Driver using laser jammer banned.

[cptsideways]

Defending yourself against false readouts might be more appropriate if they were suing an LTI 20-20

[14-7]

cptsideways said:

Defending yourself against false readouts might be more appropriate if they were suing an LTI 20-20

You've watched the inside out program haven't you.

[EU_Foreigner]

How could they convict with the current legislation though? It would be easier with the new one which clearly states "with one of the functions to interfere" with regards to devices. But that act has not passed yet.

The wavelength is public, so no offence to use anything with that. The function is parking sensor in this case, so again - no law against that. i am surprised you can get convicted on a assumption of wanting to break the law.

No burglar can be convicted on having the tools of the trade on them whilst walking around, so what is different?

[EU_Foreigner]

Would be a great one to get Nick Freeman onto. Bet he would make mincemeat out of the prosecution ....

[Boosted LS1]

Puff the magic.. said:

Boosted LS1 said:

Some vehicles use a similar device to measure distance to the car in front iirc. Nissan perhaps and the wavelength is a public frequency so they'll be jamming when driving I imagine.

The guy admitted it's primary purpose was to jam so was doomed. I'd have argued it's primary purpose was as a parking aid that also helps prevent bumps in slow moving traffic.

You can argue all you like that it's primary purpose is a parking sensor but it is easy to bring evidence that this particular "parking sensor" can easily be shown to be specifically constructed and programmed to jam police speedmeters.

You don't have to be a mastermind to understand a parking sensor doesn't have to be programmed to respond to stimuli from specific speedmeters. Give it a run and see how you get on.

By the way; they are st parking sensors and magistrates laugh their various genitals and glands off when they see images of them mounted among arrays of factory fitted parking sensors; their ribs burst when they consider the advertising for them. Yes the same advertising you may have seen when you purchased yours.

Good luck.

Edited to add: Active cruise and distance maintaining devices don't interfere with radar and laser speedmeters.

Edited by Puff the magic.. on Saturday 23 October 11:28

Tragic said a load of guff imo but then he would wouldn't he as he's one of the scamerati brigade.

I don't have to give it a run, I've never been stopped. My sensor works just dandy. It helps me park properly and it helps me concentrate on keeping my distance from cars in front of me.

[streaky]

EU_Foreigner said:

How could they convict with the current legislation though? It would be easier with the new one which clearly states "with one of the functions to interfere" with regards to devices. But that act has not passed yet.

The wavelength is public, so no offence to use anything with that. The function is parking sensor in this case, so again - no law against that. i am surprised you can get convicted on a assumption of wanting to break the law.

No burglar can be convicted on having the tools of the trade on them whilst walking around, so what is different?

s25 Theft Act 1968 said:

(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence if, when not at his place of abode, he has with him any article for use in the course of or in connection with any burglary, theft or cheat.
(3) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, proof that he had with him any article made or adapted for use in committing a burglary, theft or cheat shall be evidence that he had it with him for such use.

Streaky

[Strangely Brown]

Ah yes, the good old "going equipped" attack.

That was always threatened when, as young lads in a car in the town centre at night, we were routinely stopped and the car "searched". Having a full toolbox in the boot was always, "going equipped" to steal cars, burgle houses, whatever. One night, I had a couple of friends in the car who had parked their motorbikes and had put their crash helmets in the boot. When stopped, the crash helmets were, apparently, evidence of "going equipped" to steal motorbikes.

Halcyon days.

[Puff the magic..]

EU_Foreigner said:

How could they convict with the current legislation though? It would be easier with the new one which clearly states "with one of the functions to interfere" with regards to devices. But that act has not passed yet.

The wavelength is public, so no offence to use anything with that. The function is parking sensor in this case, so again - no law against that. i am surprised you can get convicted on a assumption of wanting to break the law.

No burglar can be convicted on having the tools of the trade on them whilst walking around, so what is different?

The consequence of its use is to interfere with police speedmeters. That being the case it is up to the prosecution to adduce evidence of the intent to use it to interfere. That isn't difficult because it is very easy to produce "parking sensors" and "distance maintaining devices" that do not interfere with police speedmeters. The problem with these devices is that they are specifically constructed to interfere with police speedmeters and some chump has come up with the idea that police forces and the courts will remain ignorant of how these devices work and continue to fall for the secondary function being described as its primary function. That evidence can now and has been adduced in court and will continue to be so in the future.
They can convict with "obstruction of a police officer" and "perverting the course of justice" depending on whether the speed could or could not be obtained at the time of use.
The Norfolk case used obstruction because no speed was obtained and only one witness judged the speed at the time of detection. If you are speeding and there is evidence of it when you are detected using one of these devices then PCoJ is a possible charge.
I think the new law made it a £30 non-endorceable offence; no deterrent there and not sure when it will come in.

[Puff the magic..]

Boosted LS1 said:

Puff the magic.. said:

Boosted LS1 said:

Some vehicles use a similar device to measure distance to the car in front iirc. Nissan perhaps and the wavelength is a public frequency so they'll be jamming when driving I imagine.

The guy admitted it's primary purpose was to jam so was doomed. I'd have argued it's primary purpose was as a parking aid that also helps prevent bumps in slow moving traffic.

You can argue all you like that it's primary purpose is a parking sensor but it is easy to bring evidence that this particular "parking sensor" can easily be shown to be specifically constructed and programmed to jam police speedmeters.

You don't have to be a mastermind to understand a parking sensor doesn't have to be programmed to respond to stimuli from specific speedmeters. Give it a run and see how you get on.

By the way; they are st parking sensors and magistrates laugh their various genitals and glands off when they see images of them mounted among arrays of factory fitted parking sensors; their ribs burst when they consider the advertising for them. Yes the same advertising you may have seen when you purchased yours.

Good luck.

Edited to add: Active cruise and distance maintaining devices don't interfere with radar and laser speedmeters.

Edited by Puff the magic.. on Saturday 23 October 11:28

Tragic said a load of guff imo but then he would wouldn't he as he's one of the scamerati brigade.

I don't have to give it a run, I've never been stopped. My sensor works just dandy. It helps me park properly and it helps me concentrate on keeping my distance from cars in front of me.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Edited by Puff the magic.. on Saturday 23 October 14:33

[Chris993C4]

Puff the magic.. said:

You can argue all you like that it's primary purpose is a parking sensor but it is easy to bring evidence that this particular "parking sensor" can easily be shown to be specifically constructed and programmed to jam police speedmeters.

You don't have to be a mastermind to understand a parking sensor doesn't have to be programmed to respond to stimuli from specific speedmeters. Give it a run and see how you get on.

Rubbish. Infra-red (IR) lasers regardless of application, invariably operate on 904nm (wavelength) - this is an unlicensed/public part of the spectrum.

You cannot argue that a parking- or adaptive cruise-control sensor that uses this wavelength, does so with the intention of interfering with LIDAR speed measurement devices.

The critical issue here, is whether or not the device detects the external laser source and temporarily shuts itself down to avoid the possible charge of obstruction.

[Hedders]

Chris993C4 said:

The critical issue here, is whether or not the device detects the external laser source and temporarily shuts itself down to avoid the possible charge of obstruction.

Would that mean that whenever two cars that had these systems in , passed each other the systems would have to shut down?

[cptsideways]

14-7 said:

cptsideways said:

Defending yourself against false readouts might be more appropriate if they were suing an LTI 20-20

You've watched the inside out program haven't you.

I helped put the program together, I supplied much of the kit!!

[Chris993C4]

Hedders said:

Chris993C4 said:

The critical issue here, is whether or not the device detects the external laser source and temporarily shuts itself down to avoid the possible charge of obstruction.

Would that mean that whenever two cars that had these systems in , passed each other the systems would have to shut down?

Temporarily, yes - in much the same way you'd dip your headlights for oncoming traffic.

[FasterFreddy]

Chris993C4 said:

Hedders said:

Chris993C4 said:

The critical issue here, is whether or not the device detects the external laser source and temporarily shuts itself down to avoid the possible charge of obstruction.

Would that mean that whenever two cars that had these systems in , passed each other the systems would have to shut down?

Temporarily, yes - in much the same way you'd dip your headlights for oncoming traffic.

It's the opposite. Laser jammers powerful enough to be of any use use laser diodes which would overheat if they were on all the time. So the laser jammer has a detector built into the head which picks up the laser from the speed measuring device and then turns on it's own laser diode for long enough to swamp any reflected light from the targeted vehicle.

So, to prove you were using your 'parking sensor' for parking only, you would have to show that the laser was only on when your car was in reverse or you flicked a switch.

[Chris993C4]

FasterFreddy said:

Chris993C4 said:

Temporarily, yes - in much the same way you'd dip your headlights for oncoming traffic.

It's the opposite. Laser jammers powerful enough to be of any use use laser diodes which would overheat if they were on all the time. So the laser jammer has a detector built into the head which picks up the laser from the speed measuring device and then turns on it's own laser diode for long enough to swamp any reflected light from the targeted vehicle.

So, to prove you were using your 'parking sensor' for parking only, you would have to show that the laser was only on when your car was in reverse or you flicked a switch.

The signal is modulated - so it isn't simply a case of being on or off (and neither is it a case of swamping the other signal - merely disrupting the modulation is sufficient, so the required power output is low).

[Boosted LS1]

FasterFreddy said:

Chris993C4 said:

Hedders said:

Chris993C4 said:

The critical issue here, is whether or not the device detects the external laser source and temporarily shuts itself down to avoid the possible charge of obstruction.

Would that mean that whenever two cars that had these systems in , passed each other the systems would have to shut down?

Temporarily, yes - in much the same way you'd dip your headlights for oncoming traffic.

It's the opposite. Laser jammers powerful enough to be of any use use laser diodes which would overheat if they were on all the time. So the laser jammer has a detector built into the head which picks up the laser from the speed measuring device and then turns on it's own laser diode for long enough to swamp any reflected light from the targeted vehicle.

So, to prove you were using your 'parking sensor' for parking only, you would have to show that the laser was only on when your car was in reverse or you flicked a switch.

I think the prosecution have to prove your intention was to jam. This is why they seek a confession. Without a confession there's no proof of your intentions. Also, there's no proof of your jamming either as a good parking aid turns itself off after a few seconds specifically so as to not interfere with police detectors.

[FasterFreddy]

Boosted LS1 said:

FasterFreddy said:

Chris993C4 said:

Hedders said:

Chris993C4 said:

The critical issue here, is whether or not the device detects the external laser source and temporarily shuts itself down to avoid the possible charge of obstruction.

Would that mean that whenever two cars that had these systems in , passed each other the systems would have to shut down?

Temporarily, yes - in much the same way you'd dip your headlights for oncoming traffic.

It's the opposite. Laser jammers powerful enough to be of any use use laser diodes which would overheat if they were on all the time. So the laser jammer has a detector built into the head which picks up the laser from the speed measuring device and then turns on it's own laser diode for long enough to swamp any reflected light from the targeted vehicle.

So, to prove you were using your 'parking sensor' for parking only, you would have to show that the laser was only on when your car was in reverse or you flicked a switch.

I think the prosecution have to prove your intention was to jam. This is why they seek a confession. Without a confession there's no proof of your intentions. Also, there's no proof of your jamming either as a good parking aid turns itself off after a few seconds specifically so as to not interfere with police detectors.

As is often said, ignorance is not a good defence.

The prosecution in a Magistrates Court only has to do enough to sway the Magistrates in their direction. That's often quite easy for them to do, even if the accused is, in fact, innocent.

That's what the higher Courts are there for, but you would have to have deep pockets and a lot of confidence in your defence to take this sort of case to a higher Court, where the facts will be examined very closely.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you shouldn't use your parking sensors or that they should be made illegal. I've used them myself in the past But as time goes on, the Police and the Courts get wise to these things and in my opinion, the risk of being caught using one now outweighs the benefits. Even if the 'parking sensor' defence would work, the hassle of being processed is enough of a chore to deter me from fitting one again.

I use only a radar/laser detector now and although it wouldn't help much if I was being directly targeted by a laser gun, it's picked up 'light spill' from vehicles being targeted ahead of me before, which can give enough warning to allow me to assess the hazard ahead and adjust my speed accordingly.

[LongLiveTazio]

runner911 said:

........................and the Police in the UK can't understand why they have lost the support of the Public when they waste so much time chasing this sort of rubbish.

Why don't you become a special constable instead of an armchair hero, then?

[fluffnik]

We should just abolish the lasers and their operatives, then the problem will go away and there will be a considerable saving to the public purse.

There is no downside.

[fluffnik]

Puff the magic.. said:

You are entitled to your opinion.

And so are racketeers like you.

We'll crush you yet, one unfunded SCP by one...