h a l f b a k e r y"It would work, if you can find alternatives to each of the steps involved in this process."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Everyone knows you can buy radar detectors, the problem is sometimes if the cops know what they are doing, you can still get zapped and then it goes off. Simply not enough warning at times. There is also available, although illegal to use in most states radar jammers, unfortunately, if you blow by a
cop and his gun is going nuts the whole time, he will know there is something up, and you could get caught using it. So, why not have a system like this, you set the speed limit on the jammer/detector unit, when you go faster than that the jammer comes on, and if the detector goes off, then you slow down. Once below or at the speed limit, the jammer switches off, allowing the police officer to detect your speed at a legal rate. This way you will have enough time to slow down, and prevent an accidental bust.
(?) Radar Detector/Jammer
http://www.4hiddens...m/phanraddetsc.html
They say they'll pay your fine if you get caught. [DrCurry, Oct 04 2004]
[link]
|
| |
And the police could launch a little anti-speeder missile at the jamming signal. But then you could eject a little decoy pod from your trunk to distract the missile. But the police could use passive radar systems. But you could drive a stealth car that simply does not show up on radar. But the police could just start firing high-powered rifles at any vehicle that seems to be going too fast or is painted impertinently. But then you could drive slower. |
|
| |
Still, I'll let you jam radar if you let me jam mobile phones. |
|
| |
This is virtually the exact description of a radar jammer design by a company in Oregon a few years ago. I think the company was called Philips Microwave (no link I could find). The design had the system always sniffing for radar and, once detected, switched on the jammer to broadcast a loud return signal that was falsely low (a selectable percentage of the vehicle speed). When the vehicle slowed down to match the speed being broadcast, the jammer turned off. The effect was that it was only on for those few seconds needed to transition to the legal speed and hard to detect. It required a jammer, a transmitter and a driveline transducer to report vehicle speed. |
|
| |
They further claimed that, if you used high-quality components and built the thing well, it could outgun instant-on radar guns as well in sort of an electronic showdown. |
|
| |
Too much headache for the return. I'll just stick to speed limit and get there five minutes later than everyone else (provided, of course, that they haven't been pulled over for speeding). |
|
| |
"Or, of course, you could just stop speeding" |
|
| |
Or, we can all just stop posting ideas altogether and be smug in the knowledge that we can just refuse to do anything new and different. |
|
| |
//be smug in the knowledge that we can just refuse to do anything new and different.//
Speeding is hardly "new" or "different". Hence the existance of radar guns, radar detectors, radar jammers, the unit you previously mentioned, and, well, speed limit laws. Don't equate the refutation of the necessity of one idea as a fear of innovation. |
|
| |
I'm not pointing to fear of innovation rather I am commenting on serial faultfinding that runs counter to the basic intention of this site. I can accept refutation if it based on the technical or practical merits (or lack) of a proposal but when the refutation is based on the notion that an idea is pointless because people can just forego the given activity the idea addresses, well, then I begin to wonder why the objector even bothers commenting. There is virtually no idea on this site that cannot be refuted with some variation on the "just don't do that" theme. |
|
| |
Bravo, bristolz, well said. I just posted a rant more or less on the same theme over in "Brow Bills". |
|
| |
And heaven help you, [Chaos_5], if your idea involves smoking a cigarette while speeding. |
|
| |
//Stick to Speed Limit// Gooooooooooood Luck if you ever decide to drive in LA |
|
| |
//bristolz: absolutely, except that speeding is not only against the law, but also endangers the lives of others (viz., you and me). And while most of us drive over the speed limit most of the time on the motorway, I have yet to see anyone pulled over while moving with the general body of traffic.// |
|
| |
Perhaps in the UK speed limit laws are actually enforced with the goal of enhancing public safety. Here in the U.S., there is a strong tendency for such laws to be enforced for the purpose of collecting extra revenue. |
|
| |
Given a choice between going after speeders in a place where the speed limit is 55 but the road's safe limit is 60, and anyone going over 65 is apt to end up in the ditch, or between going after speeders where the limit is 55 but a reasonably-competant driver could safely drive 80 (because the road is wide and straight, there's not too much traffic, and there's not much of anything to hit), U.S. cops are apt to focus on the latter. After all, not enough people are going to be significantly speeding in the former case to provide any useful ticket revenue. By contrast, in the latter case 95% of drivers will be speeding, most of them by 10mph or more, and so cops will have no trouble finding an adequate supply of "speeders". |
|
| |
Flares and Chaff ejectors...... |
|
| |
//Given a choice between going after speeders in a place where the speed limit is 55 but the road's safe limit is 60, and anyone going over 65 is apt to end up in the ditch, or between going after speeders where the limit is 55 but a reasonably-competant driver could safely drive 80 (because the road is wide and straight, there's not too much traffic, and there's not much of anything to hit), U.S. cops are apt to focus on the latter. // |
|
| |
my thoughts exactly, personally i think that most of the speed limits are too low (at least where ive been [most of the southern united states a few of those northern states]), but also... |
|
| |
speed limits are made for a sort of not-quite-worst-case situations... for example, a speed limit is probably set for a rainy night when driving situations are far less than par, and set for cars without adequate tires or brakes, and drivers without adequate response times, and all of these "flaw factors" leave us with a speed limit that is not applicable to all conditions, furthermore, when do you see cops giving tickets for speeding? well of course when its sunny and bright and the road is dry and there isnt too much traffic so that they have a chance of pulling you over, anyways, it would be a time when the speed limit didnt quite apply |
|
| |
i further believe that most speed limits in Texas are set by this method: someone in a normal car with okay tires and okay brakes drives as fast as they believe is safe on the road. then they take that value and divide it by 2, then they post signs with the second value on them fully expecting us to believe their "this is as fast as you can safely drive on this road at any given time in any weather conditions in any car EVER" bs... |
|
| |
personally i like to decide for myself how fast i can safely drive on familiar roads |
|
| |
...one more thing, im not gonna run over your kids, i know where they are more often than you do! |
|
| |