Removing my front parking sensor this weekend
Discussion
jm doc said:
Farmer21 said:
jm doc said:
They are also used as parking sensors. They are completely legal to buy and operate as such. I suppose you could also use them to maintain a specific distance to a car in front of you as some vehicles already have fitted as standard. And as far as I'm aware it is not possible to prove that they actually jammed a laser speed detector, and even then the prosecution would have to prove intent. I'm not sure how they would do that unless you had a purchase request in your car, headed "please supply me with a laser jammer"
I must add that my car has standard fitted parking sensors and would have no need of a laser parking sensor. Fitting one under these circumstances would not be appropriate in the current climate
The prosecution proved both to a jury of 12.I must add that my car has standard fitted parking sensors and would have no need of a laser parking sensor. Fitting one under these circumstances would not be appropriate in the current climate
Identifiable car passes van at speed that operator visually identifies as "too fast", laser reading fritzes out for just that car.
Operator flags this anomaly.
Rinse, repeat.
Police investigate, find laser jammer fitted to car which causes laser reading to fritz out in same way documented by operator.
CPS present evidence in court, defence fail to introduce reasonable doubt in minds of jurors.
HantsRat said:
220s plenty said:
From my point of view you've just penalised nine individuals making significant contributions to society for very minor infractions - infractions which, 99.99% of the time are completely inert. You've subjected your employers to significant financial and social implications without due care. Undoubtedly individuals working overly stressful jobs which is why they jumped a red phase by 0.5 seconds.
That equates to performing *grossly* immoral work.
Oh well. It's the law and its the job of traffic police to enforce that law. If an educational course is deemed appropriate they will be offered that. That equates to performing *grossly* immoral work.
I don't think you will ever agree with traffic law so I can only advice to write to your MP if you wish for the law to be changed.
Breadvan72 said:
Talk of how quickly a car could get you busted reminds me of the good old days of car advertising. (The ad cites the 0-70 figure, BTW, 0-60 was claimed to be 9.1)
Take the blanking plug out the top cover of the gearbox, fit another switch and wire the overdrive up to work in 2nd and it'll beat that.TooMany2cvs said:
jm doc said:
Farmer21 said:
jm doc said:
They are also used as parking sensors. They are completely legal to buy and operate as such. I suppose you could also use them to maintain a specific distance to a car in front of you as some vehicles already have fitted as standard. And as far as I'm aware it is not possible to prove that they actually jammed a laser speed detector, and even then the prosecution would have to prove intent. I'm not sure how they would do that unless you had a purchase request in your car, headed "please supply me with a laser jammer"
I must add that my car has standard fitted parking sensors and would have no need of a laser parking sensor. Fitting one under these circumstances would not be appropriate in the current climate
The prosecution proved both to a jury of 12.I must add that my car has standard fitted parking sensors and would have no need of a laser parking sensor. Fitting one under these circumstances would not be appropriate in the current climate
Identifiable car passes van at speed that operator visually identifies as "too fast", laser reading fritzes out for just that car.
Operator flags this anomaly.
Rinse, repeat.
Police investigate, find laser jammer fitted to car which causes laser reading to fritz out in same way documented by operator.
CPS present evidence in court, defence fail to introduce reasonable doubt in minds of jurors.
As I said earlier, I have no knowledge of the circumstances of this particular case, but in general terms I do not believe that this could constitute proof unless repeated many times which would seem highly unlikely.
jm doc said:
That's not proof though, that's assumption. And given that error messages are a fairly common occurence as I understand (again, happy to be corrected on this) then it's a massive assumption to accept in a criminal case that can carry a sentence of many years in prison.
As I said earlier, I have no knowledge of the circumstances of this particular case, but in general terms I do not believe that this could constitute proof unless repeated many times which would seem highly unlikely.
Devices alert the operator to a jammer with a certain tone and a error message specific to being jammed. I'd imagine that along with finding the jammer on the car was enough to sway the jury in this case. As I said earlier, I have no knowledge of the circumstances of this particular case, but in general terms I do not believe that this could constitute proof unless repeated many times which would seem highly unlikely.
When I see people getting all frothy and het up about speed control, I wonder how they would react if anything important ever happened to them. OK, you can't always drive as fast as you'd like to, and there is a risk that if you do you may get busted. It's a small risk - lots of people speed a lot (I expect that many of us do) and most of the time the speeding results in neither injury nor penalty. This hardly adds up to tyranny.
HantsRat said:
jm doc said:
That's not proof though, that's assumption. And given that error messages are a fairly common occurence as I understand (again, happy to be corrected on this) then it's a massive assumption to accept in a criminal case that can carry a sentence of many years in prison.
As I said earlier, I have no knowledge of the circumstances of this particular case, but in general terms I do not believe that this could constitute proof unless repeated many times which would seem highly unlikely.
Devices alert the operator to a jammer with a certain tone and a error message specific to being jammed. I'd imagine that along with finding the jammer on the car was enough to sway the jury in this case. As I said earlier, I have no knowledge of the circumstances of this particular case, but in general terms I do not believe that this could constitute proof unless repeated many times which would seem highly unlikely.
The proof is quite simple when you know how the jammer and the laser speed gun works.
Unfortunately for you jm doc you don't know how either one operates so are understandably confused. That doesn't mean that others don't know the same as you. There are people qualified to evidence the situation to sufficient certainty that courts and a jury will accept. There are others who think they know and simply, they do not.
Breadvan72 said:
When I see people getting all frothy and het up about speed control, I wonder how they would react if anything important ever happened to them. OK, you can't always drive as fast as you'd like to, and there is a risk that if you do you may get busted. It's a small risk - lots of people speed a lot (I expect that many of us do) and most of the time the speeding results in neither injury nor penalty. This hardly adds up to tyranny.
People don't like to be stifled.People drive what they believe to be / are actually performance vehicles, easily capable of NSL speeds and beyond, with similar braking ability, and therefore believe the speed limits are too low and therefore shouldn't apply to them.
People, well aware of speed limits, break them then act incredulously when they get prosecuted.
People have scant regard for anyone else on the road, their abilities or their right to be there, and do not care for how increased speed limits might affect them.
Basically, people are incapable of accepting that speed limits are not about stifling their freedoms specifically, but are a relatively blunt, necessary and in practical terms the only solution to ensuring a manageable, unambiguous level of safety for every licensed driver, and anyone else who is legally permitted to travel on the same roads, etc.
You talk as if there is some sort of status quo with limits that some drivers can't get their heads around.
I would say the biggest issue here is that the status quo stopped around the time these cameras turned up, and subsequently there has been a general lowering of limits everywhere. That's what some drivers can't come to terms with.
I would say the biggest issue here is that the status quo stopped around the time these cameras turned up, and subsequently there has been a general lowering of limits everywhere. That's what some drivers can't come to terms with.
Durzel said:
Basically, people are incapable of accepting that speed limits are not about stifling their freedoms specifically, but are a relatively blunt, necessary and in practical terms the only solution to ensuring a manageable, unambiguous level of safety for every licensed driver, and anyone else who is legally permitted to travel on the same roads, etc.
Be fair, it's not like they've had a long while to get used to them.TooMany2cvs said:
Durzel said:
Basically, people are incapable of accepting that speed limits are not about stifling their freedoms specifically, but are a relatively blunt, necessary and in practical terms the only solution to ensuring a manageable, unambiguous level of safety for every licensed driver, and anyone else who is legally permitted to travel on the same roads, etc.
Be fair, it's not like they've had a long while to get used to them.
RedBox said:
HantsRat said:
jm doc said:
That's not proof though, that's assumption. And given that error messages are a fairly common occurence as I understand (again, happy to be corrected on this) then it's a massive assumption to accept in a criminal case that can carry a sentence of many years in prison.
As I said earlier, I have no knowledge of the circumstances of this particular case, but in general terms I do not believe that this could constitute proof unless repeated many times which would seem highly unlikely.
Devices alert the operator to a jammer with a certain tone and a error message specific to being jammed. I'd imagine that along with finding the jammer on the car was enough to sway the jury in this case. As I said earlier, I have no knowledge of the circumstances of this particular case, but in general terms I do not believe that this could constitute proof unless repeated many times which would seem highly unlikely.
The proof is quite simple when you know how the jammer and the laser speed gun works.
Unfortunately for you jm doc you don't know how either one operates so are understandably confused. That doesn't mean that others don't know the same as you. There are people qualified to evidence the situation to sufficient certainty that courts and a jury will accept. There are others who think they know and simply, they do not.
Or is this another tenet of the justice system that doesn't apply to motorists? As in not being coerced into incriminating oneself??
Publicly available manual: http://www.teletrafficuk.com/pdf/truspeed-dc-manua...
See page 22 - Anti Jam Feature.
See page 22 - Anti Jam Feature.
Edited by HantsRat on Thursday 9th November 11:02
Edited by HantsRat on Thursday 9th November 15:03
HantsRat said:
Publicly available manual: http://www.teletrafficuk.com/pdf/truspeed-dc-manua...
See page 22 - Anti Jame Feature.
Come on HantRat, jm doc is going to think that’s been concocted to provide a cover story. It’s all a conspiracy and nothing can ever be proven.See page 22 - Anti Jame Feature.
Edited by HantsRat on Thursday 9th November 11:02
RedBox said:
HantsRat said:
Publicly available manual: http://www.teletrafficuk.com/pdf/truspeed-dc-manua...
See page 22 - Anti Jame Feature.
Come on HantRat, jm doc is going to think that’s been concocted to provide a cover story. It’s all a conspiracy and nothing can ever be proven.See page 22 - Anti Jame Feature.
Edited by HantsRat on Thursday 9th November 11:02
HantsRat said:
Publicly available manual: http://www.teletrafficuk.com/pdf/truspeed-dc-manua...
See page 22 - Anti Jam Feature.
Nope, well that doesn't cover it either. SO, a "smart" laser jammer won't jam at all according to this as you will still get a speed measurement apparently so no offense committed. A non "smart jammer" will cause an error measurement, but this cannot be differentiated from an error measurement caused from a car's headlight. See page 22 - Anti Jam Feature.
Edited by HantsRat on Thursday 9th November 11:02
Edited by HantsRat on Thursday 9th November 15:03
To sum up then, a laser parking sensor OR a car headlight can cause an error code. Bearing in mind that it is completely legal to own and have this fitted to your car, and that the standard of proof in a very serious (your words) criminal case should be of the highest level, a 50:50 was it the headlight or was it the jammer can never be acceptable.
Unless of course, as I previously stated, this another tenet of our wonderful justice system that doesn't apply to motorists?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff