Any of the BiB here ever stopped someone with a jammer...?

[1jeb]

Or more specifically a "parking sensor" jammer. I guess no one's going to say:
"Never prosecuted....they're a licence to speed"

but I guess there are lots here who'd like to hear you opinions/stories....


On a slightly less contraversial point, what percentage of mobile speed traps are forward facing vs rear facing?

Thanks!







No prizes for guessing I'm wondering whether to get some rear protection too.... (ooh eerr misses)

Don't think this has been done before (apologies all if so...)

[superlightr]

yes -

me about 2 years ago. have a search under jammers I will try to find a link when I have a bit more time.

[superlightr]

http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.

3 years ago!!!

Just got stoped by 2 very nice policemen, in town 30mph. who lazered me but my jammer jammed them, they stopped me and had a chat. I wasnt speeding and they acknowled that but they asked about the jammer and more serious offence then speeding.
Wheres the jammer sir? me points to them
Who fitted it? Me
how old is the car? - 6mths old
Where is the buzer located, - showed them the two black things in the grill and the buzer in the car,
What does the intructions say about how it jams- dont know though it was just a detector not a jammer officer.

anyway they kept on asked if i knew it was a jammer, (starting to get worried now) me - opps no sorry officer i thought it was a detector only. if i had known it was a jammer i wouldnt have had it. I wasnt speeding and I didnt know it was on. They confirmed it was as it jammed them.

How is it attached and can it be removed - yes.
Out comes penknife from police - can you remove it Sir?
Yes of course officer
within 2 nats whiskers the jammer is removed and put safely in my boot.

Was told that if he/they wernt such a nice policemen and if I had got a nasty one, things would be a lot more serious for perverting the course of justice.

Phew!

Anyway just have a producer for insurance etc, but thats it. Lucky escape I beleive, I dont think it will be refitted in the near futute.

Understand that there has been no test case yet but i dont want to be the first. Clearly the police are now wise to Jammers, but was easy going on me as I removed it there and then and said I beleived it was a detector only not a jammer and was humble pie time..

Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 27th June 13:51

[711]

So was this a parking sensor with unintended side effects or a purpose built jamming device?

[1jeb]

Thanks for the post superlightr. It seems as though there's never going to be a conclusive answer to whether jammers/diffusers will get you arrested until someone actually is!

IMHO the best option is to get one of the parking sensors with "unwanted side effects" and hope.

The downside to getting caught "testing your car's capabilties" seems much worse....

[gregwatson]

Yeah, I think you're confusing two things, laser-based parking aids (which are helpful enough to tell you if they are inadvertently interfering with other laser signals, and then deactivate themselves after a few seconds to stop the interference) and laser jammers.

Whilst I have ultrasonic parking sensors for the rear of the car, I don't have them on the front and I keep thinking how useful an add-on parking aid for the front would be.

[Dwight Vandriver]

Road Safety Bill, approaching ever closer bans the use of:

““speed assessment equipment detection device” - a


device the purpose, OR ONE of the purposes, of which is


to detect, or interfere with the operation of, equipment


used to assess the speed of motor vehicles.”

Are they going to 'bend' purpose to cover these devices for parking/garage door opening if they interfere with speed detecting equipment????

dvd

[bryan35]

Dwight Vandriver said:

Road Safety Bill, approaching ever closer bans the use of:

““speed assessment equipment detection device” - a


device the purpose, OR ONE of the purposes, of which is


to detect, or interfere with the operation of, equipment


used to assess the speed of motor vehicles.”

Are they going to 'bend' purpose to cover these devices for parking/garage door opening if they interfere with speed detecting equipment????

dvd

I wonder if that covers your eyeballs as well?, as one of the purposes of those is to detect vans/gatsos/specs etc. Anyone driving a motor vehicle, using eyes for the purpose of detecting speed detection equipment shall be guilty of an offence. So you can't look for cameras, or indeed own a speedo!.


Interesting about the 'pervert the course of justice' thing. I always thought that there had to be justice before you could pervert it's course?

[1jeb]

Dwight Vandriver said:

Road Safety Bill, approaching ever closer bans the use of:

““speed assessment equipment detection device” - a


device the purpose, OR ONE of the purposes, of which is


to detect, or interfere with the operation of, equipment


used to assess the speed of motor vehicles.”

Are they going to 'bend' purpose to cover these devices for parking/garage door opening if they interfere with speed detecting equipment????

dvd

Thanks for that DVD. Where's the best place to follow the progress of this Bill? Seems to have been on the cards for ages...

[justinp1]

bryan35 said:

Dwight Vandriver said:

Road Safety Bill, approaching ever closer bans the use of:

““speed assessment equipment detection device” - a


device the purpose, OR ONE of the purposes, of which is


to detect, or interfere with the operation of, equipment


used to assess the speed of motor vehicles.”

Are they going to 'bend' purpose to cover these devices for parking/garage door opening if they interfere with speed detecting equipment????

dvd

I wonder if that covers your eyeballs as well?, as one of the purposes of those is to detect vans/gatsos/specs etc. Anyone driving a motor vehicle, using eyes for the purpose of detecting speed detection equipment shall be guilty of an offence. So you can't look for cameras, or indeed own a speedo!.


Interesting about the 'pervert the course of justice' thing. I always thought that there had to be justice before you could pervert it's course?

Its interesting about the perverting the course of justice thing. What the jammer does is simply avoids the detection of someone commiting a 'crime' ahem....

So... if a shop theif walks out with something they have stolen they are a theif. But if they put the item in their pocket so that police cannot see they have stolen something, I dont think they are perverting the course of justice?

My other quandry is that as far as I can see a garage door opener which has a by product but not a *purpose* of jamming lasers would be legal and by the letter of the law? One for Dwight maybe!

If it is.... then if it were possible to produce a car with a spherical front, and thus no flat surface to bounce a laser off for a third of a second, would ownership of this also be perverting the course of justice? Its the same argument as the above I think.

[lunarscope]

If they acknowledged that you weren't speeding, then why did they 'laser' you in the first place ?
You have an admission that they didn't form a "prior opinion of excess speed".

[Zod]

If you are not speeding, you are not perverting the course of justice. There is no crime in relation to which the course of justice could be perverted. They know this and this is why there have been no contested prosecutions.

[s2art]

Zod said:

If you are not speeding, you are not perverting the course of justice. There is no crime in relation to which the course of justice could be perverted. They know this and this is why there have been no contested prosecutions.

Yahbut, if they claim that they made a prior assessment of speeding, then they MAY be able to claim PtCoJ. Pretty shakey grounds though for that severe an offence.

[superlightr]

I was coming around a slight bend with trees, as soon as I saw the police ie maximum straight view, I got pinned and the jammer went off. They had no chance of forming a prior opinon of my speed.

In fact I was at just under the limit, about the 3rd car in a line of traffic all at 30mph. They confirmed that I was not speeding.

[aston67]

so what about a jammer that will beep enought to allow you to slow down and THEN will shut down itself so it can't be detected with a check?

then one could reactivat it later...

just wondering, of course

the above story suggests that the police seem to take the easy option to leave the "tape" rolling and the money coming in... if they check with the laser a car that is not speeding. There is no discrimination...

A67

[Andrew D]

Yeah, making a prosecution stick is tricky. They tried recently with a lorry driver who was busted for flashing oncoming motorists alledgedly to warm them of a speed trap. But, as Zod says, they couldn't prove that any of the oncoming cars were speeding and thus it got thrown out.

I heard a story on the net recently that illustrates the problem with jammers. Apparently whenever they ping you and the gun gives no reading or a fault, they log it, and IIRC once you have three marks to your name, they investigate you. Apparently, as they have difficulty making as successful prosecution, they turn up at your house at 4am and take your car as "evidence", seemingly just to p*ss you off!

[justinp1]

aston67 said:

so what about a jammer that will beep enought to allow you to slow down and THEN will shut down itself so it can't be detected with a check?

then one could reactivat it later...

just wondering, of course

the above story suggests that the police seem to take the easy option to leave the "tape" rolling and the money coming in... if they check with the laser a car that is not speeding. There is no discrimination...

A67

Strangely enough that is how the jammers work!

A lot of them switch of a few seconds after the warning so that if they tried your speed again they would get a result.

The other point is that everyone know the 'prior opinion of excess speed' before using the device is a joke, and rarely has an input to detection, however it comes in the first paragraph of the witness statement.

I have often asked how handheld or even van laser devices can be used at 5, 6 and 700 metres away after the operator has had the chance to make a professional assessment of a cars speed for evidential purposes which he can swear to on oath at three quarters of a mile away...

In my court case I asked the officer how he makes these judgements of speed without any reference points at half a mile away. The reply was he just has a 'hunch' and he has been doing the same thing for the last fifteen years. This of course was perfectly acceptable to the magistrates!

Edited by justinp1 on Wednesday 28th June 14:10

[Dwight Vandriver]

[/quote]

Thanks for that DVD. Where's the best place to follow the progress of this Bill? Seems to have been on the cards for ages...[/quote]

Last I know is two months old:

20/04/2006
SCA
Road Safety Bill [Lords]. Ninth Sitting (Afternoon). Committe Stage. New clauses considered. New Schedule considered. Bill, as amemded, to be reported.

dvd

[justinp1]

lambo cop said:

justinp1 said:

The other point is that everyone know the 'prior opinion of excess speed' before using the device is a joke, and rarely has an input to detection, however it comes in the first paragraph of the witness statement.

I have often asked how handheld or even van laser devices can be used at 5, 6 and 700 metres away after the operator has had the chance to make a professional assessment of a cars speed for evidential purposes which he can swear to on oath at three quarters of a mile away...

Justinp,

I would like to add my support to the above and my objection.

First the support, I totally agree with your second paragraph any officer who says he can judge speed at 5, 6, 700 metres is a fool if they think it will stand up in court. If I was defending it would be my first line of attack. I would say that a reasonable distance is no more than 100 - 150 metres, and if you can't see me at this distance then you deserve what is coming to you......However I work with Prolaser 3 and as its American it's in feet so my distance would be up to about 450 feet. This however can be greatly reduced due to location etc...ie traffic coming up hill towards you.

My objection is prior opinion, after working traffic for a while you can judge speed quite accurately, and being most of us Humans and not scamers work with tolerances above 10% + 2 then to form an opinion of someone above the speed limit is very accurate. Sadly as always on PH I will not be telling my tolerances.
Before you ask no I can't tell the speed of a pencil being thrown accross a court room.

Hi Lambo,

Agree completely with what you say. Experience and training does give you the ability to judge speed to certain tolerances certainly up to the distance you say. It is perfectly reasonable with good visibility to spend a couple of seconds at that distance of 100-150 metres, then check the opinion with the laser. I just wish that ever operator had your scruples. In my case, I was zapped at 400 metres so either he was zapping everyone without a prior assessment, or it was done at up to 600 metres which is just silly to defend in honesty.

Almost all of the cases I have seen and discussed on PH over the last couple of years have been 'zappings' of between 200 and in the most recent photo evidence more than 700 metres.

As to the dropping the pencil trick I think that was publicised on one of the useless speeding 'defend yourself' guides, I didnt know people actually used it! Scientifically it is useless as the pencil will be constantly accelerating so will not have a constant speed to judge. Out of interest, what did the magistrates say to that!?

[Stubby Pete]

I can't fing my NIP now but I'm sure that it read that the vehicle ***** caused the automatic detection equipment to register a speed in excess of blah blah blah.

Too late now cause I'm banned, but does this mean that I had a good arguement against the forming of an opinion prior to activating equipment?