they are a Policing priority = No
Do I think they are emphasised as a priority = No

All that has happened is they are easier to prosecute in larger numbers due to automation.

Is there widespread resentment against the police? No.

I feel there is

[Hedders]

Nigel Worc's said:

Puff the magic.. said:

vonhosen said:

Nigel Worc's said:

Von

Do you think the world is a better place with all this emphasis on speed limit enforcement, and the resentment towards the Police force it very obviously causes (whether the enforcement is being carried out by the Police or not) ?

Do I think the world is a better place for speed limits & their enforcement = Yes
Do I think they are a Policing priority = No
Do I think they are emphasised as a priority = No

All that has happened is they are easier to prosecute in larger numbers due to automation.

Is there widespread resentment against the police? No.

I feel there is

Agreed. I take cops as i find them but more and more i find them to be rude and trying to intimidate me with their little sound bites(?).

It is a shame, It always used to be quite easy to pass the attitude test but these days you can go wrong so easily by just trying to be freindly and jovial with them.

[vonhosen]

Nigel Worc's said:

Puff the magic.. said:

vonhosen said:

Nigel Worc's said:

Von

Do you think the world is a better place with all this emphasis on speed limit enforcement, and the resentment towards the Police force it very obviously causes (whether the enforcement is being carried out by the Police or not) ?

Do I think the world is a better place for speed limits & their enforcement = Yes
Do I think they are a Policing priority = No
Do I think they are emphasised as a priority = No

All that has happened is they are easier to prosecute in larger numbers due to automation.

Is there widespread resentment against the police? No.

I feel there is

Offenders resent being caught out, that goes with the turf.
Non-offenders wide resentment though = I don't believe so.

[EU_Foreigner]

Puff the magic.. said:

EU_Foreigner said:

Puff the magic.. said:

EU_Foreigner said:

Why? It is a parking sensor, no need for garages.

There is a perfect good reason, as it has many features such as parking sensor, switching on lights when you get home, open the gate, open the garage. The number of opportunities is endless so a perfect reason to buy a multi function unit rather then a cheap non configurable one.

May be worth sending the manufacturer some emails asking when the new features will be available, so in court there is a perfect email trace for you wanting this configurable unit for a whole host of functions.

Again I say good luck because the belief that a Magistrate or Judge will go down the "parking sensor" route when the use is quite plain is, in my opinion, futile.
...

some advertising stuff
...

I agree that you have limited chance with a Magistrate as that is on probability. When going to appeal though it is on court of law, and in law it is not "probable" that you committed an offence so I am pretty sure it would be overturned.

The device is not illegal to buy and own, there is no law stating you can not use it. As it is a higher court, there is no verdict of "you probably wanted to jam a laser gun" as there is no hard evidence for that.

Oh dear! Seems Mr. Eady may have accepted your advice but you didn't find out what happened to him after he used a Judge and Jury to test it. That court thought it "probable".
As before, good luck.





Garage door gadget blinds police speed guns

By John Steele, Crime Correspondent
Published: 12:01AM BST 31 Aug 2007
Comment

John Eady was found guilty of using the device to block speed detector guns
A laser transmitter designed to open gates or garage doors automatically also blocks police speed guns, it has emerged.
A businessman with nine points on his driving licence has been convicted of perverting the course of justice after a jury found he used the device - known as the Target LT (Laser Track) 400 - to block detector guns and avoid a further speeding conviction.

John Eady, 61, from Sheffield, was disqualified from driving for 12 months and fined £5,000 at Doncaster Crown Court after he was found guilty earlier this month.
Last night, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, Meredydd Hughes, the head of roads policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said he believed Eady was the first person to be convicted for using such a device.
He added: "Roads policing officers have been briefed on how to detect the devices in action and the appropriate steps to be taken to ensure the successful prosecution of the law-breakers who use them."
Eady's claim that he did not know the device had been fitted to his Range Rover was not accepted by the jury.
The LT400 is said to be the first device of its kind available in Britain and is sold with the warning that it should only be used for the purposes for which it was designed - opening things.
However, sales literature makes clear it interferes with other radar devices, including police speed guns, though it maintains that when it senses a police gun it switches off after five seconds.
One sales page points out that "as well as functioning as an automatic remote control system, the LT400 is also an effective counter-measure against police speed laser guns.
The system will alert you effectively to the presence of police laser and whilst ensuring that no speed reading is obtained.
"Please note that this is not legal in all countries and you should check local laws before use. "
Another page states: "Please be aware that to use it to actively interfere with police laser guns may be deemed an offence."
The device retails from around £290.
Police were alerted on June 6 last year when Eady, who owns a laboratory equipment business, drove through a 40mph zone where a mobile speed check was taking place.
Believing Eady to be speeding, an officer aimed a laser speed gun at the Range Rover but the speed was not registered and the gun instead showed an error message. He was traced to his home and police discovered the device.
There were no similar devices fitted to the door of his garage, which was used for storage. The LT400 can be bought as a car-only device or as one with a home fitting to go on a garage.
Judge Jacqueline Davies told Eady, who had driven more than 140,000 miles in the last four years: "I am satisfied that you took deliberate action in acquiring this equipment with a view to avoiding further points from a laser gun."

Edited by Puff the magic.. on Wednesday 27th October 20:49

That is half the story and you know it. He did not have a garage that could be opened with it, nor any gates!

That was his downfall, not the fact he had the unit.

[Hedders]

vonhosen said:

Nigel Worc's said:

Puff the magic.. said:

vonhosen said:

Nigel Worc's said:

Von

Do you think the world is a better place with all this emphasis on speed limit enforcement, and the resentment towards the Police force it very obviously causes (whether the enforcement is being carried out by the Police or not) ?

Do I think the world is a better place for speed limits & their enforcement = Yes
Do I think they are a Policing priority = No
Do I think they are emphasised as a priority = No

All that has happened is they are easier to prosecute in larger numbers due to automation.

Is there widespread resentment against the police? No.

I feel there is

Offenders resent being caught out, that goes with the turf.
Non-offenders wide resentment though = I don't believe so.

If by 'offender' you mean someone that has been prosecuted for doing a perfectly safe 46 in a 40, then you can see why they have lost faith.

Those that have not yet been prosecuted in this way probably do not feel the same way. Everytime it happens though, 'you' lose the support of one more person that is now classed as 'an offender'.

[14-7]

Hedders said:

If by 'offender' you mean someone that has been prosecuted for doing a perfectly safe 46 in a 40, then you can see why they have lost faith.

Those that have not yet been prosecuted in this way probably do not feel the same way. Everytime it happens though, 'you' lose the support of one more person that is now classed as 'an offender'.

If your view is that easily skewed then I would expect the police do not want someone like yourself supporting them.

I have been caught for speeding (and banned). I do not resent the police one bit nor the officers that stopped me. I knew what I was doing and the possible outcome. I got caught.

[vonhosen]

Hedders said:

vonhosen said:

Nigel Worc's said:

Puff the magic.. said:

vonhosen said:

Nigel Worc's said:

Von

Do you think the world is a better place with all this emphasis on speed limit enforcement, and the resentment towards the Police force it very obviously causes (whether the enforcement is being carried out by the Police or not) ?

Do I think the world is a better place for speed limits & their enforcement = Yes
Do I think they are a Policing priority = No
Do I think they are emphasised as a priority = No

All that has happened is they are easier to prosecute in larger numbers due to automation.

Is there widespread resentment against the police? No.

I feel there is

Offenders resent being caught out, that goes with the turf.
Non-offenders wide resentment though = I don't believe so.

If by 'offender' you mean someone that has been prosecuted for doing a perfectly safe 46 in a 40, then you can see why they have lost faith.

Those that have not yet been prosecuted in this way probably do not feel the same way. Everytime it happens though, 'you' lose the support of one more person that is now classed as 'an offender'.

46 in a 40 you are offending (safe or otherwise), just as you are offending if you aren't wearing your seatbelt or have 1.5mm tyre tread depth on a bright dry summer day.

[TheRoadWarrior]

The thing I dont understand about these devices is why do people think jamming a speed camera will stop them from getting in trouble?? What are the chances the officer will be like 'hurrmm, no speed reading.. thats unusual..... oh well, back to my tea"
They're gonna pull you over and start asking questions as evidenced by Mr Eady !!

I'm not suggesting all speed limits are correctly set, nor am I suggesting I've never exceeded a posted limit.. but tbh if you've got 9points for speeding already wouldn't you think to yourself, perhaps I should slow down a bit and possibly pay more attention to the speed limits??!

[14-7]

TheRoadWarrior said:

but tbh if you've got 9points for speeding already wouldn't you think to yourself, perhaps I should slow down a bit and possibly pay more attention to the speed limits??!

Why think that you are doing anything wrong? After all someone else is always to blame for everything.

[Nigel Worc's]

Hedders said:

Nigel Worc's said:

Puff the magic.. said:

vonhosen said:

Nigel Worc's said:

Von

Do you think the world is a better place with all this emphasis on speed limit enforcement, and the resentment towards the Police force it very obviously causes (whether the enforcement is being carried out by the Police or not) ?

Do I think the world is a better place for speed limits & their enforcement = Yes
Do I think they are a Policing priority = No
Do I think they are emphasised as a priority = No

All that has happened is they are easier to prosecute in larger numbers due to automation.

Is there widespread resentment against the police? No.

I feel there is

Agreed. I take cops as i find them but more and more i find them to be rude and trying to intimidate me with their little sound bites(?).

It is a shame, It always used to be quite easy to pass the attitude test but these days you can go wrong so easily by just trying to be freindly and jovial with them.

I never try to be jovial with an officer that has stopped me, I prefer formality, you know where you are with formality.

I am only normally stopped for driving an "out of area vehicle" late at night, which is good, I'm glad they do that, it means they are paying attention.