Police Radars..................

Candle Power Forums

Help Support Candle Power:

Status
Not open for further replies.

DaFiend

Enlightened
Joined
Sep 23, 2004
Messages
750
City & State/Province
Oz......
Police Radars/ speed camera's use lasers don't they? If so, does any one know what power and wave length they use?

I'm just a little curious, you cause they aim those things at you all the time and i drive past a fixed speed camera EVERY day, TWICE.
 
Police use both, RADAR and Lasers. The RADARs are usually X-Band or Ka Band. Lasers are, well, light. The X-Band RADARS are in the 9 GHz range and the Ka-Band ones are I believe around 21GHz. Just because you drive past a fixed camera and are speeding doesn't mean it is actually going to catch you. Sometimes they are out of film or simply not working. They might also have the threshold set higher than you are driving; i.e. if the speed limit is 50 MPH they might set it to go off at 65 or 70 MPH.

The RADAR guns they use are pretty low power. They only need to be able to clock you when you are close to the camera or police car. They can probably get a good track on you at a half mile or so though. Did this help?

RadarGreg
 
Thanks greg, But what i was more trying to get to was, are things going to damage my eye's eventually?i only have the one set & i still have another 50 years of driving past these things you know.

Plus, in Australia they fixed ones are commonly put outside schools where lots of people congregate.
 
Laser radar detectors have to be aimed at the car. That is listed as a advantage for them, the cop can pick out one car from a pack. I believe most cops are trained to aim at the front license plate or some other reflective part.

My point is that a fixed install can't aim a laser, so they tend not to be used. Instead they will use something a little more broad like X or Ka.

Additonally in the Western USA when I have driven with a radar detector near one of those fixed locations, the X or Ka band warning went off, not the laser warning.

Off topic - Am I the only one that has thought about renting a car just like the car of that person you don't like. Then waiting until he is at home and asleep or at work and borrowing his license plates and the driving fast or running a red light for the photo red light enforcement. Of course pull down the visor and I suggest holding up a bottle of Jack Daniels to hide the face further.

Argue that in court. Is that your car, yes, is that your license plate, yes. Of course we can't see your face behind the bottle of alcohol...
 
[ QUOTE ]
PocketBeam said:
Off topic - Am I the only one that has thought about renting a car just like the car of that person you don't like. Then waiting until he is at home and asleep or at work and borrowing his license plates and the driving fast or running a red light for the photo red light enforcement. Of course pull down the visor and I suggest holding up a bottle of Jack Daniels to hide the face further.

Argue that in court. Is that your car, yes, is that your license plate, yes. Of course we can't see your face behind the bottle of alcohol...

[/ QUOTE ]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crackup.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crackup.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crackup.gif

That's brilliant! Evil, but brilliant!

I bet you aren't the only one thinking about it now. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleye11.gif
 
I hope more people do. I think having a computer give you a ticket is unconstitutional. After all how can you cross examine a computer. Pictures or a short video can fool people.

So who wins if I say I didn't do it and the picture says I did? Obviously as shown above the picture would be wrong.

Of course the law says we don't have to prove it was you, you are responsible for the car. So either you get the fine or you tell us who you loaned the car to and they will get the ticket. Yea, that works. Your car is guilty.

This is just too easy to fool.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
You're talking about LIDAR. The wavelength used is 904nm. The beam is not collimated, or focused enough, to damage your eyes.
 
[ QUOTE ]
PocketBeam said:

Of course the law says we don't have to prove it was you, you are responsible for the car.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like you to show me the California law that says that. If they don't have proof that you were driving the car you can't be convicted of speeding.
 
Actually, there probably is a way to beat the computer/photo radar tickets. Usually these units are provided under a revenue sharing agreement between the manufacturer and the municipality. If you wished to challenge such a ticket, if you demanded the right to examine the software, i suspect a judge would be hard pressed to come up with a reason why you couldn't. Generally the manufacturer regards that code as trade secret/proprietay, so that leaves them between a rock and a hard place. You cannot be compelled to enter into a non-disclosure agreement, they can either hand it over (not likely), or the prosecution will be forced to drop the case. I'd give 100:1 odds the case gets dropped.

With Radar guns, you can have the unit sealed and examined by an outside expert (at your expense). I knew one guy who managed to get two tickets. He ended up with both the town's radar guns sealed, and once he asked for a continuance, the case was dropped. The town needed the revenue from the two guns much more than needed his fines...
 
Radar guns are off topic for a laser forum. Discussions of how to perform illegal activities and advocating them is a violation of CPF rules. The thread is closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top