Fake radar

David Lloyd said:

Graeme Dods said:

Paul - censored said:

Mine does. PDA with built-in GPS and Tom-Tom Sat-Nav with speed
camera database updated monthly. The only places where cameras can
be put (legally) are already known.

I remember seeing one product which boasted that you could add to its
list of known camera sites on their web site. I would imagine it
shouldn't be too hard to add your own street to that database. Even
if they need several reports from more than one person, that could be
arranged.

Graeme

That sounds like a plan.

David Lloyd

The trouble is all the people reporting it as false will get it removed
pretty quickly.....

cupra said:

David Lloyd said:

Graeme Dods said:

On Nov 16, 4:39 am, "Paul - [censored]" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Mine does. PDA with built-in GPS and Tom-Tom Sat-Nav with speed
> camera database updated monthly. The only places where cameras can
> be put (legally) are already known.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I remember seeing one product which boasted that you could add to its
list of known camera sites on their web site. I would imagine it
shouldn't be too hard to add your own street to that database. Even
if they need several reports from more than one person, that could be
arranged.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Graeme

Quoted message said:

That sounds like a plan.

Quoted message said:

David Lloyd

The trouble is all the people reporting it as false will get it removed
pretty quickly

And probably your subscription cancelled :-(

David Lloyd

David Lloyd said:

On 15 Nov, 18:25, JNugent <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

What's irresponsible about making sure you're not over the drink-drive
limit (say, the day after a bender)?

I'm more concerned about it encouraging people to drink up to the
limit, as if imparement only happens after that point.

If someone uses one to drink up to the limit, before stopping drinking
and driving home from the pub, then they will still be adsorbing alcohol
into their blood stream after leaving and getting into their car.
If they are then breathalised on the way home, then there is a good
chance that they will be over the limit, and nicked.

Using a breathaliser in a pub before driving home is little different
from saying that you can drink 2 pints and be safe, which is what used
to happen a lot.

David Lloyd said:

OK, everyone has heard about radar detectors, but is there any such as
a fake radar? I think it would be a good thing to have to make radar
detector owners think there is a speed trap about when there isn't
one, so putting them off putting their foot down.

David Lloyd

dought it exists, but anything that produced the same radio freqency or
close any way would probably set the detectors off.

Law would probably be not amused.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 05:48:41 -0800 (PST), David Lloyd
<[email hidden]>

was popularly supposed to have said:

OK, everyone has heard about radar detectors, but is there any such as
a fake radar? I think it would be a good thing to have to make radar
detector owners think there is a speed trap about when there isn't
one, so putting them off putting their foot down.

Instead of the standard NuLabour legalistic wibbling about evil speedcam
detectors and how they must be made illegal, why not bung a cheap
microwave emitter in each empty Gatso enclosure?

The advantage here is that each and every single Gatso then looks, to
radar detector owners, as if it is live. They won't be able to tell the
difference, hence will have to treat 'em all as live, which is what
everybody wanted in the first place.

--
Dan Holdsworth PhD [email hidden]
By caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, By the beans of Java
do thoughts acquire speed, hands acquire shaking, the shaking
becomes a warning, By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:19:04 +0000, [email hidden]
<[email hidden]>

was popularly supposed to have said:

Paul - censored said:

Radar detectors are now, I believe, illegal to use now anyway(BICBW),
but devices which show locations of speed traps (Sat-Nav POI sets)
aren't.

Here's a radical idea for reducing still further the chance of getting
caught by a speed camera: we know that speed cameras are often moved
around to catch the poor unwary motorist out and enhance revenue
collection, *but* we also know that at any potential camera location
there has to be a speed limit in place, otherwise they can't collect.
So, why not have the sat nav display all the *potential* camera
locations (i.e. places where speed limits exist) so that the motorist
can proactively avoid getting NIPped in this way.

I've got a nice idea: build a car dashboard integrated with a GPS and a
map of all the speed limits in the country, and a speedo which glows
blue when you're under the limit, yellow when over it, and flashing
yellow if you're > 15% over the limit.

You might need some sort of add-on to cope with temporary limits, but
something like this would make it a hell of a lot easier to drive to the
limit without having to focus on the speedo (I said blue and yellow to
cope with male-type colour blindness), and would possibly reduce the
number of speed-related accidents.

So, maybe a 3% or 4% accident reduction?

--
Dan Holdsworth PhD [email hidden]
By caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, By the beans of Java
do thoughts acquire speed, hands acquire shaking, the shaking
becomes a warning, By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion

In article <slrnfjri4d.7vq.dan1701usenet@spc1-burn1-3-0-
cust209.bagu.broadband.ntl.com>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Instead of the standard NuLabour legalistic wibbling about evil speedcam
detectors and how they must be made illegal, why not bung a cheap
microwave emitter in each empty Gatso enclosure?

They do effectively do that in a lot of them and with the flash to go
off but no camera to save costs.

Next thing though the dangerous radiation wibblers will be complaining
about unnecessary RF exposure courtesy of the country's biggest RF
emitters, the TV and radio medya.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

bugbear bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim said:

David Lloyd said:

OK, everyone has heard about radar detectors, but is there any such as
a fake radar? I think it would be a good thing to have to make radar
detector owners think there is a speed trap about when there isn't
one, so putting them off putting their foot down.

I suspect such an item (whilst MOST amusing) would
breach laws about radio frequency transmitting.

BugBear

You need to be a student involved in "traffic research" or some such.
I recall an magazine article some years ago featuring a ride with such
a student in Texas, I think, who was driving down a highway in a VW
with a radar. Reportedly, watching people with radar detectors slow
drastically, look around and, seeing nothing besides a beat-up Bug in
the area, speed up again, was quite humorous.

Pat

David Lloyd said:

On 15 Nov, 18:25, JNugent <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

David Lloyd said:

bugbear wrote:

Quoted message said:

>David Lloyd wrote:

Quoted message said:

>>OK, everyone has heard about radar detectors, but is there any such as
>>a fake radar? I think it would be a good thing to have to make radar
>>detector owners think there is a speed trap about when there isn't
>>one, so putting them off putting their foot down.

Quoted message said:

>I suspect such an item (whilst MOST amusing) would
>breach laws about radio frequency transmitting.

Quoted message said:

> BugBear

Quoted message said:

Good point. I think things like the radar detectors are really
irresponsible. A guy in the office has just got one. Self-administered
breath tests are another one.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What's irresponsible about making sure you're not over the drink-drive
limit (say, the day after a bender)?

Quoted message said:

I'm more concerned about it encouraging people to drink up to the
limit, as if imparement only happens after that point.

That would simply be the exercise of a legal right.

But surely no-one needs to test themselves to see if they're fit to
drive/ride home immediately after drinking? The rules of thumb about
what is needed to fail a breath test are fairly well-known, aren't they?

Martin Dann said:

David Lloyd said:

JNugent <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What's irresponsible about making sure you're not over the drink-drive
limit (say, the day after a bender)?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm more concerned about it encouraging people to drink up to the
limit, as if imparement only happens after that point.

Quoted message said:

If someone uses one to drink up to the limit, before stopping drinking
and driving home from the pub, then they will still be adsorbing alcohol
into their blood stream after leaving and getting into their car.
If they are then breathalised on the way home, then there is a good
chance that they will be over the limit, and nicked.

Quoted message said:

Using a breathaliser in a pub before driving home is little different
from saying that you can drink 2 pints and be safe, which is what used
to happen a lot.

"Safe from conviction after two pints of ordinary beer" is about
right. Maybe not for a slightly-built man about 4' 10" tall, but for
most others.

In fact, it is possible to drink twice that amount (well spread out
over the course of an evening) and still be under the limit. There's
loads of literature on it. I was once breathalysed after losing my way
(!!) in a strange town and even though I had drunk about five pints of
beer over about eight hours (interspersed with food and non-alcoholic
drinks), I was well under the limit (as I knew I would be).

David Lloyd said:

...I think it would be a good thing to have to makeradar
detector owners think there is a speed trap about when there isn't
one, so putting them off putting their foot down.

David Lloyd

Calum