Recommended Posts
More on that "spray". Here is a news story on YouTube mentioning that it works. I imagine that there are several brands of it.
Reflex Systems of Australia that runs the Photo Radar here in Arizona was forced to refund hundreds of people for citations issued under improperly calibrated equipment.
I'll bet the cops use equipment that is more frequently calibrated.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_e2BC_kXis
Reflex Systems of Australia that runs the Photo Radar here in Arizona was forced to refund hundreds of people for citations issued under improperly calibrated equipment.
I'll bet the cops use equipment that is more frequently calibrated.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_e2BC_kXis
The man who smiles when things go wrong has thought of someone to blame it on.
Squeak 17
QuoteAre you a cop? My key word on this post was "suspect"
These cameras are placed in areas that can be unfair to the best of drivers. They locate these things not for safety , but for MONEY.
Nope not a cop at all, but have very little time or patience for people you knowingly break the law (regarless of the law) and then piss and moan about it.
If you dontr want a speeding ticket, here's a thought. DONT SPEED, there are no excuses for it.
You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?
lurch 0
"If you dontr want a speeding ticket, here's a thought. DONT SPEED, there are no excuses for it."
No offense man, but that is so much bullshit. I'd invite you to come try to drive the speed limit in the left lane anywhere on the interstate highway within 200 miles of where I live. The signs say 65. The slow lane usually ranges 65-78, the fast lane minimum I see routinely is 75+, and at 75 you'll have a line of angry cars behind you, flashing their lights, honking and pulling around you to pass. My average cruise on my way to anywhere in particular is 75-90, averaging about 83-85 and thats without overtaking with any particular frequency, while being passed fairly regularly by people whose comfy cruise risk tolerance is a little faster than my own. Last year I tested this double standard by pacing a New Hampshire state police motorcycle for about 5 miles or so. He was either behind me or beside me the whole time. We were doing 78-82. He found nothing out of line with me doing 80, because he ignored me.
No excuse, my ass. Even the cops themselves acknowledge the defacto american autobahn by tolerating it when the entire traffic collective behaves as if the signs all said 85. To me the unwritten rule is, break 90, start looking over your shoulder. I can live with that...haven't got a ticket in 6 years.
-B
No offense man, but that is so much bullshit. I'd invite you to come try to drive the speed limit in the left lane anywhere on the interstate highway within 200 miles of where I live. The signs say 65. The slow lane usually ranges 65-78, the fast lane minimum I see routinely is 75+, and at 75 you'll have a line of angry cars behind you, flashing their lights, honking and pulling around you to pass. My average cruise on my way to anywhere in particular is 75-90, averaging about 83-85 and thats without overtaking with any particular frequency, while being passed fairly regularly by people whose comfy cruise risk tolerance is a little faster than my own. Last year I tested this double standard by pacing a New Hampshire state police motorcycle for about 5 miles or so. He was either behind me or beside me the whole time. We were doing 78-82. He found nothing out of line with me doing 80, because he ignored me.
No excuse, my ass. Even the cops themselves acknowledge the defacto american autobahn by tolerating it when the entire traffic collective behaves as if the signs all said 85. To me the unwritten rule is, break 90, start looking over your shoulder. I can live with that...haven't got a ticket in 6 years.
-B
Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.
billvon 3,107
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>the fast lane minimum I see routinely is 75+, and at 75 you'll have a
>line of angry cars behind you, flashing their lights, honking and pulling
> around you to pass.
Right. And you can drive 75 and not get a ticket, or drive 90 and risk a ticket. Your choice.
Are you one of those people who gets out of the plane without looking, and without leaving enough separation, if people are yelling "GO! GO! GO!" at you? Same sort of thing.
>line of angry cars behind you, flashing their lights, honking and pulling
> around you to pass.
Right. And you can drive 75 and not get a ticket, or drive 90 and risk a ticket. Your choice.
Are you one of those people who gets out of the plane without looking, and without leaving enough separation, if people are yelling "GO! GO! GO!" at you? Same sort of thing.
lurch 0
"If you dontr want a speeding ticket, here's a thought. DONT SPEED, there are no excuses for it."
No offense man, but that is so much bullshit. I'd invite you to come try to drive the speed limit in the left lane anywhere on the interstate highway within 200 miles of where I live. The signs say 65. The slow lane usually ranges 65-78, the fast lane minimum I see routinely is 75+, and at 75 you'll have a line of angry cars behind you, flashing their lights, honking and pulling around you to pass. My average cruise on my way to anywhere in particular is 75-90, averaging about 83-85 and thats without overtaking with any particular frequency, while being passed fairly regularly by people whose comfy cruise risk tolerance is a little faster than my own. Last year I tested this double standard by pacing a New Hampshire state police motorcycle for about 5 miles or so. He was either behind me or beside me the whole time. We were doing 78-82. He found nothing out of line with me doing 80, because he ignored me.
No excuse, my ass. Even the cops themselves acknowledge the defacto american autobahn by tolerating it when the entire traffic collective behaves as if the signs all said 85. To me the unwritten rule is, break 90, start looking over your shoulder. I can live with that...haven't got a ticket in 6 years.
No offense man, but that is so much bullshit. I'd invite you to come try to drive the speed limit in the left lane anywhere on the interstate highway within 200 miles of where I live. The signs say 65. The slow lane usually ranges 65-78, the fast lane minimum I see routinely is 75+, and at 75 you'll have a line of angry cars behind you, flashing their lights, honking and pulling around you to pass. My average cruise on my way to anywhere in particular is 75-90, averaging about 83-85 and thats without overtaking with any particular frequency, while being passed fairly regularly by people whose comfy cruise risk tolerance is a little faster than my own. Last year I tested this double standard by pacing a New Hampshire state police motorcycle for about 5 miles or so. He was either behind me or beside me the whole time. We were doing 78-82. He found nothing out of line with me doing 80, because he ignored me.
No excuse, my ass. Even the cops themselves acknowledge the defacto american autobahn by tolerating it when the entire traffic collective behaves as if the signs all said 85. To me the unwritten rule is, break 90, start looking over your shoulder. I can live with that...haven't got a ticket in 6 years.
Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.
lurch 0
I often delete my posts quickly, 9 out of 10 times I decide its better unsaid, but you answered it so I'll put it back and stand behind it this time just to clarify the attitude.
I'm the guy in the fast lane getting passed every couple minutes because I know I could go 90 but I don't feel like pushing it. Its the fact that running around averaging just barely sub-80 is a low ticket risk. The standard has shifted. I'm always hearing old stories about getting nailed for 5 over but the reality I see these days out on route 3 is that a car going as slow as the speed limit stands out like a snail and creates far more of a risk than the guy doing 75-85 just like everyone else. And by the rules all of it is speeding.
Squeak quoted what may be the most annoying excuse for selective enforcement I so often hear people use to justify what amounts to unwarranted legal aggression. "Theres no excuse you broke the law?" The linked logic to this is, to be consistent with that as your argument, everyone going above 65 deserves ticketing and should be ticketed. I'd love to see the state actually try to do that. That would be unreasonable.
We have smooth fast safe highways... with the rules set up so most people are breaking them much of the time. People would take the rules a lot more seriously if they made more sense.
Bit by bit the legal system matures... lot of places, 75, 80 now is the limit. It did not become magically safer when the state declared it ok to do now. It always had been. The law simply became fairer and more reasonable.
And Bill... I always look before exit. Always. I teach wingsuit. With that role comes a responsibility to manage risks for others who may not know the territory. Its my job not to miss the hidden hazard or make a bad judgement call. I take that responsibility very, very seriously.
-B
I'm the guy in the fast lane getting passed every couple minutes because I know I could go 90 but I don't feel like pushing it. Its the fact that running around averaging just barely sub-80 is a low ticket risk. The standard has shifted. I'm always hearing old stories about getting nailed for 5 over but the reality I see these days out on route 3 is that a car going as slow as the speed limit stands out like a snail and creates far more of a risk than the guy doing 75-85 just like everyone else. And by the rules all of it is speeding.
Squeak quoted what may be the most annoying excuse for selective enforcement I so often hear people use to justify what amounts to unwarranted legal aggression. "Theres no excuse you broke the law?" The linked logic to this is, to be consistent with that as your argument, everyone going above 65 deserves ticketing and should be ticketed. I'd love to see the state actually try to do that. That would be unreasonable.
We have smooth fast safe highways... with the rules set up so most people are breaking them much of the time. People would take the rules a lot more seriously if they made more sense.
Bit by bit the legal system matures... lot of places, 75, 80 now is the limit. It did not become magically safer when the state declared it ok to do now. It always had been. The law simply became fairer and more reasonable.
And Bill... I always look before exit. Always. I teach wingsuit. With that role comes a responsibility to manage risks for others who may not know the territory. Its my job not to miss the hidden hazard or make a bad judgement call. I take that responsibility very, very seriously.
-B
Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.
billvon 3,107
>is that a car going as slow as the speed limit stands out like a snail and
>creates far more of a risk than the guy doing 75-85 just like everyone
>else.
That's fine. Drive to keep up with traffic if you decide it's safer - and take responsibility for your actions if you are caught. If you decide that's unacceptable, take the bus.
> We have smooth fast safe highways...
Right. But the argument "therefore I can go 85mph" isn't always valid. Your parachute may open reliably in 300 feet; that doesn't mean that pulling at 500 feet is a good idea.
That's not to say that all highway speed limits are ideal; they're not. Many are more conservative than they could be under other conditions. But when you raise speed limits, more people die; that's been shown by actual experience in the 12 states that raised their speed limits in 1996. So the argument that "higher speeds are as safe or safer than lower speed limits" doesn't really hold water.
>The linked logic to this is, to be consistent with that as your argument,
>everyone going above 65 deserves ticketing and should be ticketed.
?? No, not at all. Everyone going above the speed limit MAY be ticketed. It is silly to claim that the fact that not everyone is tickted/arrested means the law is invalid or should not be enforced.
> And Bill... I always look before exit. Always.
But suppose there are people behind you who are afraid they will get too far upwind, and will get out right on top of you unless you go NOW? Wouldn't it be safer to leave less than the usual separation in that case, or not take as good a look? After all, everyone else is leaving less room and not checking for traffic and usually getting away with it.
>creates far more of a risk than the guy doing 75-85 just like everyone
>else.
That's fine. Drive to keep up with traffic if you decide it's safer - and take responsibility for your actions if you are caught. If you decide that's unacceptable, take the bus.
> We have smooth fast safe highways...
Right. But the argument "therefore I can go 85mph" isn't always valid. Your parachute may open reliably in 300 feet; that doesn't mean that pulling at 500 feet is a good idea.
That's not to say that all highway speed limits are ideal; they're not. Many are more conservative than they could be under other conditions. But when you raise speed limits, more people die; that's been shown by actual experience in the 12 states that raised their speed limits in 1996. So the argument that "higher speeds are as safe or safer than lower speed limits" doesn't really hold water.
>The linked logic to this is, to be consistent with that as your argument,
>everyone going above 65 deserves ticketing and should be ticketed.
?? No, not at all. Everyone going above the speed limit MAY be ticketed. It is silly to claim that the fact that not everyone is tickted/arrested means the law is invalid or should not be enforced.
> And Bill... I always look before exit. Always.
But suppose there are people behind you who are afraid they will get too far upwind, and will get out right on top of you unless you go NOW? Wouldn't it be safer to leave less than the usual separation in that case, or not take as good a look? After all, everyone else is leaving less room and not checking for traffic and usually getting away with it.
lurch 0
I should know better than to take you on in an argument, but what the hell, this is one of your weaker ones anyway mostly because some of your points address things I didn't say. Strawman?
I never said anything about -not- taking responsibility for actions. My problem is with a state of affairs in which the word "caught" is being applied to the normal, everyday behavior of the majority of highway users... at least enough of a majority that the 65 mph cars are the slowest on the road. I see this as a manifestation of authentic democracy, a true will of the majority collective decision.
I don't worry about being "caught" because I'm not doing anything caughtworthy. I choose not to be the fastest thing on the road. Not even close. I usually choose what I think is a speed comfortably below the nearest statie's "trigger threshold". I have noticed that they do seem to be pretty fair about that... you actually have to be hauling ass fast enough to pose a hazard to surrounding traffic to get their attention. If I chose to run around at 85-95+ all the time, I'd be choosing to have a very high probability of a ticket.
My problem isn't even with the exact value of the speed limit... its the use of the "no excuse" argument to justify a particular misuse of the legal system and to say "you don't have a leg to stand on" when someone objects to that misuse. "No excuse" isn't literally true. He -does- have an excuse, His excuse would be "well, hell, the flow of traffic has been 78 mph, wtf is the problem?" or something like it. "No excuse" is used to communicate the idea "tough shit, you had it coming because thats the letter of the law" and to formally refuse to recognize the fact of "flow of traffic." Taken literally with its core meaning it says "that behavior is inexcusable". I don't think many people would consider running with the flow of traffic at 76 in a 65 zone in a wide open interstate to be "inexcusable" behavior. But that argument says it is.
I guess the best way of getting the point across would be to ask you to extrapolate a little. That argument is used as an absolute, doesn't matter what the value is that is being defended, it is a value statement that says "you were in the wrong and should accept punishment for it." So just how far out there would you have to set the speed limit before you no longer felt the "you have no excuse its the law" argument applies? 55? 50? 35? The lower you set it the more ludicrous the argument becomes. a 20 mile long chunk of commuter traffic doing 78 aren't "being speeders, refusing responsibility ignoring the consequences and flaunting the law" they're just going to work or whatever. "You have no excuse" would apply to some asshole doing 105 in dense traffic. I doubt the harshest judge would think it applies to all those commuters.
Which is why I have a problem with that line being used against people bitching cause they're pissed about being harvested for cash by municipalities using things like those cameras as little money factories. That is not what the law is for.
-B
I never said anything about -not- taking responsibility for actions. My problem is with a state of affairs in which the word "caught" is being applied to the normal, everyday behavior of the majority of highway users... at least enough of a majority that the 65 mph cars are the slowest on the road. I see this as a manifestation of authentic democracy, a true will of the majority collective decision.
I don't worry about being "caught" because I'm not doing anything caughtworthy. I choose not to be the fastest thing on the road. Not even close. I usually choose what I think is a speed comfortably below the nearest statie's "trigger threshold". I have noticed that they do seem to be pretty fair about that... you actually have to be hauling ass fast enough to pose a hazard to surrounding traffic to get their attention. If I chose to run around at 85-95+ all the time, I'd be choosing to have a very high probability of a ticket.
My problem isn't even with the exact value of the speed limit... its the use of the "no excuse" argument to justify a particular misuse of the legal system and to say "you don't have a leg to stand on" when someone objects to that misuse. "No excuse" isn't literally true. He -does- have an excuse, His excuse would be "well, hell, the flow of traffic has been 78 mph, wtf is the problem?" or something like it. "No excuse" is used to communicate the idea "tough shit, you had it coming because thats the letter of the law" and to formally refuse to recognize the fact of "flow of traffic." Taken literally with its core meaning it says "that behavior is inexcusable". I don't think many people would consider running with the flow of traffic at 76 in a 65 zone in a wide open interstate to be "inexcusable" behavior. But that argument says it is.
I guess the best way of getting the point across would be to ask you to extrapolate a little. That argument is used as an absolute, doesn't matter what the value is that is being defended, it is a value statement that says "you were in the wrong and should accept punishment for it." So just how far out there would you have to set the speed limit before you no longer felt the "you have no excuse its the law" argument applies? 55? 50? 35? The lower you set it the more ludicrous the argument becomes. a 20 mile long chunk of commuter traffic doing 78 aren't "being speeders, refusing responsibility ignoring the consequences and flaunting the law" they're just going to work or whatever. "You have no excuse" would apply to some asshole doing 105 in dense traffic. I doubt the harshest judge would think it applies to all those commuters.
Which is why I have a problem with that line being used against people bitching cause they're pissed about being harvested for cash by municipalities using things like those cameras as little money factories. That is not what the law is for.
-B
Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.
Darius11 12
QuoteRight. But the argument "therefore I can go 85mph" isn't always valid. Your parachute may open reliably in 300 feet; that doesn't mean that pulling at 500 feet is a good idea.
I think the proper analogy might be this.
There is a new rule that says all skydivers must open there parachutes by 8000 feet but every one still goes down to 3500 knowing from experience that it is safe. Also the DZO sees this on daily bases and once in a while singles a person out and grounds them, but mostly does nothing about it.
I understand I am braking the law when I am speeding with every one else, but I feel less safe if I was going the maximum speed limit of 50 Mph on Rt 4 when everyone and I mean everyone is doing 85Mph.
The purpose of speed limits is for safety, not for selective punishment. Again I understand the law all I am saying is it doesn’t make any sense, and the enforcement is shady to say the least.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain
Zipp0 1
QuoteQuote
BTW, the newer digital Speed cameras don't use a flash.
The USA doesn't have these jamming laws in most states. And how can the camera use no flash? Night vision?
Infrared illuminator. Standard CCD sensors used in consumer camcorders and still cameras will pickup near infrared when not equipped with a filter.
Quote
No matter what the technology, it can be defeated if you put your mind to it.
Driving lights with IR filters might do the trick. They're even commercially available.
OK, I'd add an IR illuminator just above the plate as well as a flash. This would cover both types of cameras.
And what's with all the fucking cameras? Didn't anyone read Orwell in school?
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
billvon 3,107
> I never said anything about -not- taking responsibility for actions.
Cool.
>"No excuse" isn't literally true. He -does- have an excuse, His
>excuse would be "well, hell, the flow of traffic has been 78 mph, wtf is
>the problem?"
Fair enough. But again, that's applicable almost anywhere.
"We always use the 45 degree rule and it works fine. What the fuck is your problem?" (or insert your own favorite skydiver functional misconception.)
>So just how far out there would you have to set the speed limit before
>you no longer felt the "you have no excuse its the law" argument applies?
>55? 50? 35?
Let's take 5. If the speed limit was 5, you'd have two choices:
1) Drive anyway. You might get a ticket. That's the risk you take. If you want to change that absurd speed limit to something more reasonable, do so via the usual methods (lobby for a change, start a ballot measure, vote out the local government.) Or you might find out that the reason the speed limit is 5 is that they're making emergency repairs to a bridge, in which case you might be willing to drive at 5mph until it's fixed.
2) Don't use that road.
> a 20 mile long chunk of commuter traffic doing 78 aren't "being
>speeders, refusing responsibility ignoring the consequences and flaunting
>the law"
They are being speeders, and are flaunting the law. They're not refusing to accept responsibility unless they get a ticket and bitch about it.
Cool.
>"No excuse" isn't literally true. He -does- have an excuse, His
>excuse would be "well, hell, the flow of traffic has been 78 mph, wtf is
>the problem?"
Fair enough. But again, that's applicable almost anywhere.
"We always use the 45 degree rule and it works fine. What the fuck is your problem?" (or insert your own favorite skydiver functional misconception.)
>So just how far out there would you have to set the speed limit before
>you no longer felt the "you have no excuse its the law" argument applies?
>55? 50? 35?
Let's take 5. If the speed limit was 5, you'd have two choices:
1) Drive anyway. You might get a ticket. That's the risk you take. If you want to change that absurd speed limit to something more reasonable, do so via the usual methods (lobby for a change, start a ballot measure, vote out the local government.) Or you might find out that the reason the speed limit is 5 is that they're making emergency repairs to a bridge, in which case you might be willing to drive at 5mph until it's fixed.
2) Don't use that road.
> a 20 mile long chunk of commuter traffic doing 78 aren't "being
>speeders, refusing responsibility ignoring the consequences and flaunting
>the law"
They are being speeders, and are flaunting the law. They're not refusing to accept responsibility unless they get a ticket and bitch about it.
Damaging a State property is a crime.
What I've seen was a black garbage bag worn over the camera. It was there for three weeks.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites