Can some body help me settle an argument please
Discussion
My friend and I were talking about these money grabbing devices the police are using to distract us and ruin today’s roads (speed cameras), we were thinking of a way around something like a stealth car and my friend said that all thease radar guns will not work on a tvr because the body work is grp I do not agree with him. So has any body been mugged by the police with a hand held radar gun driving there tvr?
Please help
thanks Jez
Please help
thanks Jez
gib6933 said:And even then it's not very strong, which is why the owners of GRP boats tend to fit radar reflectors to make themselves stand out on radar more (very useful to avoid being mown down by a supertanker
thank you that was my argument a rcs of a fibre glass motor boat comes from its engines if I remember.
)JonRB said:
I don't think many forces are still using radar for handheld mobile enforcement these days. Laser is so much quicker, easier and more reliable.
(And unfortunately less detectable by the motorist)
Ah, but you can deflect the laser with a couple of CDs and some blue LED squirty jets.
I've seen it done on a lorry.
Might kit the TVR out and become invisible.
Flat in Fifth said:
Wasn't this tried on a Mythbusters programme?
Tried everything to make a stealth car, even tricks which would make a pull 110% certain regardless.
Seem to recall everything failed. Could even detect a toy R/C car iirc.
But then they are Americans......
Yes, I saw that a couple off weeks ago.
I dunno if this settles the argument, but:
I was accused of doing 92 in a 70 dual carriageway. Was zapped with an LTI 20.20 from 400m away.
Before you say it, yes... he did hit the front of my moving vehicle from a quarter of a mile away... did he need a tripod... nope...
Seeing that Dr Mike Clark has shown on TV that slip error produces errors if the car does not have a flat surface, you would have thought that the front of a Tuscan which has no flat surfaces would not get a reading... It apparantly does.
It is also correct that the laser devices are only tested on static, flat objects at up to 100m. Thus they also work at any moving curved shape at anything up to 2km.
Before you ask, the magistrates, and crown court judges were both in agreement that there is no problem whatsover with the conviction sticking.
The bottom line is: As long as the PC aims the gun in your direction at up to 2km away and gets a reading and decides it is your car he was hitting you will not win in court.
Thus in conclusion, as the machine is only as good as what the officer says. Also the government sanction the use of the laser on all vehicles at all speeds at up to 2km.
So, in effect, yes it does work. Whether it produces an accurate reading, and the fact that there is no proof that the targeted car is yours is irrellevent.
I hope that settles it, and is a warning for Tuscan owners, whether they are speeding or not!
I was accused of doing 92 in a 70 dual carriageway. Was zapped with an LTI 20.20 from 400m away.
Before you say it, yes... he did hit the front of my moving vehicle from a quarter of a mile away... did he need a tripod... nope...
Seeing that Dr Mike Clark has shown on TV that slip error produces errors if the car does not have a flat surface, you would have thought that the front of a Tuscan which has no flat surfaces would not get a reading... It apparantly does.
It is also correct that the laser devices are only tested on static, flat objects at up to 100m. Thus they also work at any moving curved shape at anything up to 2km.
Before you ask, the magistrates, and crown court judges were both in agreement that there is no problem whatsover with the conviction sticking.
The bottom line is: As long as the PC aims the gun in your direction at up to 2km away and gets a reading and decides it is your car he was hitting you will not win in court.
Thus in conclusion, as the machine is only as good as what the officer says. Also the government sanction the use of the laser on all vehicles at all speeds at up to 2km.
So, in effect, yes it does work. Whether it produces an accurate reading, and the fact that there is no proof that the targeted car is yours is irrellevent.
I hope that settles it, and is a warning for Tuscan owners, whether they are speeding or not!
justinp1 said:
I dunno if this settles the argument, but:
I was accused of doing 92 in a 70 dual carriageway. Was zapped with an LTI 20.20 from 400m away.
Before you say it, yes... he did hit the front of my moving vehicle from a quarter of a mile away... did he need a tripod... nope...
Seeing that Dr Mike Clark has shown on TV that slip error produces errors if the car does not have a flat surface, you would have thought that the front of a Tuscan which has no flat surfaces would not get a reading... It apparantly does.
It is also correct that the laser devices are only tested on static, flat objects at up to 100m. Thus they also work at any moving curved shape at anything up to 2km.
Before you ask, the magistrates, and crown court judges were both in agreement that there is no problem whatsover with the conviction sticking.
The bottom line is: As long as the PC aims the gun in your direction at up to 2km away and gets a reading and decides it is your car he was hitting you will not win in court.
Thus in conclusion, as the machine is only as good as what the officer says. Also the government sanction the use of the laser on all vehicles at all speeds at up to 2km.
So, in effect, yes it does work. Whether it produces an accurate reading, and the fact that there is no proof that the targeted car is yours is irrellevent.
I hope that settles it, and is a warning for Tuscan owners, whether they are speeding or not!
And were you doing 92?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff