Health & Safety & lasers & safety cameras
Discussion
OK, most of us motorists hate the LTi 20-20 mobile speed camera (and similar laser units) used by the safety camera partnerships to fine us, if we heaven forbid, dare to exceed the speed limit, and these cameras sometimes work from quite substantial ranges of up to nearly a mile.
How they achieve these accurate speeds from such ranges is by the use of a in-built laser which is generally (by not always) pointed at a vehicle travelling towards the camera.
Which brings me onto the health and safety issues because I do wonder about the health & safety aspects of pointing a laser towards a motorist who is driving at speed on the road.
I've always been led to believe that pointing any type of laser at a person may result in them going blind (well apart from reading a porn mag!!!), the initials 'LASER' actually stand for 'Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation'.
What with todays quest for health and safety, can any safety camera partnerships certify that pointing a laser towards a motorist be safe to his eyesight, will any spokesperson stand forward and allow this type of laser be 'randomly and accidentally' pointed in his or her eyes, or is this considered a health and safety hazard? If this is the case, how come they do it to us motorists driving on the road day in and day out?
Can the safety camera partnerships across the country produce documentation for us motorists showing that everything is OK and they will of course be able to produce a insurance certificate certifying that pointing a laser towards a motorist is perfectly safe with no risk to his or her eyesight or any other risk of cancer or death.
Once again, central government pull a blinder over the safety camera partnerships because it's not them who are responsible for the actions of the safety camera partnership operators, they just collect the taxes raised!
How they achieve these accurate speeds from such ranges is by the use of a in-built laser which is generally (by not always) pointed at a vehicle travelling towards the camera.
Which brings me onto the health and safety issues because I do wonder about the health & safety aspects of pointing a laser towards a motorist who is driving at speed on the road.
I've always been led to believe that pointing any type of laser at a person may result in them going blind (well apart from reading a porn mag!!!), the initials 'LASER' actually stand for 'Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation'.
What with todays quest for health and safety, can any safety camera partnerships certify that pointing a laser towards a motorist be safe to his eyesight, will any spokesperson stand forward and allow this type of laser be 'randomly and accidentally' pointed in his or her eyes, or is this considered a health and safety hazard? If this is the case, how come they do it to us motorists driving on the road day in and day out?
Can the safety camera partnerships across the country produce documentation for us motorists showing that everything is OK and they will of course be able to produce a insurance certificate certifying that pointing a laser towards a motorist is perfectly safe with no risk to his or her eyesight or any other risk of cancer or death.
Once again, central government pull a blinder over the safety camera partnerships because it's not them who are responsible for the actions of the safety camera partnership operators, they just collect the taxes raised!
It's an interesting point although I'm sure the bib and government don't really give a t0ss as long as they get loot, catch 'real' criminals and let the ones who do petty crime like (take your pick) get away.
Maybe there are some grounds for trying to say that beam dispersion, a bib's wobbly hand and vehicle motion results in it being dangerous although I'm fairly sure it would be countered with something along the lines of the burst being so short as to not be dangerous.
I often wonder whether there is any mileage to be had in claiming that their presence actually reduces concentration given that a good amount of it may be spent looking for the bib hiding with a revenue gun...
Maybe there are some grounds for trying to say that beam dispersion, a bib's wobbly hand and vehicle motion results in it being dangerous although I'm fairly sure it would be countered with something along the lines of the burst being so short as to not be dangerous.
I often wonder whether there is any mileage to be had in claiming that their presence actually reduces concentration given that a good amount of it may be spent looking for the bib hiding with a revenue gun...
The lasers in use are 'Class 1' type devices and are considered safe for occasional eye contact.
The problem is that Class 1 lasers do not create a 'reflex' action in humans and prolonged exposure [as in the talivans system] 'MAY' cause humans trouble as they do not just acquire their target once like the handheld LTI20/20
So in theory due to continual exposure and no reflex action there the possibility of damage to the retina.
There is at the moment in the USA a serious safety audit in progress.
My view is that they are in fact more than likely to cause some eye damage... how much I have no idea.
The problem is that Class 1 lasers do not create a 'reflex' action in humans and prolonged exposure [as in the talivans system] 'MAY' cause humans trouble as they do not just acquire their target once like the handheld LTI20/20
So in theory due to continual exposure and no reflex action there the possibility of damage to the retina.
There is at the moment in the USA a serious safety audit in progress.
My view is that they are in fact more than likely to cause some eye damage... how much I have no idea.
Edited by Brother Mycroft on Tuesday 16th October 22:41
Add in the average high mileage motorist is being targetted several times a week, well I sure am!!! it soon adds up. I remember chatting to Dr Mike Clarke about this & he said they are very dangerous to aim direct at the eyes indeed. My prolaser instructions also suggested its very dangerous to do so.
I wonder
I wonder
So if it's safe for talivan operators to point class 1 lasers at us motorists with the backing of the police and politicians, I assume it's fair game for us to point similar class 1 lasers back in a random fashion towards them. And I don't just mean just towards the safety camera operators!
cptsideways said:
Add in the average high mileage motorist is being targetted several times a week, well I sure am!!! it soon adds up. I remember chatting to Dr Mike Clarke about this & he said they are very dangerous to aim direct at the eyes indeed. My prolaser instructions also suggested its very dangerous to do so.
I wonder
Does your prolaser state the wavelength and power of its laser?I wonder
FWIW, the damage threshold for the retina is somewhere around 10mW CW fully coupled ... i.e. 10mW straight into your eye for a good fraction of a second, eye focussed at infinity. Thought I should just add that "damage threshold" means "we are now in territory where you are burning holes in your retina" ... i.e. potentially nearly instantly causing you permanent, total blindness, if you are unlucky. I wouldn't want to give the impression that 10mW CW is even vaguely eye-safe.
Edited by ATG on Tuesday 16th October 23:35
Brother Mycroft said:
The lasers in use are 'Class 1' type devices and are considered safe for occasional eye contact.
The problem is that Class 1 lasers do not create a 'reflex' action in humans and prolonged exposure [as in the talivans system] 'MAY' cause humans trouble as they do not just acquire their target once like the handheld LTI20/20
So in theory due to continual exposure and no reflex action there the possibility of damage to the retina.
There is at the moment in the USA a serious safety audit in progress.
My view is that they are in fact more than likely to cause some eye damage... how much I have no idea.
Class 1 are considered eye safe when used as intended. That's what Class 1 means. Saying "Class 1 lasers do not create reflex" is not accurate. Reflex pupil contraction is caused by the wavelength and intensity being sufficient to stimulate a certain bunch of receptors in your retina. Many visible Class 1 lasers will trigger that. Some won't, not that it matters. Failure to trigger pupil reflex becomes serious with stuff like Class IIIb and Class 4 lasers which can do you very serious eye damage very quickly.The problem is that Class 1 lasers do not create a 'reflex' action in humans and prolonged exposure [as in the talivans system] 'MAY' cause humans trouble as they do not just acquire their target once like the handheld LTI20/20
So in theory due to continual exposure and no reflex action there the possibility of damage to the retina.
There is at the moment in the USA a serious safety audit in progress.
My view is that they are in fact more than likely to cause some eye damage... how much I have no idea.
Edited by Brother Mycroft on Tuesday 16th October 22:41
ETA the problem about pupil reflex/blink/look away is that the receptors in your eye that cause this response don't respond to certain wavelengths of visible light and neither to the invisible frequencies that can still pass through your eye and be focussed by its lens ... mainly infrared. If the laser is runnnig on a wavelength that doesn't trigger the reflex, even though you are howling with pain and being completely dazzled by the light, you won't have instinctively looked away from the source. The instinctive response is like pulling your hand away from something that is burning it; you do it before you have time to think. Obviously failure to trigger that reflex response is only a problem if the laser is dumping enough energy into your eye to damage it.
Edited by ATG on Tuesday 16th October 23:35
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff