Radars detectors legal?

[denill]

FWIW:
My Electronic Tech (and Radar Detector retailer) has told me that it is expected that those currently owning a detector will be able to continue using it.

The sale of Detectors will be illegal and Mr Plod will identify a parallel import by serial nos.
That was the Aussie scenario and the same is expected to happen in NZ.

We follow them - except in Cricket victories! ;)

[Swoop]

and Mr Plod will identify a parallel import by serial nos.
Huh?? Can you clarify this bit please?

[janno]

Well, in my four years in Aus I never saw anyone with an RD, everyone was very clear on the fact they were illegal. Mind you, that was WA and Qld, so other states might have some other story.

[denill]

Huh?? Can you clarify this bit please?

What I was told was - that they will be able to tell from the Serial Numbers if it was an illegal import. May or may not be a fact??

[denill]

Well, in my four years in Aus I never saw anyone with an RD, everyone was very clear on the fact they were illegal. Mind you, that was WA and Qld, so other states might have some other story.

My understanding is that they are legal in WA. (The Bel importer is in Subiaco.)
But not in Qld?

[denill]

My understanding is that they are legal in WA. (The Bel importer is in Subiaco.)
But not in Qld?


Google <a href=http://www.radarlaser.com.au/lawsrdau.htm#anchor276027>Found This:</A>

And yeah, RDs are not illegal in WA.

[Swoop]

What I was told was - that they will be able to tell from the Serial Numbers if it was an illegal import. May or may not be a fact??
Hmm. All of the serial numbers that I have ever seen, have been on a bit of sticky stuff (plastic or paper) under the detector.
Another well thought out rule (if in fact, it actually is). Thanks labour!

"No number officer, I've had it for years and it wore off ages ago"...

[slopster]

Sounds like bullshit to me. They just wants people to buy them quickly before they ban them.

[denill]

Sounds like bullshit to me. They just wants people to buy them quickly before they ban them.

Know what you're saying - but I am certain that the Tech was being totally genuine. Could be wrong, but genuinely believing it was true.

As I wrote. It's FWIW. You make up your own mind. Time will tell.

[roogazza]

My V1 is a safety device Bill, and comes under a different heading ! Gaz. :innocent:

[Pixie]

NZ police email Mike Valentine:"Can you tell us where this product was purchased?"
Mike "Sure,I'll get back to you..............."

[Ixion]

Huh?? Can you clarify this bit please?

I imagine the logic is, all the plod would need is a list showing each make and model (not that many) ,and the last serial number legitmately imported before the ban. Which the agents could give them. Higher number, it came in after the ban , nauighty naughty.

Sounds too good to be true though.

[davereid]

The press release from the cops never said it would be illegal to own or import a radar detector. They just said if you were caught using one, you would be fined, and 75 demerit points.

Given that the smallest speeding ticket has 25 demerits, getting a speeding ticket while you have a radar detcedtor = lose licence.

[Phurrball]

The press release from the cops never said it would be illegal to own or import a radar detector. They just said if you were caught using one, you would be fined, and 75 demerit points.

Given that the smallest speeding ticket has 25 demerits, getting a speeding ticket while you have a radar detcedtor = lose licence.

I imagine it could be legally interesting to prove you were 'Using it'... Will wait to see how it pans out, and look at the wording of any regs.

[davereid]

Yeah, I particularly noticed that while the headline in the paper said "radar detectors to be banned", the actual press release didn't say that. It just said that (over time) you would get 75 demerits for "using one".

I imagine it will be like "excessive display of speed and acceleration".

ie if the cop said you dun it, then you dun it.

[madandy]

If a Cop catches you 'using' a radar detector then you have been caught speeding and you'r RD obviously isn't working at all!

[denill]

Sounds like bullshit to me. They just wants people to buy them quickly before they ban them.


Just remembered (Alzheimers!) :sleep: that I was considering getting an under bonnet RD fitted to my WRX - and I was talked out of it!!

[denill]

My V1 is a safety device Bill, and comes under a different heading ! Gaz. :innocent:

Oh, of course Gaz. And I'm the same as him, officer. :innocent: :innocent:

[slopster]

What about all the legitimately parallel imported ones on trademe (including mine brought early last year). They don't have serial numbers because the even the reputable sellers remove them (I've got no idea why?).

[NighthawkNZ]

If a Cop catches you 'using' a radar detector then you have been caught speeding and you'r RD obviously isn't working at all!

What about random stops...

[denill]

What about all the legitimately parallel imported ones on trademe (including mine brought early last year). They don't have serial numbers because the even the reputable sellers remove them (I've got no idea why?).

Anyone you've bought from lately <a href=http://www.beltronics.com/unauthorized-list.html> HERE:</A>

[ruphus]

ahaha, I see trademe is listed at the bottom. So it looks like if your Bel STI breaks then tuff cookies (if bought from TM).

[denill]

ahaha, I see trademe is listed at the bottom. So it looks like if your Bel STI breaks then tuff cookies (if bought from TM).


Bought an Escort of Radar Direct a couple of years ago. It gave up the ghost after about 2 mths. Rung them and they said send it back. A new one arrived within days.

After sales DOES count.

[ruphus]

Bought an Escort of Radar Direct a couple of years ago. It gave up the ghost after about 2 mths. Rung them and they said send it back. A new one arrived within days.

After sales DOES count.

My thoughts exactly. Sometimes it doesn't pay to buy the 'cheapest' available from some person that's out to make a quick buck.

[MaxB]

I notice Parallel Imported is on the Beltronics list but they are still selling them. I had a Zen player go wrong and an incomplete perfume gift pack and they swapped them both without question. The 1-year warranty is on the receipt; lose that and I guess you are stuffed.

[rwh]

ahaha, I see trademe is listed at the bottom. So it looks like if your Bel STI breaks then tuff cookies (if bought from TM).

TradeMe isn't the seller.

Richard

[Bullitt]

Given that the smallest speeding ticket has 25 demerits, getting a speeding ticket while you have a radar detcedtor = lose licence.

I thought if you got done for two different offences at the same time only the higher demerit points counted?

[slopster]

ahaha, I see trademe is listed at the bottom. So it looks like if your Bel STI breaks then tuff cookies (if bought from TM).

Depends. I brought my escourt from Cartertonryan on trademe. He gave me a 1 year warranty which may not have been factory backed but when it stopped working he replaced it under warranty no problems. Just hope it doesn't break again cos its nearly been a year.

Of course it would be better to buy from an authorised retailer but I couldn't justify the price difference and got a good product for a good price.

[madandy]

What about random stops...

Turn it off ;) You'd possibly have time to remove it completely and stick it your pocket if you've not mounted it, hidden it away from sight.

[more_fasterer]

Turn it off ;) You'd possibly have time to remove it completely and stick it your pocket if you've not mounted it, hidden it away from sight.

Or, if it's like my BEL vector, press two buttons and it becomes a voltmeter.
"My charging system is a bit suspect with these uprated headlights, officer"

[Beemer]

Apparently cops have some way of detecting if a radar detector is being used, but I would imagine they would need a search warrant to look for it if they pulled you over. If you had it concealed somehow, would they legally be able to search your vehicle to find it? What if you refused? It will be interesting to see what happens with this law. Considering a radar detector is sort of a way of reducing speeding, surely they'd prefer that to the alternative?

[scumdog]

Considering a radar detector is sort of a way of reducing speeding, surely they'd prefer that to the alternative?

More the converse - it lets you speed with the (relative) assurance you won't get caught.

Your 'reducing speeding' only happens when the detector is set off by a nearby radar unit.

[madandy]

Although the equipment to detect detectors exists I don't beleive the NZ Police use them.
The argument that detectors actually slow people down is one the wanks in Wellington are deaf to.

[denill]

More the converse - it lets you speed with the (relative) assurance you won't get caught.

But Scummy - you used to say they were ineffectual? Remember?? :bleh: :bleh:

[denill]

Although the equipment to detect detectors exists I don't beleive the NZ Police use them.
The argument that detectors actually slow people down is one the wanks in Wellington are deaf to.

Don't bother. Logic's got piss all to do with traffic enforcement. :doh:
Don't worry, there will be ways around it. The Nazis didn't win and neither will these arseholes.

[scumdog]

The argument that detectors actually slow people down is one the wanks in Wellington are deaf to.

Interesting.
How long does it 'actually slow people down' for??


Only when they think their wallet is about to get tweaked and/or demerits are getting up there I suspect.

[scumdog]

But Scummy - you used to say they were ineffectual? Remember?? :bleh: :bleh:

Oh, they work at times - like when a slack cop cruises around with the radar on continously..he'll still get tickets but not from detector users (if they're alert).

Anyway, bugger off - you're scaring the fish!:bleh:

[madandy]

More the converse - it lets you speed with the (relative) assurance you won't get caught.

Your 'reducing speeding' only happens when the detector is set off by a nearby radar unit.

Nearby can be quite a way away with a good detector. Every minute I slow down due to a warning is one minute I'm not out there killing babies and threatening other road users lives at the horendous 115km/h I would average on a ride...
I use a RD because I don't agree with the speed limit. I take 50, 70 & 80 zones seriously and do not go over them but there are roads where 100km/h is a joke, both too high in some cases and too low in others.
You can't convince me I'm gonna casue grievous loss of life on the Southern Motorway or Highway 1 between Timaru & CHCH at 3am when trvelling at 130km/h.
Try riding into a tree or log truck at 90km/h and see how your reduced speed aids your health :bash:.

[madandy]

Oh, they work at times - like when a slack cop cruises around with the radar on continously..he'll still get tickets but not from detector users (if they're alert).

Anyway, bugger off - you're scaring the fish!:bleh:

My experience with Radar detectors would suggest that there are a lot of lazy cops out there then ;)

go fish :niceone:

[scumdog]

My experience with Radar detectors would suggest that there are a lot of lazy cops out there then ;)

go fish :niceone:

I guess it won't be a lazy one that gets you eh?

[denill]

Nearby can be quite a way away with a good detector. Every minute I slow down due to a warning is one minute I'm not out there killing babies and threatening other road users lives at the horendous 115km/h I would average on a ride...
I use a RD because I don't agree with the speed limit. I take 50, 70 & 80 zones seriously and do not go over them but there are roads where 100km/h is a joke, both too high in some cases and too low in others.
You can't convince me I'm gonna casue grievous loss of life on the Southern Motorway or Highway 1 between Timaru & CHCH at 3am when trvelling at 130km/h.
Try riding into a tree or log truck at 90km/h and see how your reduced speed aids your health :bash:.


Can't agree more Mate!

The logic that speed kills is flawed. (flawed - is not strong enough). But the idiots have a 'speed' mindset. :doh:

I have achieved 200ks on a few occasions (in another life) but I'm not dead? :no:

[scumdog]

Can't agree more Mate!

The logic that speed kills is flawed. (flawed - is not strong enough). But the idiots have a 'speed' mindset. :doh:

I have achieved 200ks on a few occasions (in another life) but I'm not dead? :no:


Ah, but you guys are experience skilled riders - not a spotty oik in a clapped out 323 with a load of mates trying to see how fast it will go.

And I've achieved 200++++ks in THIS life many times and as we speak I'm not dead...

[denill]

And I've achieved 200++++ks in THIS life many times and as we speak I'm not dead...

Ahhh, we agree!

That speed does not kill.
Doing dopey things (at any speed) kills.

[scumdog]

Ahhh, we agree!

That speed does not kill.
Doing dopey things (at any speed) kills.

Especially when the stop is faster than they planned.:crazy:;)

[madandy]

Unfortunately I don't support arguments for a law for some and another law for others...I don't trust the decision makers...
We are at the mercy of the lowest common demon-ator.

[Ixion]

My experience with Radar detectors would suggest that there are a lot of lazy cops out there then ;)

go fish :niceone:
Or smart ones, who figure that they slow more road users down that way? Cos, as you noted, the range of a good detector is such that it will pick a signal up from several kilometres away.

Followed of course by "eek, there's a cop somewhere around" and a speed reduction to well under the limit for the next 10 minutes or so. 10 minutes at 100kph is about 16 kilometres. If the cop is tootling round spreading a 30 odd kilometre diameter circle of slowed down traffic about him, he might well think that was a pretty good idea.

If I was a cop in a country town, I'd get a couple of old radar guns, and set them up running 24 by 7. One in the snakeshop, and a couple dropped off at a farmers a few kilometres out of town in each direction.

Bet that'd markedly cut down the amount of traffic speeding through his town , eh?

[scumdog]

Or smart ones, who figure that they slow more road users down that way? Cos, as you noted, the range of a good detector is such that it will pick a signal up from several kilometres away.

If I was a cop in a country town, I'd get a couple of old radar guns, and set them up running 24 by 7. One in the snakeshop, and a couple dropped off at a farmers a few kilometres out of town in each direction.

Bet that'd markedly cut down the amount of traffic speeding through his town , eh?


You've been watching me, haven't you??:msn-wink:

[rwh]

Here's a thought - if the speed radars used the same 2.4GHz spectrum as WiFi, then detectors would be going off all the time in built-up areas ... might cause a bit of pain for WiFi users, though :(

Richard

[madandy]

That's the sort of Policing I would respect!
It validates the whole point about RD's being useful. I keep my license and money and the local cops can stay in the pub rather than chasing people for 110km/h. Or maybe go chase some proper bad people.

[denill]

Especially when the stop is faster than they planned.:crazy:;)


No doubt about that. :yes: :yes:

[swbarnett]

Ah, but you guys are experience skilled riders - not a spotty oik in a clapped out 323 with a load of mates trying to see how fast it will go.

And I've achieved 200++++ks in THIS life many times and as we speak I'm not dead...
So you agree then that some speeding tickets are being handed out to perfectly safe drivers?

[denill]

So you agree then that some speeding tickets are being handed out to perfectly safe drivers?

He may not agree. But as I've been around for quite a few years, it's worked for me (and a lot of others that I know). So far, so good.
:whistle:

[Bass]

I read somewhere (which means I have no idea how true it is) that the users of radar detectors have a lower accident rate than non users.
Let's assume this is true for a moment and if so, it might be a useful statistic.

On the other hand it might also just mean that the sort of people who go out and buy detectors, are the sort of people who have less accidents anyway.

Bugger!

[sinned]

I would like to see the analysis that justifies banning radar detectors. Is there any evidence that users of the detector have any more accidents?

I find the detector useful to warn me when not to pass a slower vehicle as I am likely to exceed the speed limit by 10 - 30 kph before a drop back to 100 - 108. It is also a warning to check for a lower speed zone.

It is easy to get caught when travelling outside known territory as speed signs can be missed. I didn't think a RD was worth having until I got pinged for 62k in what I thought was a 70kph area leading into a 50kph area. I was slowing at the 50kph sign and the first one (that I missed) was on the entry to a large roundabout at the end of 100kph motorway. The section between the roundabout and the built up area is over a bridge and probably should be zoned 70kph (so much for driving to the conditions). Locals probably don't get caught here as they will be aware of the speed zoning and will have seen cops there before.

If you drive/ride excessively fast even with a RD you will get caught as in many situations they don't give enough warning. Where they are very effective is giving warning of stationary units targeting vehicles as they enter poorly signed areas (ie speed traps).

The question for me is; will I install a hidden RD?

[rwh]

I didn't think a RD was worth having until I got pinged for 62k in what I thought was a 70kph area leading into a 50kph area.

How would that help? Surely the if the RD went off, you'd check and confirm you were within what you thought was the limit, and continue on your merry way. Or are you the kind of rider/driver who jams on your brakes at any sign of the police, regardless of how slowly you're riding/driving at the time?

Richard

[denill]

I read somewhere (which means I have no idea how true it is) that the users of radar detectors have a lower accident rate than non users.
Let's assume this is true for a moment and if so, it might be a useful statistic.


The technician referred to in post #1 said that there are stats to that effect?

[denill]

I read somewhere (which means I have no idea how true it is) that the users of radar detectors have a lower accident rate than non users.
Let's assume this is true for a moment and if so, it might be a useful statistic.


Now there's a thought. The legislators will make RDs compulsory in the interests of safety - and you will be fined if you haven't got one fitted. :woohoo: :woohoo:

[rwh]

Now there's a thought. The legislators will make RDs compulsory in the interests of safety - and you will be fined if you haven't got one fitted. :woohoo: :woohoo:

Damn - compulsory and banned at the same time. Even this government wouldn't do that ... would they? :)

Richard

[sinned]

How would that help? Surely the if the RD went off, you'd check and confirm you were within what you thought was the limit, and continue on your merry way. Or are you the kind of rider/driver who jams on your brakes at any sign of the police, regardless of how slowly you're riding/driving at the time?

Richard

Yes I would check and confirm and in this situation I would have had plenty of warning and would not have drifted past a 50kph sign at over 50. Now before anyone gets carried away - picture this: You are driving over a big wide bridge that is higher than the area in front,with a clear view and at the 50kph sign at the end of the bridge you are going downhill with a slight curve to the left. Around the curve and a few hundred metres away is the HP car that is just inside what I would describe as a built up area. So I got pinged as I came around the curve and before the built up area started but of course well inside the 50kph area, having missed the first sign.

More speed signs are needed on NZ roads.

[more_fasterer]

If I was a cop in a country town, I'd get a couple of old radar guns, and set them up running 24 by 7. One in the snakeshop, and a couple dropped off at a farmers a few kilometres out of town in each direction.

Bet that'd markedly cut down the amount of traffic speeding through his town , eh?

How would you meet your performance targets then????

[roogazza]

Or are you the kind of rider/driver who jams on your brakes at any sign of the police, regardless of how slowly you're riding/driving at the time?
Richard
Thats exactly what people are doing , and I'm guilty of that myself ! I'm obviously paranoid ? Gaz.

[scumdog]

How would you meet your performance targets then????

They still exist?

Whoo-wee, am I ever going to have egg on my face one day, haven't written out a ticket this year yet.:devil2:

And can't remember how many weeks ago I wrote out the last one for speeding, it COULD have been as recently as the start on December.

Yer all paranoid!

(Or live in a different country to me)

[madandy]

Scumdog, you sound like the kinda Police man we'd like to see more of up here in the norf island:first:
So many are jumped up pricks around or under 30 with something to prove.

[denill]

Whoo-wee, am I ever going to have egg on my face one day, haven't written out a ticket this year yet.:devil2:

And can't remember how many weeks ago I wrote out the last one for speeding, it COULD have been as recently as the start on December.


You're kidding? Right.

If not - how come you've kept yer job??
It's a long, long time since I've met one of your ilk!!

Thinking of transferring? :hug::hug:

[denill]

Originally Posted by rwh
Or are you the kind of rider/driver who jams on your brakes at any sign of the police, regardless of how slowly you're riding/driving at the time?
Richard


Thats exactly what people are doing , and I'm guilty of that myself ! I'm obviously paranoid ? Gaz.

Yeah, me too! I know I am way within - but can't help myself. Guilty concience?

[Ixion]

You're kidding? Right.

If not - how come you've kept yer job??
It's a long, long time since I've met one of your ilk!!

Thinking of transferring? :hug::hug:

Sergeants n other posh types don't have 'Performance targets'. Or, not in t he same way anyway.

[denill]

Sergeants n other posh types don't have 'Performance targets'. Or, not in t he same way anyway.

So is Scummy right at the top of the pile then?? Like - the BOSS COP :confused: :confused:

[Ixion]

Nah. I have it on good authority the CB is on the top of the pile.

[denill]

Nah. I have it on good authority the CB is on the top of the pile.

Who's the CB?

[Ixion]

Who's the CB?

Scummy's boss. He lives in terror of her.

[more_fasterer]

They still exist?

Whoo-wee, am I ever going to have egg on my face one day, haven't written out a ticket this year yet.:devil2:

And can't remember how many weeks ago I wrote out the last one for speeding, it COULD have been as recently as the start on December.

Yer all paranoid!

(Or live in a different country to me)

As Madandy said, it sounds like we need more policemen of your ilk up this way if that's the case.

With that said, considering even general duties cops up here have to write a minimum number of TIN's every week, you may just end up getting yourself into trouble instead...

[denill]

Scummy's boss. He lives in terror of her.

That's his missus.

[Ixion]

Same thing.

[What?]

Damn - compulsory and banned at the same time. Even this government wouldn't do that ... would they? :)

Richard

Well, for a brief while after the continuous vehicle licensing scheme was introduced, you couldn't get rego without a WOF, and you couldn't get a WOF for an unregistered vehicle.
So they might...

[scumdog]

So is Scummy right at the top of the pile then?? Like - the BOSS COP :confused: :confused:


Yeah sure (Tuis Moment) I WISH!!

(Ooops, just saw the 'other' posts - hope CB doesn't!:crazy:)

[MaxB]

I have a colleague who owns his own business and was desperate to get his ACC premiums down (too many motor accidents) . I found out over Xmas that he had fitted radar detectors to his 3 company vehicles. Crappy portable units at first, then better plumbed in models. His employees did not have to use the RDs just drive with them in the car/ute. No accidents or tickets in 2 years. RD saving lives? Maybe, that and the threat that anyone caught speeding was not going to get their contract renewed.

I guess when RDs are banned, ACC are going to get some more money.

[madandy]

If the LTSA, Police & gummint got proactive & embraced RD technology they could slow a lot of people down where necessary, ie, 'black spots', accident sites, miscellaneous dangerous sites, urban areas and leaves us to the open roads a wee bit more.

[Nagash]

Well I use the GPS, very handy little device with voice directions nad all the rest, but it's all recorded the positions of all speed cameras on it and the nice little lady tells you when to slow down.

Unfortunately it obviously doesn't spot cop cameras but they're not really as subtle as they think, 2 years of riding and not a single ticket.

[slopster]

I read somewhere (which means I have no idea how true it is) that the users of radar detectors have a lower accident rate than non users.
Let's assume this is true for a moment and if so, it might be a useful statistic.

On the other hand it might also just mean that the sort of people who go out and buy detectors, are the sort of people who have less accidents anyway.

Bugger!

I bet RD users get more speeding tickets then the general population too.

[slopster]

It is easy to get caught when travelling outside known territory as speed signs can be missed. I didn't think a RD was worth having until I got pinged for 62k in what I thought was a 70kph area leading into a 50kph area. I was slowing at the 50kph sign and the first one (that I missed) was on the entry to a large roundabout at the end of 100kph motorway. The section between the roundabout and the built up area is over a bridge and probably should be zoned 70kph (so much for driving to the conditions). Locals probably don't get caught here as they will be aware of the speed zoning and will have seen cops there before.

You know that you cant get done withen 250m of a change of speed zone

[madandy]

I bet RD users get more speeding tickets then the general population too.

Only tickets I've ever had were when not using a RD.
My RD's have saved me many times their purchase prices and have never come close to failing me.
If your RD didn't/isn't paying for itself it's either a cheap POS or something's wrong...doesn't mean you can blast around a warp speed and expect sufficient warning to allow you to slow to legal speeds but they do make swift travel possible.

[scumdog]

You know that you cant get done withen 250m of a change of speed zone

'Can't' is a big word here, don't hang your life on it.

You CAN get 'done' - it's only a guideline to cops to go easy on those entering a lower speed area - not law.....I know that for a fact.

Oh, and if you're leaving a lower speed area the 250m isn't even in the guidlines at all, I know for a fact that too

Technically can still get done 1m on the wrong side of the change of speed zone.

[scumdog]

Only tickets I've ever had were when not using a RD.
My RD's have saved me many times their purchase prices and have never come close to failing me.
If your RD didn't/isn't paying for itself it's either a cheap POS or something's wrong...doesn't mean you can blast around a warp speed and expect sufficient warning to allow you to slow to legal speeds but they do make swift travel possible.

Have got heaps with RDs.

'Instant-on', undulating country etc and 'blingo' your pinged.
Sure, if I'm half asleep you may knock back a km or two before I hit the lock button.

PS: Often see frantic scrabbling to remove/hide the RD as I walk up to the car.:crazy:
One of the best quotes "Fuggit, I paid $xxx for this bloody thing and you still got me."

But yeah, a prudent rider with RD will probably go a long way between tickets.

[denill]

Have got heaps with RDs.

'Instant-on', undulating country etc and 'blingo' your pinged.

Do you get a buzz when you ping someone? :msn-wink:

It must be a bit like shooting rabbits.

[madandy]

Only instant on I've encountered has been with traffic ahead so generally receive plenty of warning...if you're at the head of the que or out on your own then you're vulnerable for sure.
As for undulating terrain the late model BEL products (well my XR 950 au/nz anyway and the newer XR magnesium & Sti) work sweet through hills, forrests and mulitple blind bends including through rock gorges -once again, warning is sufficient for swift travel but not always for MotoGP pace.

[Pixie]

If the LTSA, Police & gummint got proactive & embraced RD technology they could slow a lot of people down where necessary, ie, 'black spots', accident sites, miscellaneous dangerous sites, urban areas and leaves us to the open roads a wee bit more.

Some years ago the NZ authorities were offered SWS beacons for free, for use at accidents etc,but said no thanks because it would justify the use of SWS capable detectors

[denill]

Have got heaps with RDs.

'Instant-on', undulating country etc and 'blingo' your pinged.

Instant on - resulted in my last contribution to the Consolidated Fund! :Police: :bleh:

[denill]

Some years ago the NZ authorities were offered SWS beacons for free, for use at accidents etc,but said no thanks because it would justify the use of SWS capable detectors


Really? :( What's your source?

[pritch]

But yeah, a prudent rider with RD will probably go a long way between tickets.

That's probably fair comment.

The bumpf that came with the detector contained a warning against complacency or placing total trust in it.

You are still advised to keep doing whatever you did prior to getting the detector to avoid getting tickets. For example watch the traffic going the other direction, if they are all behaving themselves there might be a reason for that. On the other hand if there are a succession of bikes going past in full fang mode it just might be a good day :whistle:

[Pixie]

Oh, they work at times - like when a slack cop cruises around with the radar on continously

90% of the cops I see must be slack bastards then

[Pixie]

I would like to see the analysis that justifies banning radar detectors. Is there any evidence that users of the detector have any more accidents?



Who mentioned safety and accidents?
Radar detector use constitutes tax avoidance

[Pixie]

Really? :( What's your source?

Traffic Radar Handbook by Donald S Sawicki

[Ixion]

Actually, I suspect that you have hit the nail on the head.

Consider. Radar detectors are most useful for avoiding the low end speeding tickets, the 20 or 30 over sort. They are much less useful if you are knocking 300kph.

Now, the gubbermint (ie the cops) have agreed to reduce the fines for speeding. But, there is no way on earth they (gubbermint or cops) are going to be willing to actually forgo any revenue.

So, if the tax on each speeding offence is less, the only way that the revenue can be kept up, is to issue more tickets. More tickets, at a lower tariff each still comes to the same dollars.

So the police are going to be dishing out a LOT more tickets for 111kph . Or 101kph. But doing so would prompt more people to buy radar detectors.

And emphasis on ticketing minor breaches would mean that detectors became more useful, and instant on much less effective, Because, it is a lot harder for a cop to tell if a vehicle is doing 109kph or 111kph, than to tell the difference between 109 and 139. The only way to check is to ping the vehicle . So they'll be using instant on to ping a lot of vehicles that turn out to be doing only 109kph. And all those wasted pings would get picked up by the radar detectors.

Want a prediction ? Bet anyone a choccy fish that once detectors are banned the 10kph tolerance disappears overnight. 101kph, ticket.

And the cops will continue to bleat that the public don't support them anymore. Wonder why?

[cold comfort]

I bet RD users get more speeding tickets then the general population too.

Not so- my wife now has one as all her transgressions are caused by inattention (running 4 businesses and "multi-tasking"). She states the squawks on start-up and the occ flase response to other RD has made her more mindful of her speed.
I never use one in town as i am more aware and tend not to speed anyway.

[denill]

Actually, I suspect that you have hit the nail on the head.

Consider. Radar detectors are most useful for avoiding the low end speeding tickets, the 20 or 30 over sort. They are much less useful if you are knocking 300kph.

Now, the gubbermint (ie the cops) have agreed to reduce the fines for speeding. But, there is no way on earth they (gubbermint or cops) are going to be willing to actually forgo any revenue.

So, if the tax on each speeding offence is less, the only way that the revenue can be kept up, is to issue more tickets. More tickets, at a lower tariff each still comes to the same dollars.

So the police are going to be dishing out a LOT more tickets for 111kph . Or 101kph. But doing so would prompt more people to buy radar detectors.

And emphasis on ticketing minor breaches would mean that detectors became more useful, and instant on much less effective, Because, it is a lot harder for a cop to tell if a vehicle is doing 109kph or 111kph, than to tell the difference between 109 and 139. The only way to check is to ping the vehicle . So they'll be using instant on to ping a lot of vehicles that turn out to be doing only 109kph. And all those wasted pings would get picked up by the radar detectors.

Want a prediction ? Bet anyone a choccy fish that once detectors are banned the 10kph tolerance disappears overnight. 101kph, ticket.

And the cops will continue to bleat that the public don't support them anymore. Wonder why?


I really think you've summed it up nicely. Took the words outa my mouth - only better. :niceone:

[denill]

I never use one in town as i am more aware and tend not to speed anyway.

Up till just a few monthe ago I NEVER used it around town. Do now, as 'they' are now more pedantic.

[cold comfort]

Actually, I suspect that you have hit the nail on the head.

Consider. Radar detectors are most useful for avoiding the low end speeding tickets, the 20 or 30 over sort. They are much less useful if you are knocking 300kph.

Now, the gubbermint (ie the cops) have agreed to reduce the fines for speeding. But, there is no way on earth they (gubbermint or cops) are going to be willing to actually forgo any revenue.

So, if the tax on each speeding offence is less, the only way that the revenue can be kept up, is to issue more tickets. More tickets, at a lower tariff each still comes to the same dollars.

So the police are going to be dishing out a LOT more tickets for 111kph . Or 101kph. But doing so would prompt more people to buy radar detectors.

And emphasis on ticketing minor breaches would mean that detectors became more useful, and instant on much less effective, Because, it is a lot harder for a cop to tell if a vehicle is doing 109kph or 111kph, than to tell the difference between 109 and 139. The only way to check is to ping the vehicle . So they'll be using instant on to ping a lot of vehicles that turn out to be doing only 109kph. And all those wasted pings would get picked up by the radar detectors.

Want a prediction ? Bet anyone a choccy fish that once detectors are banned the 10kph tolerance disappears overnight. 101kph, ticket.

And the cops will continue to bleat that the public don't support them anymore. Wonder why?

As always, a thoughtful and insightful comment. I wouldn't even risk a chocc fish on that one. The more draconian the rulings and the more they are perceived as unreasonable by the public the less support the cops will receive. They just don't get it!

[madandy]

One problem with a reduction of the % over thing:
http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2007/speed-enforcement-guide/

Check the paragraph about speedometer accuracy.
also note the bit about 250m of the end of a passing lane...

I do feel for many Cops who are simply expected to enforce laws created by suits in parliament. Sure, some blindly carry out their jobs with little regard for discretion but there are others, Scumdog perhaps, who are realistic about their priorities and exactly what acts, upon our highways & byways constitute true ofences and issue penalties accordingly.

[sinned]

As always, a thoughtful and insightful comment. I wouldn't even risk a chocc fish on that one. The more draconian the rulings and the more they are perceived as unreasonable by the public the less support the cops will receive. They just don't get it!

"They" are the analysts and bureaucrats that reside in govt departments. Ministers and MPs follow the advice they are given unless they think, the voters won't like this, pressure groups are making a noise, or it is contrary to the principles their party is based on or the party's objectives. The public is well prepared for draconian rulings by the careful preparation of PR spin - prepared by the department and signed off by a minister.

[NighthawkNZ]

Want a prediction ? Bet anyone a choccy fish that once detectors are banned the 10kph tolerance disappears overnight. 101kph, ticket.

Problem there is it is virually impossible to keep a vehicle at a constant speed within 1kph even a computer controled Cruise Control would be able to especially on rolling hills... it will hunt within 4 or 5kph either side as you go over the hills, even the humps in the road can have an effect etc... and all it would take is a cop pinging you as come over a peak of hill.

Heck I have go over a bump in the road which twisted my wrist a bit and before I knew it I was do 65 in a 50 zone... and said shit bugger and all as I was buttoning off... if there was a cop I am sure I would have been ticketed...

Also Dopler shift is not that accurate either (Yes laser is) and is realistically on only accurrate to about 4kph (number sounds familar its the tolarance around schools) heck it was orginally designed to hunt submarines hat are only doing 4 knots

Anologue speedos are also not that accurate, tho most read slower, I have seen a few that read faster by 4 or 5 kph mix that in with the inaccuracy of dopler... there is way to many varants

[Ixion]

"Well, Sir, my radar shows you don't 101kph. So that's 25 demerits. If you have concerns about your speedo being accurate enough what i suggest you do is to keep the speed down to 90kph. That will give you a safety buffer. Thank you for your contribution to the national revenue"

[Mr Merde]

One problem with a reduction of the % over thing:
http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2007/speed-enforcement-guide/

Check the paragraph about speedometer accuracy.
also note the bit about 250m of the end of a passing lane...

I do feel for many Cops who are simply expected to enforce laws created by suits in parliament. Sure, some blindly carry out their jobs with little regard for discretion but there are others, Scumdog perhaps, who are realistic about their priorities and exactly what acts, upon our highways & byways constitute true ofences and issue penalties accordingly.

After reading the above mentioned guide I find the following excerpt raising a few questions in my mind

"sAll speed measuring devices are to be operated in an overt manner. Hidden or camouflaged deployment is not to be used unless there is a specific operation targeting offending consisting..."

Now in relation to the Auckland motorway, which I commute everyday, I continually see a couple of white vans parked on the shoulder. They have their windows blocked by mirror glass and quite often are in places where you only get to see them once you are within apprximately 50 or so metres. I have been told that these are mobile speed camera vehicles, but there are no visible markings or wornings on them.

Surely they break the above quoted guidelines. Also as I have noticed them in these spots for a number of hours and again according to the guide quoted

"Only members of NZ Police are permitted to operate speed-measuring devices for speed enforcement purposes"

thye must surely have a police officer sitting in them operating the speed measuring device.

If they do not have a police officer in them then how can they legally gather evidence of a speeding occurance?

Sorry to muddy the waters but this is of interest to me.

[denill]

"Well, Sir, my radar shows you don't 101kph. So that's 25 demerits. If you have concerns about your speedo being accurate enough what i suggest you do is to keep the speed down to 90kph. That will give you a safety buffer. Thank you for your contribution to the national revenue"

Again, most perceptive. :clap: :clap:

BTW, do you by any chance issue the edicts of conduct to be carried out by HP?

[rwh]

After reading the above mentioned guide I find the following excerpt raising a few questions in my mind

"sAll speed measuring devices are to be operated in an overt manner. Hidden or camouflaged deployment is not to be used unless there is a specific operation targeting offending consisting..."

Now in relation to the Auckland motorway, which I commute everyday, I continually see a couple of white vans parked on the shoulder. They have their windows blocked by mirror glass and quite often are in places where you only get to see them once you are within apprximately 50 or so metres. I have been told that these are mobile speed camera vehicles, but there are no visible markings or wornings on them.

Surely they break the above quoted guidelines. Also as I have noticed them in these spots for a number of hours and again according to the guide quoted

"Only members of NZ Police are permitted to operate speed-measuring devices for speed enforcement purposes"

thye must surely have a police officer sitting in them operating the speed measuring device.

If they do not have a police officer in them then how can they legally gather evidence of a speeding occurance?

Sorry to muddy the waters but this is of interest to me.

Yes, it's a pretty bad document. Check this one out:


Speed measuring devices (including, but not limited to, speedometers, laser and radar devices) are, if operated in or from a vehicle, only to be operated from vehicles owned or operated by NZ Police.

So while I'm required to have an accurate speedometer, I'm not allowed to operate it.

Richard

[Ixion]

Yes, it's a pretty bad document. Check this one out:



So while I'm required to have an accurate speedometer, I'm not allowed to operate it.

Richard

no, these are policy instructions to the cops, not the public. Bear in mind that they are policy, not law. The police can (and do) ignore them if they wish.

[rwh]

no, these are policy instructions to the cops, not the public. Bear in mind that they are policy, not law. The police can (and do) ignore them if they wish.

Right - so it only applies if I'm a cop and not a cop. That makes it so much better.
[edit - misremembered what it said. Must think next time]

Richard

[Ixion]

No it means that as the public they do not apply to you, but you can take notice of them. As a cop they apply to you but you may take no notice of them.

So if they apply to you they don't apply, but if they don't apply, they do.

[Bike-aholic]

Eliminating laser can be done but that damm radar is a different story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6INz8OUQas

[Swoop]

"Only members of NZ Police are permitted to operate speed-measuring devices for speed enforcement purposes"

thye must surely have a police officer sitting in them operating the speed measuring device.

If they do not have a police officer in them then how can they legally gather evidence of a speeding occurance?

Sorry to muddy the waters but this is of interest to me.
I have always been led to believe that a "contractor" (for want of a better description) has operated these devices. Most certainly non-sworn staff.

[spudchucka]

"Well, Sir, my radar shows you don't 101kph. So that's 25 demerits. If you have concerns about your speedo being accurate enough what i suggest you do is to keep the speed down to 90kph. That will give you a safety buffer. Thank you for your contribution to the national revenue"

Soon you'll qualify as the new Lou. You just need a little more bitterness to go with that cynicism.

[denill]

Originally Posted by Ixion
"Well, Sir, my radar shows you don't 101kph. So that's 25 demerits. If you have concerns about your speedo being accurate enough what i suggest you do is to keep the speed down to 90kph. That will give you a safety buffer. Thank you for your contribution to the national revenue"

Soon you'll qualify as the new Lou. You just need a little more bitterness to go with that cynicism.

So Spud, That will NEVER happen??? :beer:

[spudchucka]

It certainly won't ever happen in my world, I'd be willing to take his chocolate fish wager.


Want a prediction ? Bet anyone a choccy fish that once detectors are banned the 10kph tolerance disappears overnight. 101kph, ticket.


+1 kph tickets, (while possible now), will not become a common event regardless of whether detectors are banned or not. Simple wear and tear on tyres can result in a few kph incorrect readings on speedometers. Which is one of the reasons they have a tolerance in the first place.

[lealand]

Its not that hard for a lad to hide one with a bit of Kiwi DIY ;-)

[denill]

It certainly won't ever happen in my world, I'd be willing to take his chocolate fish wager.
+1 kph tickets, (while possible now), will not become a common event regardless of whether detectors are banned or not. Simple wear and tear on tyres can result in a few kph incorrect readings on speedometers. Which is one of the reasons they have a tolerance in the first place.

Yeah, that makes sense - BUT you're not the Commisioner of Police. The rools have very little to do with commonsense.
Hence the general public's disatisfaction that you have probably picked up on by now.

[MaxB]

One thing that might help get a bit of confidence in the Police might be in-car datloggers/cameras that tell when the speed detecting device (eg radar) is used and maybe a GPS unit for location. At the moment the cop has to stand up in court, tell what happened and eveybody is supposed to believe him, even things that may have happened years ago.

In other countries like Germany they have 2 cops per traffic car and an in- car video linked to a calibrated speedo. When they pull over a boy racer they can make the shitbag sit in the patrol car and make him watch his offending. They issue many more tickets for careless/dangerous use and there is virtually no chance of getting away with it once stopped especially as there are 2 reliable witnesses. They still issue speeding tickets but the main focus is on driving behaviour and improving skills, not just slowing down the idiots. Banning radar detectors here will make fuck all difference. I reckon they have it right and we do not.

[pete376403]

. At the moment the cop has to stand up in court, tell what happened and eveybody is supposed to believe him, even things that may have happened years ago.

Not quite. the person who counts ie the Magistrate / Judge / whatever DOES believe him because the Police, like the Pope, have been deemed to be infallible. ( Hey, may not be too long before we have a Pope who is also Police Commisioner)

[MaxB]

Not quite. the person who counts ie the Magistrate / Judge / whatever DOES believe him because the Police, like the Pope, have been deemed to be infallible. ( Hey, may not be too long before we have a Pope who is also Police Commisioner)

Fair enough. But for trial by jury I'll bet you or a colleague have sat in court wondering how the hell a jury came to a verdict based on the evidence you just heard. Doesn't some of that come down to a perception of the police?

Also public opinion outside the legal system can lead to changes within it.

[scumdog]

Yeah, that makes sense - BUT you're not the Commisioner of Police. The rools have very little to do with commonsense.
Hence the general public's disatisfaction that you have probably picked up on by now.

The Commisioner of Police has got fuck-all to do with making laws or issuing edicts on how they be administered.

[denill]

The Commisioner of Police has got fuck-all to do with making laws or issuing edicts on how they be administered.

And neither will you.

So you're not in a position to say how the law will be interpreted in the future.

[scumdog]

And neither will you.

So you're not in a position to say how the law will be interpreted in the future.

And you ARE in that position?

BTW: Where did I say I was in a position to say how the law will be interpreted in the future?:scratch:


(So why DID you mention the Commisioner anyway?)

[madandy]

One thing that might help get a bit of confidence in the Police might be in-car datloggers/cameras that tell when the speed detecting device (eg radar) is used and maybe a GPS unit for location. At the moment the cop has to stand up in court, tell what happened and eveybody is supposed to believe him, even things that may have happened years ago.

In other countries like Germany they have 2 cops per traffic car and an in- car video linked to a calibrated speedo. When they pull over a boy racer they can make the shitbag sit in the patrol car and make him watch his offending. They issue many more tickets for careless/dangerous use and there is virtually no chance of getting away with it once stopped especially as there are 2 reliable witnesses. They still issue speeding tickets but the main focus is on driving behaviour and improving skills, not just slowing down the idiots. Banning radar detectors here will make fuck all difference. I reckon they have it right and we do not.

First Cop I see pull over one of these sad sacks that think it's ok to sit out in the middle of the road doing 65-70km/h in a 90 or 100km/h zone and issue them demerits & a fine for holding up traffic and increasing the chance someone will attempt a dangerous overtaking manouvre will get a box of his/her favourite beverage from me.
If Police enforced the keep left mantra some more, the 2-4 second following distance and a few other common sense habits (like cell phones etc) were encouraged plus allowing people a fair margin of pace above the limit for passing I reckon there'd be far few accidents resulting from poor overtaking decisions and there may be less need for people to bother with RD's in the first place :whistle:

[denill]

BTW: Where did I say I was in a position to say how the law will be interpreted in the future?

Sorry. That was Spud.

[davereid]

It certainly won't ever happen in my world, I'd be willing to take his chocolate fish wager. +1 kph tickets, (while possible now), will not become a common event regardless of whether detectors are banned or not. Simple wear and tear on tyres can result in a few kph incorrect readings on speedometers. Which is one of the reasons they have a tolerance in the first place.

Some cops are like you. They will treat the law sensibly, and will only issue tickets when speeding deserves a ticket.

But not all cops are like that. We have a couple of plods here, that seem to cover the highways around Ohakea who have a completely attitude.

Examples ?

I have seen them using dodgy techniques like radaring half a dozen bikes, and writing then all tickets off one radar ping. Pretty clearly more that one vehicle in the beam, and very unlikely everyone was doing the same speed but good enough for these guys!


And this is VERY common - I see this every week..

For whatever reason, cloth cap wearers seem to dawdle at 75km/hr then they spot a passing lane, and then magically find the gas pedal.

Most people will just accelerate to pass them. And it makes good sense, cos you can pass now with a high level of safety. While marginally over the speed limit, you are not crossing the white line, not attempting to judge your acceleration, the speed of oncoming traffic, and how quick the gap will close, as you are in a normal passing situation.

But Nope ! these champions of road safety wait at the end of the passing lane, busting people for using it !

The end result is that Normal Joe Citizens like me, who meet very few cops socially, end up assuming all cops are like the clowns around Ohakea.

So please forgive me if I am a fraction skeptical about what may happen. Or get a job here, and get some sense into the locals.

[onearmedbandit]

Ahhh, the old 'wait at the end of the passing lane trap'. Been caught in that one myself. Cop even said he knew what I was trying to do, ie pass slower trafffic that had sped up (his words), but he still had to ticket me, road safety and all. (although I must add he did lower the speed he caught me at by about 10km/h).

[ipod1098]

fuck it.. they should all be in camo i reckon:eek:

[scumdog]

Ahhh, the old 'wait at the end of the passing lane trap'. Been caught in that one myself. Cop even said he knew what I was trying to do, ie pass slower trafffic that had sped up (his words), but he still had to ticket me, road safety and all. (although I must add he did lower the speed he caught me at by about 10km/h).

Never, ever done that, even if speed exceeds 120kph - as long as they slow down on passing I'm ok with that.

However another km down the road is a different story, the "but I was just passing those cars" doesn't extend that far..

[ManDownUnder]

However another km down the road is a different story, the "but I was just passing those cars" doesn't extend that far..

Oh come on! You're not giving the "I hate cops" threads any ammo at all. Do play fair LOL :niceone:

[Pixie]

It certainly won't ever happen in my world, I'd be willing to take his chocolate fish wager.



+1 kph tickets, (while possible now), will not become a common event regardless of whether detectors are banned or not. Simple wear and tear on tyres can result in a few kph incorrect readings on speedometers. Which is one of the reasons they have a tolerance in the first place.

They do tickets for 1km over in Victoria - where all NZ Police traffic enforcement ideas originate

[denill]

Never, ever done that, even if speed exceeds 120kph - as long as they slow down on passing I'm ok with that.

However another km down the road is a different story, the "but I was just passing those cars" doesn't extend that far..

I'm confused?? :blink: So tell, what is the directive from on high then, regarding that?? Or are you just the odd one out??

Perhaps YOU should be the policy maker. :clap: :clap:
With more like you I would feel more like playing within the rules.

As ManDownUnder said "Oh come on! You're not giving the "I hate cops" threads any ammo at all. Do play fair LOL"

[Holy Roller]

First Cop I see pull over one of these sad sacks that think it's ok to sit out in the middle of the road doing 65-70km/h in a 90 or 100km/h zone and issue them demerits & a fine for holding up traffic and increasing the chance someone will attempt a dangerous overtaking manouvre will get a box of his/her favourite beverage from me.
If Police enforced the keep left mantra some more, the 2-4 second following distance and a few other common sense habits (like cell phones etc) were encouraged plus allowing people a fair margin of pace above the limit for passing I reckon there'd be far few accidents resulting from poor overtaking decisions and there may be less need for people to bother with RD's in the first place :whistle:

One of our Ulysses members was pulled over for going too slow and it wasn't that slow for the road.

[spudchucka]

They do tickets for 1km over in Victoria - where all NZ Police traffic enforcement ideas originate

Regardless of what Victoria does I don't believe that the Judiciary would allow it here. There is still a basic requirement to be fair while upholding the law and I am quite satisfied that this won't happen, purely in the interest of fairness alone.

[spudchucka]

Sorry. That was Spud.

No it wasn't I stated a belief based upon my knowledge and experience. And if you are going to knock me for allegedly predicting how the law will be interpreted in the future then go ahead and knock everyone else in this thread, (especially Ixion) because that's exactly what they are doing.

[denill]

Regardless of what Victoria does I don't believe that the Judiciary would allow it here. There is still a basic requirement to be fair while upholding the law and I am quite satisfied that this won't happen, purely in the interest of fairness alone.


Fairness? They may have brainwashed you into thinking the current enforcement protocol is fair.
But - Ohhh forget it. I'll just have another :beer:

[scumdog]

Fairness? They may have brainwashed you into thinking the current enforcement protocol is fair.
But - Ohhh forget it. I'll just have another :beer:

'Protocol' and what actually happens are two different things a lot of the time..

[scumdog]

I'm confused?? :blink: So tell, what is the directive from on high then, regarding that?? Or are you just the odd one out??

I play the 'directive' as I see fit, don't see any from 'on high' sitting in the car with me.

Yeah I'm the odd one out - but I'm sure you'll find like bikers it's the small number of twats that get the attention on KB, the silent vast amount of 'odd ones out' never get noticed.<_<;)

[imdying]

Fairness? They may have brainwashed you into thinking the current enforcement protocol is fair.Didn't get done for over a teeny tiny bit over 70 in a 50 on the way to work yesterday... in fact, I'd say I get 1 in 10 of the tickets I deserve, so IME they're all about fairness and leniency.

[spudchucka]

Fairness? They may have brainwashed you into thinking the current enforcement protocol is fair.
But - Ohhh forget it. I'll just have another :beer:

+10kph tolerance is fair. Move to Victoria if you don't like it.

[denill]

+10kph tolerance is fair. Move to Victoria if you don't like it.


See, brainwashing does work. It worked well on a lota Germans too in the late 30s, early 40s, who were convinced they too were doing a good job.

[spudchucka]

Ah, the old comparing traffic cops to the Nazi regime of Germany during the 30's trick. Its old material sunshine, please at least try to be original.

+10kph is a 10% tolerance at open road speeds and a 20% tolerance in residential areas, which is really quite fair.

[denill]

Ah, the old comparing traffic cops to the Nazi regime of Germany during the 30's trick. Its old material sunshine, please at least try to be original.

Oh, so I'm not the only one who's noted the similarity? :innocent:

[Toaster]

Sounds like bullshit to me. They just wants people to buy them quickly before they ban them.

Agreed. Just a sales-pitch to flog off stock and make a dishonest buck.

[denill]

Agreed. Just a sales-pitch to flog off stock and make a dishonest buck.


While it may not be factual, only time will tell on that. It wasn't "Just a sales-pitch to flog off stock and make a dishonest buck" cos you should have read - That I was talked out of fitting an under grill unit on my WRX. :bash:

[Toaster]

While it may not be factual, only time will tell on that. It wasn't "Just a sales-pitch to flog off stock and make a dishonest buck" cos you should have read - That I was talked out of fitting an under grill unit on my WRX. :bash:

IT SIMPLY WASN'T INTERESTING ENOUGH TO READ THAT FAR.

HAPPY NOW?:stupid:

[denill]

IT SIMPLY WASN'T INTERESTING ENOUGH TO READ THAT FAR.

HAPPY NOW?:stupid:

My original post was that it may be of interest to some KBers. If it isn't to you don't read it. But if you want to comment on it, you should read it - otherwise you won't know what you're talking about. As you just did. :bash:

[xgnr]

If you drive/ride excessively fast even with a RD you will get caught as in many situations they don't give enough warning. Where they are very effective is giving warning of stationary units targeting vehicles as they enter poorly signed areas (ie speed traps).


Agreed.
Over the last couple of long rides with the new detector it is obvious the (non lazy) cops wait till they close then turn it on. Seem to target bikes it seems to me tho' :oi-grr:

One thing that my RD has shown, and made me more aware of is the number of radars around and hence I am very much more aware of my speed.

My Whistler is just a temp sensor and amp meter tho orrrficer... Tui ad comes to mind lol

[Swoop]

That I was talked out of fitting an under grill unit on my WRX. :bash:
It is actually a good thing. Why? Simply because the unit that you would have fitted will be detectable to "radar detector detectors".
Having it hidden is one thing, NOT being detectable is another.
Get a Bel STi.:niceone:

[madandy]

Ah, the old comparing traffic cops to the Nazi regime of Germany during the 30's trick. Its old material sunshine, please at least try to be original.

+10kph is a 10% tolerance at open road speeds and a 20% tolerance in residential areas, which is really quite fair.

But we'd rather the 20% 'tolerance' be on the open roads please :Police:


Agreed.
Over the last couple of long rides with the new detector it is obvious the (non lazy) cops wait till they close then turn it on. Seem to target bikes it seems to me tho' :oi-grr:

A RD unit with a much better range would go a long way to curing that ;)

One thing that my RD has shown, and made me more aware of is the number of radars around and hence I am very much more aware of my speed.

Makes a strong case for using the doensn't it?

My Whistler is just a temp sensor and amp meter tho orrrficer... Tui ad comes to mind lol

[Grahameeboy]

One thing that might help get a bit of confidence in the Police might be in-car datloggers/cameras that tell when the speed detecting device (eg radar) is used and maybe a GPS unit for location. At the moment the cop has to stand up in court, tell what happened and eveybody is supposed to believe him, even things that may have happened years ago.

In other countries like Germany they have 2 cops per traffic car and an in- car video linked to a calibrated speedo. When they pull over a boy racer they can make the shitbag sit in the patrol car and make him watch his offending. They issue many more tickets for careless/dangerous use and there is virtually no chance of getting away with it once stopped especially as there are 2 reliable witnesses. They still issue speeding tickets but the main focus is on driving behaviour and improving skills, not just slowing down the idiots. Banning radar detectors here will make fuck all difference. I reckon they have it right and we do not.

In UK they have 2 cops for speed traps. Always thought it is a bit dubious when you only have 1 cop here in NZ. At least with 2 you have less ambiguity.

[Grahameeboy]

I have a colleague who owns his own business and was desperate to get his ACC premiums down (too many motor accidents) . I found out over Xmas that he had fitted radar detectors to his 3 company vehicles. Crappy portable units at first, then better plumbed in models. His employees did not have to use the RDs just drive with them in the car/ute. No accidents or tickets in 2 years. RD saving lives? Maybe, that and the threat that anyone caught speeding was not going to get their contract renewed.

I guess when RDs are banned, ACC are going to get some more money.

I read an article from the UK that said that drivers with a radar detector were safe drivers.

[scumdog]

But we'd rather the 20% 'tolerance' be on the open roads please :Police:

Ha!
THAT was the case 6-7 years ago - and people still moaned when they got pinged!

[civil]

Ah, the old comparing traffic cops to the Nazi regime of Germany during the 30's trick. Its old material sunshine, please at least try to be original.


Ah, the old attack the messenger rather than the message. Distraction has always been a good form of defence when you have no defence. I see Spud you are keeping up the same old behaviour pattens.

[xgnr]

Agreed.
Over the last couple of long rides with the new detector it is obvious the (non lazy) cops wait till they close then turn it on. Seem to target bikes it seems to me tho' :oi-grr:

One thing that my RD has shown, and made me more aware of is the number of radars around and hence I am very much more aware of my speed.

My Whistler is just a temp sensor and amp meter tho orrrficer... Tui ad comes to mind lol

someone pointed out that an RD with a longer range gets around this but I don't think a range detector with a longer range would make any difference as they leave the Radar on standby then turn it on when 50M from you... time to react is very small... :buggerd:

BTW the whistler is right up there with the others in tests etc. ;)

[denill]

someone pointed out that an RD with a longer range gets around this but I don't think a range detector with a longer range would make any difference as they leave the Radar on standby then turn it on when 50M from you... time to react is very small...

A TOP of the range Detector will pick up the scatter signals from a long range to pick up the instant on checks - BUT that only happens if there is other traffic ahead of you.
So a quiet road is not always a good road to fang it a bit.

Oh well it won't matter soon. :headbang:

[madandy]

someone pointed out that an RD with a longer range gets around this but I don't think a range detector with a longer range would make any difference as they leave the Radar on standby then turn it on when 50M from you... time to react is very small... :buggerd:

BTW the whistler is right up there with the others in tests etc. ;)

If you haven't seen the car, remembering that any Falcodore is an immediate suspect, before 50m - hell 200m- you'd be after a new glasses prescription me thinks.
400m isn't a whole to ask from your eyes in idendifying a potential mufti and blue & whites stand out from further a-field than that.
It's already been suggested in this thread that RD's are the back up to a keen road scanner and not the silver bullet and as Denill states, with any traffic within 2-3 km ahead of you you're gonna get plenty of warning.
I used to have a Whistler ten years ago or more. I'm going to check some test results and see where they're at.

Scummy, are you referring to a time when Police sometimes would give the discos a flick and/or wave the finger at someone who was up around 114 for instance? They were great times indeed. Shame too many people couldn't see that was pushing the extent of their driving skills...

[swbarnett]

Ha!
THAT was the case 6-7 years ago - and people still moaned when they got pinged!
People are never satisfied.

Here's a thought, stop pinging people for just being different. Maybe if people only got pinged when it could be proven empirically they were actually dangerous (say, after they'd caused a crash) people would get the impression that the powers that be actually cared about road safety.

[huck farley]

Well I've taken my Scorpion RD out of the car this morning. No one can beat the law, (except Helen) so I am weening myself to driving at the legal speed limit on the open road.

I have to go to Palmy this arvo so I will see how my head handles the adjustment. I know the Quattro will hate it, as it's cruising speed is 120kph. But it to will have to tell the OB computer that from now on we cruise at 100kph. What a bore Zzzzzzzzzzzzz!!

But as for the bike. Well that's another kettle of fish!!!!

[Blackbird]

Scummy, are you referring to a time when Police sometimes would give the discos a flick and/or wave the finger at someone who was up around 114 for instance? They were great times indeed.

Surprisingly, that STILL happens a fair bit!

[Ivan]

Most raders have a jammer that jams the Police radar I guess thats why they are shitty

[Blackbird]

Most raders have a jammer that jams the Police radar I guess thats why they are shitty

They don't actually. There are jammers which jam lasers, but you'sd need a truck load of elctronics to jam a microwave radar (Ka band).

[roogazza]

I met a guy at the track day Saturday with a large red BMW , I have never seen so much electronic trickery installed on a bike !
Everything was hidden, detector, front and rear jammer units !
Guess he was serious ? Gaz.

[spudchucka]

Ah, the old attack the messenger rather than the message.

There wasn't a message to attack.

[slopster]

Only one company has ever produced a radar jammer (scorpian ka jammer) it costs $1500USD and takes up most of your dash on a car. Would be ridiculous on a bike. Trademe is full of people claiming to sell radar jamming detectors that simply dont work.

[Toaster]

My original post was that it may be of interest to some KBers. If it isn't to you don't read it. But if you want to comment on it, you should read it - otherwise you won't know what you're talking about. As you just did. :bash:

You really did hide behind the door when God gave out humour.:stupid:

[denill]

There wasn't a message to attack.

Yes there was. Ya just don't get it tho. Or don't want to?

The message could be summarised as - 'The power of indoctrination'.

[spudchucka]

You just recycled an already abused derogatory comment for no good reason other than as a fishing expedition.

[denill]

You really did hide behind the door when God gave out humour.:stupid:

You still here?


IT SIMPLY WASN'T INTERESTING ENOUGH TO READ THAT FAR.

Still reading stuff that you don't find interesting? :no: :no:

[denill]

You just recycled an already abused derogatory comment for no good reason other than as a fishing expedition.

Sorry, but your vocation in life is at the bottom of the pile IMO and not one I would choose. And you would naturally prefer to regard the criticism of that vocation as trolling.

If you've been brainwashed/indoctrinated into thinking at the end of the day that you have done a good days work in the interests of humanity - do so. I s'pose someone has to do it.

The analogy I used earlier has upset you?

[pritch]

They just don't get it!

I think "they" get it OK. The upper echelons of the hierarchy don't get it.

Then again they don't give a shit, it ain't their arse on the line late at night in the wrong part of town or out in the middle of nowhere.

[rwh]

The analogy I used earlier has upset you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

See the Corollaries section. You lost.

Richard

[spudchucka]

Sorry, but your vocation in life is at the bottom of the pile IMO and not one I would choose. And you would naturally prefer to regard the criticism of that vocation as trolling.

If you've been brainwashed/indoctrinated into thinking at the end of the day that you have done a good days work in the interests of humanity - do so. I s'pose someone has to do it.

The analogy I used earlier has upset you?

No, it hasn't upset me at all, I just think that its pathetic and melodramatic bullshit.

Public opinion of police is a two edged sword, you can't do the work required of police without upsetting one sector of society or another for various reasons. And, if the police went about their work with the primary objective of keeping the public happy at all costs then you would have a corrupt force in no time.

You're making a big fuss over the 10kph tolerance and accusing me of being brainwashed and indoctrinated because I say its a fair tolerance. And now you think you can comment on the work I do personally and criticise me if I think I've done a good days work. Get a grip of reality, you don't even know what I do on a daily basis.

I'm glad that its a job you wouldn't choose, its a better organisation because of that, thank you. You are right though, somebody does have to do it, you should be grateful that there are good people around that have the guts to step up and have the strength and fortitude required to withstand the daily moaning of ignoramuses.

[Grahameeboy]

No, it hasn't upset me at all, I just think that its pathetic and melodramatic bullshit.

Public opinion of police is a two edged sword, you can't do the work required of police without upsetting one sector of society or another for various reasons. And, if the police went about their work with the primary objective of keeping the public happy at all costs then you would have a corrupt force in no time.

You're making a big fuss over the 10kph tolerance and accusing me of being brainwashed and indoctrinated because I say its a fair tolerance. And now you think you can comment on the work I do personally and criticise me if I think I've done a good days work. Get a grip of reality, you don't even know what I do on a daily basis.

I'm glad that its a job you wouldn't choose, its a better organisation because of that, thank you. You are right though, somebody does have to do it, you should be grateful that there are good people around that have the guts to step up and have the strength and fortitude required to withstand the daily moaning of ignoramuses.

Cushty geezer +1

Geeze it is sad when on the one hand KBers say that we have a common interest ie bikes but slag off cops on this site.

Denill is in Denill:whistle:

[huck farley]

I met a guy at the track day Saturday with a large red BMW , I have never seen so much electronic trickery installed on a bike !
Everything was hidden, detector, front and rear jammer units !
Guess he was serious ? Gaz.

Gee whiz the guy you met would be better of racing a bike if he likes speed. It would probably cost less than all the paraphernalia he has hidden on his Beemer.

Don't worry the law are not idiots they will soon wake up to his trickery as you describe it . By the sounds when he does get sprung the cop will issue enough tickets to have his demerit points well over the 100 to loose his licence. So he will be walking home!!

[davereid]

They don't actually. There are jammers which jam lasers, but you'sd need a truck load of elctronics to jam a microwave radar (Ka band).

I'd love to have a go at building a jammer... but the local police won't loan me a radar gun to test it against.

Principle (a)
Radar is Doppler Shift.. so you have an outgoing carrier which reflects off a vehicle and you get a return signal at a different frequency.

So spectrally, it looks just like single sideband... so blasting a carefully modulated AM carrier at it should stop it working, as it will see multiple targets.

Catch : Illegal in 52 states as you don't have a licence to transmit on that frequency.
Un-Catch : NOT Illegal in N.Z. as it is a public band here, licenced under a general licence for radiolocation. ie Radar. So as long as the unit you buils actually does something legal, its side effect of jamming police radar is irrelevant !

Principle (b)
Police radar relies on reflection off the oncoming vehicle.

Why not make a really good reflector...and use it cunningly..

The plan..

35Ghz has a wave length of 8mm. So a short bit of wire, 8mm long is resonant, and will be a much better reflector than your car.

Get a 200mm longish, round bit of wood, like an old shovel handle.

At 8 mm spacings from one end to the other, glue on 25, 8mm long "reflectors". This is a really good target for the radar unit.

The do it again, a bit further around the circumfrence of your handle.

Keep doing it until you have dozens of little reflectors on your handle.

Now, place the handle behind a 200mm long bit of angle iron or aluminium. Arrange things so that the very top reflectors are just higher than the top of the aluminium, as viewed from the police car.

Now spin the handle with a small motor.

How does it work ?

From the police radar point of view, all it can see is the row of reflectors at the top of your device. But they are moving, as you are spinning them with a motor. And they are moving at a speed you control.!

You should be able to preset any speed you want to be shown on the police radar unit.

"Stalkers" would be very vulnerable to this technique, as they try and process both highest speed and strongest target.

This would create the crazy result where the police claim "one vehicle in beam" but the radar unit shows two, entirely different speeds.

Off to the workshop lads !

[huck farley]

Only one company has ever produced a radar jammer (scorpian ka jammer) it costs $1500USD and takes up most of your dash on a car. Would be ridiculous on a bike. Trademe is full of people claiming to sell radar jamming detectors that simply dont work.

Listen to Slopster what he is telling you all out there is very, very, true. Don't have a bar of them. They do not work. I was advised by a Bel technician in the USA that Jammers are a 100% useless, and do "not" work. If you do buy one, and it goes of whilst out on your bike. It will only be reminding you you will be getting a ticket. (His words not mine)

[davereid]

Listen to Slopster what he is telling you all out there is very, very, true. Don't have a bar of them. They do not work. I was advised by a Bell technician in the USA that Jammers are a 100% useless, and do "not" work. If you do buy one, and it goes of whilst out on your bike. It will only be reminding you you will be getting a ticket. (His words not mine)

I'm not really sure thats entirely true.

The ideas in my previous post on how to build a jammer are technically quite accurate !

In the USA, an active jammer would be illegal due to licensing, and the FCC would hammer any company that made or sold such a device.

Not so here, its a public use radio band in NZ.

EDIT - particularly PLAN B ! as its a passive system.. as used by the UK in WW2

[madandy]

Lets not get all personal here fellas...
Point is good RDs work when used as prescribed and when one team builds a better revenue gatherer the other will build a better RD. It's been going on since 1972.
It WONT stop by simply banning the use of RDs just like banning drugs has failed to stop people getting high. It just forces it underground.

There's one statistic I'd like to see, if it exists:laugh: and that's how many cars involved in serious or fatal accidents were equipped with a RD at the time of the accident?
Are we safer road users, those of us who use RDs or we just avoiding the speed tax?
Should we keep our eyes up, scanning the road ahead to the vanishing point & back, maintaining a sensible pace for the conditions, our equipment and our own skills or should we divert our attention to that little dial where the space between two increments 10km apart is mere millimeters?

[scumdog]

I feel sorry for all you worry-warts who view a radar detector/jammer as a life support sytem, FFS get a life and learn to ride without getting tickets.

I've had ONE tocket in 40 odd years of driving and riding (and no, I HAVN'T always been in this job) so either I've always been a saint on the road (pfft!) or???

I know one thing, I've never felt the urge to clutter up my car/bike with a radar detector.

[huck farley]

Well your huge post has failed to convince me Dave Reid that it will work. There is only one way to find out and that is to build it then go roaring past a cop at 140kph that's the only time that the law will lend you a laser. You had better hope that your contraption works. Otherwise you may be walking for a while.

[bucket boy]

Well your huge post has failed to convince me Dave Reid that it will work. There is only one way to find out and that is to build it then go roaring past a cop at 140kph that's the only time that the law will lend you a laser. You had better hope that your contraption works. Otherwise you may be walking for a while.

then the copper can just say an estimated speed and you still lose

[The Pastor]

I'd love to have a go at building a jammer... but the local police won't loan me a radar gun to test it against.

Principle (a)
Radar is Doppler Shift.. so you have an outgoing carrier which reflects off a vehicle and you get a return signal at a different frequency.

So spectrally, it looks just like single sideband... so blasting a carefully modulated AM carrier at it should stop it working, as it will see multiple targets.

Catch : Illegal in 52 states as you don't have a licence to transmit on that frequency.
Un-Catch : NOT Illegal in N.Z. as it is a public band here, licenced under a general licence for radiolocation. ie Radar. So as long as the unit you buils actually does something legal, its side effect of jamming police radar is irrelevant !

Principle (b)
Police radar relies on reflection off the oncoming vehicle.

Why not make a really good reflector...and use it cunningly..

The plan..

35Ghz has a wave length of 8mm. So a short bit of wire, 8mm long is resonant, and will be a much better reflector than your car.

Get a 200mm longish, round bit of wood, like an old shovel handle.

At 8 mm spacings from one end to the other, glue on 25, 8mm long "reflectors". This is a really good target for the radar unit.

The do it again, a bit further around the circumfrence of your handle.

Keep doing it until you have dozens of little reflectors on your handle.

Now, place the handle behind a 200mm long bit of angle iron or aluminium. Arrange things so that the very top reflectors are just higher than the top of the aluminium, as viewed from the police car.

Now spin the handle with a small motor.

How does it work ?

From the police radar point of view, all it can see is the row of reflectors at the top of your device. But they are moving, as you are spinning them with a motor. And they are moving at a speed you control.!

You should be able to preset any speed you want to be shown on the police radar unit.

"Stalkers" would be very vulnerable to this technique, as they try and process both highest speed and strongest target.

This would create the crazy result where the police claim "one vehicle in beam" but the radar unit shows two, entirely different speeds.

Off to the workshop lads !
you forgot the tin foil hat you have to wear.

[huck farley]

I'm not really sure thats entirely true.

The ideas in my previous post on how to build a jammer are technically quite accurate !

In the USA, an active jammer would be illegal due to licensing, and the FCC would hammer any company that made or sold such a device.

Not so here, its a public use radio band in NZ.

EDIT - particularly PLAN B ! as its a passive system.. as used by the UK in WW2

At the time I was talking to a technician in the states is because I had bought one of the Bel range RD that had a magic shield that fitted onto the device. Also the device ran on two AA batteries so I was able to slip it in my pocket. and it was kept high and dry.

It worked ok It saved me a couple of times But on one occasion it failed me doing 123 along the Desert Road. I received a $180 fine and 30 demerits. It took me a while to suss out why it failed me. I read the instruction book again and I missed the bit where it said that if no activity after one hour the device shuts down to conserve the battery life. Hence me getting lumbered.

However I rang the USA to see if there was anyway I could override this turning of business. (I bought it on the Internet from the USA) was told that if I touched one of the buttons on the device it would switch back on Immediately.

I commented that's hard to do when traveling at speed with gloves on. He agreed!! it was a oversight and would pass on my comments. NOW In general conversation I asked him about Ka band Jammers, he said the same thing as you. That being they are illegal in the USA but went on to tell me they were useless anyway, and to give them a wide berth. I just thought I would clarify that for you Dave. (I have since gotten rid of my Bel RD on trademe) I have a Scorpoin RD for sale Only used it in my Audi. Give me a PM if anyone wants to buy one. it is in excellent condition....

[mowgli]

I feel sorry for all you worry-warts who view a radar detector/jammer as a life support sytem, FFS get a life and learn to ride without getting tickets.

Bling! Only one stupid mobile camera fine in 20 yrs and that was when they joined up the northern motorway extension and reduced the limit approaching Silverdale. 81 in a 70 zone - fun taxes paid up for another 20 yrs I reckon.

[mowgli]

I'm not really sure thats entirely true.

The ideas in my previous post on how to build a jammer are technically quite accurate !

In the USA, an active jammer would be illegal due to licensing, and the FCC would hammer any company that made or sold such a device.

Not so here, its a public use radio band in NZ.

EDIT - particularly PLAN B ! as its a passive system.. as used by the UK in WW2

Option A: To build microwave circuits you can't simply head down to Dickies for a soldering iron and a few resistors.

Option B: DIY cutting and positioning errors _MAY_ enhance broadband performance but are more likely to reduce the overall effectiveness of the antenna array.

Option B: Rotating will produce both Doppler up and Doppler down with the centre frequency giving away your actual speed.

Even if you do seduce the police radar then you've neglected to consider burn-through range - the distance from the radar where your bike reflection is stronger than the transmit power of your deception device.

Nice ideas but don't waste you time.

[scumdog]

The plan..

35Ghz has a wave length of 8mm. So a short bit of wire, 8mm long is resonant, and will be a much better reflector than your car.

Get a 200mm longish, round bit of wood, like an old shovel handle.

At 8 mm spacings from one end to the other, glue on 25, 8mm long "reflectors". This is a really good target for the radar unit.

The do it again, a bit further around the circumfrence of your handle.

Keep doing it until you have dozens of little reflectors on your handle.

Now, place the handle behind a 200mm long bit of angle iron or aluminium. Arrange things so that the very top reflectors are just higher than the top of the aluminium, as viewed from the police car.

Now spin the handle with a small motor.

How does it work ?

From the police radar point of view, all it can see is the row of reflectors at the top of your device. But they are moving, as you are spinning them with a motor. And they are moving at a speed you control.!

You should be able to preset any speed you want to be shown on the police radar unit.

"Stalkers" would be very vulnerable to this technique, as they try and process both highest speed and strongest target.

This would create the crazy result where the police claim "one vehicle in beam" but the radar unit shows two, entirely different speeds.

Off to the workshop lads !

You DID watch Mythbusters when they tried this sort of device didn't you?

And you DID see it didn't work?

And you did see the size of the one they built?

The size of a washing machine mounted on their 'stealth' undetectable car.

[davereid]

lol.. well, a few tech ideas certainly fired up a hornets nest !

The post was intended as a bit of a laugh... but it has certainly demonstrated how concerned people are about radar !

So while admitting that it was a bit of a joke, and shouldn't be treated to seriously, ... its also technically not quite as weak as it may seem.

Scumdog :
No sorry I didn't see Myth-busters.

I don't know what they tried to build, so I can't comment on its effectiveness.

My device would NOT produce a "stealth" vehicle - quite the reverse, I am adding reflectors, in fact my vehicle would provide a better target, just the stalker would incorrectly report the antenna array speed instead of the vehicle.


mowgli :
The antenna as described was a stacked array - as you commented the dimensions would be critical. They would be possibly un-buildable by hand but quite obtainable by machining. ie lay the antenna in strips, then mill or turn out sections as required.

The issue of rotating antennas producing doppler "up and down" is solved by the metal shield.

Unless I have missed something obvious, the design will provide only one return signal, which is the (rotational) velocity of the antenna, plus the actual velocity of the vehicle.

Burn through range is not a problem with the Stalker. I am deliberately exploiting a feature of the stalkers design, in that it has a homodyne receiver, and will receive and process ALL incoming signals, not just the strongest.

It cheerfully tracks both strong AND weak signals. It will display the strongest signal and the fastest signal.

Huck:
It will only work on doppler shift radars, and as it exploits the particular design of the Stalker DSR, it may not work against other doppler radar units.
It would never be effective against LASER, or pulsed radar.

Get building ! :niceone:

[davereid]

Option A: To build microwave circuits you can't simply head down to Dickies for a soldering iron and a few resistors.

Oops forgot.. quite right, you cant get the parts from DSE. But radio hams have been using microwave for 50 years. Go see the lads at your local radio ham club. They will likely have a 10-11 GHz Gunn Transmitter lying around, and that becomes 34-36 GHz with a simple trippler. (Nick the diode you need fom the antenna head of your neighbours Sky Dish).

[Ixion]

CAn a police radar measure the speed of a target moving AWAY from the radar . EG, cops have rear facing radar, if the cop has passed you in the other lane, will his radar get a valid reading on you as you move away from him. Presumably the Doppler shift would be negative ?

[slopster]

CAn a police radar measure the speed of a target moving AWAY from the radar . EG, cops have rear facing radar, if the cop has passed you in the other lane, will his radar get a valid reading on you as you move away from him. Presumably the Doppler shift would be negative ?

As I understand only if they have a radar mounted in the rear window which only a minority of them do. This was explained to me by a cop who didn't do traffic duty's though and also was a few years ago so may have changed.

[NUTBAR]

No, it hasn't upset me at all, I just think that its pathetic and melodramatic bullshit.

Public opinion of police is a two edged sword, you can't do the work required of police without upsetting one sector of society or another for various reasons. And, if the police went about their work with the primary objective of keeping the public happy at all costs then you would have a corrupt force in no time.

You're making a big fuss over the 10kph tolerance and accusing me of being brainwashed and indoctrinated because I say its a fair tolerance. And now you think you can comment on the work I do personally and criticise me if I think I've done a good days work. Get a grip of reality, you don't even know what I do on a daily basis.

I'm glad that its a job you wouldn't choose, its a better organisation because of that, thank you. You are right though, somebody does have to do it, you should be grateful that there are good people around that have the guts to step up and have the strength and fortitude required to withstand the daily moaning of ignoramuses.

well said.
:clap::clap:

[fredie]

its like about 10 points and $1,500 aus$ fine here . u only have 12 points on your licence here in nsw aus:shifty:<_<

[scumdog]

Scumdog :
No sorry I didn't see Myth-busters.

I don't know what they tried to build, so I can't comment on its effectiveness.

My device would NOT produce a "stealth" vehicle - quite the reverse, I am adding reflectors, in fact my vehicle would provide a better target, just the stalker would incorrectly report the antenna array speed instead of the vehicle.

:

Ya got the wrong end of the stick.

The Mythbusters 'device' was designed like yor idea - to reflect back a signal to show a slower, incorrect speed.

It did not work - the rader was not affected.

[Delphinus]

Wouldn't you want it to read a faster speed, like 300 or 400 or something you know is impossible?

[Swoop]

My device would NOT produce a "stealth" vehicle - quite the reverse, I am adding reflectors, in fact my vehicle would provide a better target, just the stalker would incorrectly report the antenna array speed instead of the vehicle.


The issue of rotating antennas producing doppler "up and down" is solved by the metal shield.
The rotating piece of wooden rod would make a handy rotisserie device for when you are away camping!
It would cook the roadkill quite nicely.:lol:

[swbarnett]

CAn a police radar measure the speed of a target moving AWAY from the radar . EG, cops have rear facing radar, if the cop has passed you in the other lane, will his radar get a valid reading on you as you move away from him. Presumably the Doppler shift would be negative ?
Doppler Radar works by measuring the change in frequency of a reflected sonic beam. The direction the object is travelling is irrelevant, it just changes the calculation slightly.

[spudchucka]

CAn a police radar measure the speed of a target moving AWAY from the radar . EG, cops have rear facing radar, if the cop has passed you in the other lane, will his radar get a valid reading on you as you move away from him. Presumably the Doppler shift would be negative ?

Yes, its just a matter of telling the device whether the target is approaching or going away from you, (a press of a button on a remote control).

[The Pastor]

Yes, its just a matter of telling the device whether the target is approaching or going away from you, (a press of a button on a remote control).
sounds so easy, even cops can use it! (you know coz they dont go to uni or anything)

[scumdog]

sounds so easy, even cops can use it! (you know coz they dont go to uni or anything)

What's an 'or anything'??

BTW: Shitloads of cops have degrees - I guess they slipped in when you weren't watching and got them quick-like eh?

[spudchucka]

sounds so easy, even cops can use it! (you know coz they dont go to uni or anything)

University is over-rated, give me a high school drop-out, bachelor of common sense from the university of life any day over a so called academic.

But, as SD said, there are actually heaps of cops with degrees. Recruits are even required to complete uni papers as part of their post police college probationary study requirements.

Promotion up the ranks also requires university study, which may be why the top brass seem to become less and less practical and out of touch with the basic street cop the further up the food chain they get.

The truth is that the NZ police love university, especially Victoria but they also have a bit of fling occasionally with Massey.

Even I have a Uni qualification, (hard to believe I know); but since I'm qualified to your standards, if you ever want a lesson in how to use a remote control just ask.

[Patch]

just cause you've been too (or at uni there RM) doesn't mean shit.

Life is the biggest lesson, some never learn.

[denill]

Just received this emailed response from my question to a RD importer/retailer.

"Situation is normal. Talked about before Xmas. Labour don’t have the numbers to pass it as NZ First and National won't support a ban.Vote National and it’s dead in the water. Vote Labour and we will have a fight on next year probably."

[twotyred]

Just received this emailed response from my question to a RD importer/retailer.

"Situation is normal. Talked about before Xmas. Labour don’t have the numbers to pass it as NZ First and National won't support a ban.Vote National and it’s dead in the water.... Until they are in power....

[denill]

Don't you trust politicians? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Coldrider]

Hardly makes a difference, if you are going to use a radar detector to assist oneself to make a conscience effort to speed.

[NZsarge]

Just received this emailed response from my question to a RD importer/retailer.

"Situation is normal. Talked about before Xmas. Labour don’t have the numbers to pass it as NZ First and National won't support a ban.Vote National and it’s dead in the water. Vote Labour and we will have a fight on next year probably."

Interesting, thanks. :niceone:

[denill]

Sent this email to the Nation Party HQ.

What is the National Party policy regarding - radar detectors being legal to use and sell in NZ??

[denill]

My email:

What is the National Party policy regarding - radar detectors being legal to use and sell in NZ??

The response:

Thank you for your email below addressed to the New Zealand National Party Headquarters. It has been passed on today to the Hon Maurice Williamson MP in his capacity as National’s Transport Spokesman.

Mr Williamson has asked me to let you know that he is personally against the current Labour Government’s proposal to make the use of radar detectors illegal. National is still considering the issue as it develops its overall transport policy and an announcement will be made when that process is complete.

Yours sincerely
Bridie Wilkinson

[twotyred]

National is still considering the issue as it develops its overall transport policy and an announcement will be made when that process is complete.

Yours sincerely
Bridie Wilkinson

just after the election....