Can police detect radar detectors?
08-15-2003, 04:00 PM
#16
My brother in law got pulled over once by a cop with a radar detector detector. The cop was travelling towards him in the opposite direction.
Cop turned around and pulled him over. Of course my bro in law played stupid but the cop told him that he has a radar detector detector and he knows there is one in the car somewhere and that he should hand it over unless he wants his car ripped apart.
But yes they do exist.
Cop turned around and pulled him over. Of course my bro in law played stupid but the cop told him that he has a radar detector detector and he knows there is one in the car somewhere and that he should hand it over unless he wants his car ripped apart.
But yes they do exist.
08-15-2003, 05:16 PM
#17
Instructor
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a Beltronics made so called undetectable detector (it said so on the box and in the instructions - and I understood this to be because it is "shielded") and, so far, have not been detected. They are illegal to use here (but apparently not illegal to own - on the assumption you may turn it on in a legal jurisdiction). The previous post about a detector being able to be detected when itr's off has me baffled. How can this happen? If it is off, is it not totally dormant and therefore REALLY undetectable?
08-15-2003, 05:43 PM
#19
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think it would be tough for a cop in california to make an argument regarding a speeding ticket based on his judgment. speeding tickets get thrown out here if you can cast any shadow of doubt as to the radar gun's accuracy, so i'd really be surprised if they even try to fine you without proof.
usually, they either pace you by following for a while, or get a radar gun reading.
i was speeding out of an entrance ramp not too long ago, and got into the fast lane, just to realize there was a CHP right behind me! the guy put his lights on for an instant, so i stopped. he came over, asked me why i stopped, then told me that i was speeding but that "he couldn't get an accurate read" of my speed, which he (very conservatively) estimated at 80 mph. he let me go with a smile
usually, they either pace you by following for a while, or get a radar gun reading.
i was speeding out of an entrance ramp not too long ago, and got into the fast lane, just to realize there was a CHP right behind me! the guy put his lights on for an instant, so i stopped. he came over, asked me why i stopped, then told me that i was speeding but that "he couldn't get an accurate read" of my speed, which he (very conservatively) estimated at 80 mph. he let me go with a smile
08-16-2003, 12:33 PM
#20
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that we are missing the bigger issue. Why does a government get to control part of nature? That just seems odd to me. I mean if the government can control what microwaves you are allowed to receive, what is to stop the government from forcing you to receive them? Since the govt. can control radio waves too, how long will it be until the govt. decides it wants to regulate the visible spectrum as well? Only certain areas allowed to get sunlight for their crops? One could argue that if the govt. has an interest in "protecting" people from harmful microwave radiation, etc. that with today's ozone problems that the govt. could just restrict sunlight as well.
I can understand why when radios were being used to transmit propaganda during WW1 and WW2 that the FCC needed to exist to make sure that these new inventions weren't used for evil purposes, etc. but come on, our cell phones and cellular service would be a lot less expensive if carriers didn't have to pay billions for the "right" to broadcast in a certain portion of the spectrum. Digital transmissions are capable of preventing interference, so it seems almost as ludicrous as trying to control the Internet.
I may be way off target here, but the whole concept of controling wavelengths of energy really bugs me...
I can understand why when radios were being used to transmit propaganda during WW1 and WW2 that the FCC needed to exist to make sure that these new inventions weren't used for evil purposes, etc. but come on, our cell phones and cellular service would be a lot less expensive if carriers didn't have to pay billions for the "right" to broadcast in a certain portion of the spectrum. Digital transmissions are capable of preventing interference, so it seems almost as ludicrous as trying to control the Internet.
I may be way off target here, but the whole concept of controling wavelengths of energy really bugs me...
08-16-2003, 03:36 PM
#22
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They Can
This post has been deleted due to it's blatent disregard of the self promotion rules associated with this community. You can access the rules here: http://www.rennlist.org/charter.htm and https://rennlist.com/nospam.htm .
08-16-2003, 05:54 PM
#23
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by pete01_996
Keep in mind FWIW:
State laws forbidding the use of a radar detector are illegal.
Receiving any radio frequency you wish is a right guaranteed by federal law.
Keep in mind FWIW:
State laws forbidding the use of a radar detector are illegal.
Receiving any radio frequency you wish is a right guaranteed by federal law.
I also question state laws that take away federal grants, for example if some state passed a law taking away the right to be free from racial discrimination in a job app, wouldn't someone be a tad upset over that?
Of course even freedom of speech isn't absolute...
08-17-2003, 01:39 AM
#24
Menace to Society
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Ghost Rider,
What about Satellite TV? I know a bunch of people who got in trouble for purchasing equipment that "might" be used for decoding DSS.
What about Satellite TV? I know a bunch of people who got in trouble for purchasing equipment that "might" be used for decoding DSS.
08-17-2003, 12:16 PM
#25
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not suggesting that satellite tv or cable tv should be 'free', what I am saying is that if you, me or the guy down the street wants to put up his own satellite and transmit down to earth, we ought to be free to do so as long as certain minimum safety requirements are met. The govt. shouldn't be in the act of 'selling' spectrum or bandwidth or controlling our ability to transmit data.
As for decoding DSS specifically, here's my thought on that. The developers of DSS spent $$$ creating equipment and the software encryption to carry their signal which they are attempting to sell. If you think about it, they've created a lock on their front door so you can't just go into their home and steal from them. So now if you ask me is it ok for someone to make a key to their home? I'd say sure, if someone spends the time to research how keys are made, buys key making machines and then turns out some sort of master key that could unlock your home, there isn't anything illegal in doing that, the same way that there isn't anything illegal in writing virus software code. It is the act of breaking and entering, or the act of stealing or the act of releasing that virus code with harmful intent that makes it illegal. So back to DSS, if someone makes equipment that can receive the signal just for experimental purposes or to test that the sytem works, maybe they are going to design a competing system or offer an improvement to the existing system, then that should be perfectly legal. However, if they have created that equipment for the sole purpose of stealing DSS signals then they are breaking the law. I suspect in the case you reference above there was enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that the 'bunch of people' had criminal intent, perhaps they advertised somewhere or actually did steal signals at some point.
As you can see, an entirely different subject from the govt. controlling the access or right to broadcast signals in the first place. Now we all know that total freedom is an illusion and you have to have certain safeguards, and I mentioned that above. For example, you can't let someone put up a satellite that broadcasts so much microwave radiation from space that it fries every living thing in a 4 state area, although Dr. Evil might disagree. Your transmissions should also not interfere with others transmissions, meaning you need some sort of encoding in a particular area of the spectrum. A good example of this is how Bluetooth and 802.11 used to interfere with each other but governments and standards bodies stepped in and worked out a solution that allowed both to be broadcast in the same portion of the spectrum but not interfere with each other.
These safety costs and non-interference costs, etc. should be minimal costs of doing business, not multi-billion dollar licenses to spectrum space. The state of Virginia should not be allowed to pass a law that restricts its citizens from having radar detectors without a popular vote. If a majority of the people in Virginia don't want radar detectors for some reason, then that's fine and that becomes the law until rescinded, but when some lobby group manages to get the legislature to sneak that in and make it a law without anyone noticing and then enforce it as a way to bring in revenue, yes, I have a problem with that. But, I don't live in Virginia so my vote doesn't count there, but if the citizens of Virginia really cared about the issue then I suspect they would get the law repealed. My guess is that the general population still views radar detectors as something that only speeders carry and speeders break the law so only unlawful types have radar detectors, or some such logic.
Which brings us to anothe question. Should there even be a speed limit at all? I guess I should say an artificially enforced speed limit because the only true speed limit is the limit of the capabilities of the car and the driver under the given conditions that exist.
As for decoding DSS specifically, here's my thought on that. The developers of DSS spent $$$ creating equipment and the software encryption to carry their signal which they are attempting to sell. If you think about it, they've created a lock on their front door so you can't just go into their home and steal from them. So now if you ask me is it ok for someone to make a key to their home? I'd say sure, if someone spends the time to research how keys are made, buys key making machines and then turns out some sort of master key that could unlock your home, there isn't anything illegal in doing that, the same way that there isn't anything illegal in writing virus software code. It is the act of breaking and entering, or the act of stealing or the act of releasing that virus code with harmful intent that makes it illegal. So back to DSS, if someone makes equipment that can receive the signal just for experimental purposes or to test that the sytem works, maybe they are going to design a competing system or offer an improvement to the existing system, then that should be perfectly legal. However, if they have created that equipment for the sole purpose of stealing DSS signals then they are breaking the law. I suspect in the case you reference above there was enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that the 'bunch of people' had criminal intent, perhaps they advertised somewhere or actually did steal signals at some point.
As you can see, an entirely different subject from the govt. controlling the access or right to broadcast signals in the first place. Now we all know that total freedom is an illusion and you have to have certain safeguards, and I mentioned that above. For example, you can't let someone put up a satellite that broadcasts so much microwave radiation from space that it fries every living thing in a 4 state area, although Dr. Evil might disagree. Your transmissions should also not interfere with others transmissions, meaning you need some sort of encoding in a particular area of the spectrum. A good example of this is how Bluetooth and 802.11 used to interfere with each other but governments and standards bodies stepped in and worked out a solution that allowed both to be broadcast in the same portion of the spectrum but not interfere with each other.
These safety costs and non-interference costs, etc. should be minimal costs of doing business, not multi-billion dollar licenses to spectrum space. The state of Virginia should not be allowed to pass a law that restricts its citizens from having radar detectors without a popular vote. If a majority of the people in Virginia don't want radar detectors for some reason, then that's fine and that becomes the law until rescinded, but when some lobby group manages to get the legislature to sneak that in and make it a law without anyone noticing and then enforce it as a way to bring in revenue, yes, I have a problem with that. But, I don't live in Virginia so my vote doesn't count there, but if the citizens of Virginia really cared about the issue then I suspect they would get the law repealed. My guess is that the general population still views radar detectors as something that only speeders carry and speeders break the law so only unlawful types have radar detectors, or some such logic.
Which brings us to anothe question. Should there even be a speed limit at all? I guess I should say an artificially enforced speed limit because the only true speed limit is the limit of the capabilities of the car and the driver under the given conditions that exist.
