108dragon

iTrader: (5)

Simmer down.. his questions were already answered. For passive or active detection, I agree that the Escort unit would suit the bill. Although illegal for use against law enforcement positions, there are several stealth application laser and radar jammer systems on the market. Litton pioneered radar application for law enforcement, so I would think that thier jamming technology and blueprints would be the most effective in this capacity.
I'm not sure about the plate covers as I've never used one.
..but you're right.. was a stupid arguement. lol

JeaneZ28

iTrader: (3)

Your average person wouldn't notice these cameras and they also don’t notice the speed limit signs. Just because average person doesn't drive all day doesn't give them an excuse for not knowing their surroundings.

You say that every intersection in your town has cameras. If all those cameras were turned on I'm pretty sure everyone would be paying attention when coming to the light. Especially if they start receiving tickets in the mail.

dragonrage

And then we turn into England where they have cameras pretty much everywhere. Not red light cameras - just regular cameras. Watching every move. They do have red light cameras and also speed limit cameras. They even have the speed limit cameras on their railroads.

108dragon

iTrader: (5)

They're not on because everyone doesn't believe as you do. The people where I live don't financially support **** *** automated law enforcement with our tax money. Simple as that.
And I said every major intersection. Apparently, the city spent the money on the system before insuring that the populus would financially support it, or the system's costs to maintain were higher than projected initially. Either way, only six of them are active. ..and for that, I am truly grateful...

Dirty Dog

iTrader: (2)

I think if you check, you will find that automated tickets are not actually valid. The are issued because the vast majority of people will simpply pay them.
Go to court. Ask to be confronted by your accuser and see if they will bring the laser camera in. Further, it's up to the prosecutor to prove you were the driver. Can't prove that from a photo of a license plate.

108dragon

iTrader: (5)

..and our government is slowly working on taking away our right to defend ourselves from predators and gangsters with firearms, you have to actually pay $ for justice, private companies are taking over public utilities that everyone HAS to have and monopolizing them, and yes, Uncle Sam is keeping an ever increasing protective eye on you. ..Don't get me started. hahaha

JeaneZ28

iTrader: (3)

Of course the majority of the people don’t want the cameras. The majority of people gun it when they see yellow. So that means all those people are going to see tickets in the mail. These people that bitch about the cameras are the reason the cameras exist. If everyone learn how to drive there wouldn't be a problem!

dragonrage

The majority of people gun it when they see a yellow? I don't know about you, but my experience calls major BS. Most people here jack the brakes. Besides, obeying most driving laws has nothing to do with knowing how to drive. A lot of us speed and have never gotten in an accident, and we're good drivers (not just because we haven't gotten in accidents). But we're breaking the law when we do it. (Obviously if people are straight up running red lights, I am NOT defending them.)

But it comes down to this: If the majority of the people do not want red light cameras, they should not be used. Ever. It's their faults for voting the jackasses into office that push for them.

108dragon

iTrader: (5)

Well... if that is truly the case.. I am also grateful that -for the most part- this is still a democracy and decisions are made by majority vote.

dragonrage

Try saying that when we get a shitty government-run health care plan.

CranMaro99

iTrader: (10)

I hate comments like this.

Yeah, sure, because when we, the people, voted these people in, we knew exactly what their belief on red light cameras. Most of the time a politicians actions on topics come up when they are already in office. It's hard to predict the future of people we don't personally know...

WhiteBird00

iTrader: (4)

Some of you are missing the point here. The point isn't whether there is or isn't a camera at an intersection or whether you can see it or not. You can certainly see the traffic light so the point is to STOP when the light changes instead of trying to "beat" the light. Then it won't matter if there is a camera or a cop there and you won't risk a ticket or getting into a potentially deadly accident.

And arguing that running a light is just a part of the hustle and bustle of everyday life is just self-indulgent bullshit. Hang up the phone, put down the burger, turn off the video, and pay attention to the business of driving. Then you'll have no excuse for running a light. That 60 seconds you spend at a light won't make the slightest bit of difference in the long run.

WhiteBird00

iTrader: (4)

There is no such thing as a functional radar jammer that can be used in a car. Passive jammers are legal but don't do anything useful...hell, back in the 70s they used to tell you to put wadded up aluminum foil behind your wheel covers to scramble radar signals. Active jammers require more power than is practical in a car (think "military use") and besides, they are very illegal on the federal level because they fall under FCC broadcast transmission regulations. If you were ever caught with one you'd probably end up getting to know Bernie Madoff quite well.

On the other hand, laser jammers are readily available and are legal except in a handful of states. This is because they emit light which doesn't fall under FCC jurisdiction.

108dragon

iTrader: (5)

No. You're missing the point. This is about a guy getting clocked and ticketed by an automated device and sentenced without jury. This is about automated devices determining whether or not you are unsafe to society if the nose of your Camaro is a little over the line at a traffic light. This is about the legitimacy of being judicially ruled by automated devices.
These automated devices have not saved one life. All they do is rack up revenue dollars that the taxpayers never see.

dragonrage

Okay, so you have or will no longer vote for anyone who votes for the red light cameras. But everyone else? Well, Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are still employed. Enough said?

WhiteBird00

iTrader: (4)

You know, if he had said "I got a ticket from a red light camera just because I went a little over the line", you could be right. But the OP never once denied that he might have actually run the light - just that he wanted to avoid getting caught doing it in the future. That prompted the comments about how an Escort 9500 has a red light camera database but it would be better to stop at the light in the first place. So yes, you did miss the point.

I agree that having a camera without drivers knowing about it doesn't do much except generate revenue. The advantage comes when people know the camera is there - they would be far less likely to run the light knowing they probably wouldn't get away with it.

108dragon

iTrader: (5)

Back in the day, we used to run 1k+ watt linear radios in our cars and trucks. The potential power supply is there. The power required to jam a signal cannot be any higher than the power required to produce the signal in question. Jamming radar is only a product of preventing the signal from returning to the signalling device in readable form. Considering the amount of power some of these guys have behind thier stereo equipment, powering an active jamming device is easy money.
Want to talk about majorities? Stats show almost an even amount of drivers drive uninsured than insured. An alarming rate of people even drive without licensing.. a vast majority of these unlicensed drivers are males whose licenses were pulled for dumb *** reasons like child support. I'm sure the judicial system can think of some better forrm of punishment for guys who don't financially support thier kids than stripping thier ability to competitively earn a wage to do so. And ALL of the interviewed noninsured stated that they couldn't afford insurance and would rather put food on the table and keep a roof over thier families.

108dragon

iTrader: (5)

No, WhiteBird00. THIS is exactly what the OP said. You can either choose to make that mean whatever you want it to mean or take it at face value. The issue here is the validity of automated law enforcement. He asked about the best detection and/or jammers and he never stated that he was guilty of running a red light either. Anyone here not clearly see that he was upset about having been passed judgement on by an automated system?
And no, I guess you didn't miss the point. You simply want to make it mean what you want it to.
Also because of the fact that -according to you- grand larceny numbers of people are still being road trolls and running red lights, even the OBVIOUS cameras are still only revenue generators...at best.
The OP's questions were answered, but I don't believe that that was the heart of the issue. Ergo, this discussion.

Hawk777th

V1 all the way!

acslam

Couple of things:

V1 and Escort, both kick ***. But beware that if something IS triggered by laser, then ONLY A LASER JAMMER WILL HELP YOU. Your radar/laser detector combo MAY not even see it. If it's radar, you'll usually have the right warning.

Also, laws and morals ARE NOT EQUAL. YOU ARE NOT MORALLY SUPERIOR WHEN YOU BARF OUT: "Well don't speed cause it's not right!!!"

And seriously, you should thank the public education system for your mental processes, because you have been conditioned to believe that obedience=intelligence and laws=morals. This is simply not true, and for people to trumpet the laws as if they are personally offended by someone else "breaking" them is pretty pathetic.

And I'd be willing to bet most of you repeating this garbage aren't actual cops, so you sitting there saying "well you speed so you deserve to be pulled over and ticketed!!" is basically "BOO F'IN HOO".

You aren't the cop, it isn't your call, and you have no business trying to make the call. If you are a cop, well then it's entirely your right to do your job. But so many people just sit there pretending and tossing out this kind of BS as if they are somehow morally better people for saying it.

I mean, lets be real here, your attitude isn't actually centered on caring for others saftey, you just want a chance to point a finger and say "i'm better than you".

Stupid driving, is stupid driving. Nobodys head has exploded from driving 66 in a 65. But many people have been killed or killed others by flat out being stupid. And you know what? I don't think the camera watching that is gonna blast an ambulance out of it's *** and save the day.

BTW, in case anyone forgot......the speed limits were generally designed with all the latest and greatest technology from, oh, say about 1950. I think our cars are a little more capable now than they were then, just a hunch.

Ok, drunken rant mode off.