You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views
Traffic Laws & Enforcement Tactics

540 messages, Last post on Sep 21, 2009 at 12:22 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: scape2 (Mar 01, 2007 9:12 pm) Similar thing happened to my wife a year or two ago... She was going down the hill by our house in 2nd gear. She was doing about 34 in a 35 in 2nd gear. There is one of those electronic signs, that shows your speed on the way down... Officer was hiding behind some bushes, facing the sign... He whipped out, and ticket my wife for doing 50 in a 35, when she was doing 34, because he said the sign said 50. Wife tried to explain she was doing 34, but cop said she was lying... So I took out the video camera, and made a video... I drove 35 during the entire video... First I had my wife come down the hill about 20 seconds behind me, doing 50... Then I drove back up the hill, and went down again, and had my wife come from the opposite direction doing 35, and then accelerate to 50 after she passed me. (As a precaution, I removed the front plates of my wife's car when making this video...) Anyways, in the video, I showed that the whole time I was going 35, but the electronic sign showed 35, but then started racing up to 50, even though there were no cars between me and the sign, and even though there was still a good deal of distance between me and the sign... Judge threw out the ticket, but than harassed us about the video, saying it's unsafe to be driving and fiddling with a camera at the same time. I made sure not to say anything in the video, and just show the speedo and the view out front, without revealing any identifying information about who was driving, or what we were driving. With how irritated the judge got, I'm sure he would've tried to ticket us for making this video... But this is one of the main reasons I hate photo radar...
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: stickguy (Mar 08, 2007 9:07 pm) The other intersections around those have MORE people running the red lights because they know there is no camera. And of course there're no policemen watching action at those other intersections. Guess they're at the donut-coffee shops or talking to their girls in the alleys because there's a camera making the city safe. The Scottsdale AZ company is just raking in the money. They get $60 and the city gets $15. Guess which policitians are bad negotiators. They don't even negotiate away driver's rights well.
|
|
|
Replying to: avs007 (Mar 09, 2007 3:01 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: pf_flyer (Mar 09, 2007 4:40 am) Radar is indiscriminate -- if you aim the gun at a pack of vehicles, it tends to pick out the fastest and/or largest one, like a tractor-trailer. The problem is you can't be certain WHICH vehicle's speed is being displayed. OTOH, if say there are only 3 or 4 cars near each other, and one is clearly going faster than the others (by visual observation), the radar gun will almost always show the highest speed, corresponding to the car going the fastest. The key point is that using the radar gun has to be coupled with visual observation. |
|
|
I remember an article from a few years (maybe a lot of years!) in C&D IIRC where they tested radar detectors. They also did some tests on radar guns. Well, one of the tests was to clock a car failrly close (couple of hundred yards?) The trick was, there was a tractor trailer way back, where it really wasn't in sight yet. So common sense would tell the cop he was clocking the car, right? Well, the truck had such a big radar signature, that the radar was clocking the truck, not the car. Tought me to never trust radar guns. That, and to always take the truck lanes on the turnpike, to use them as cover! |
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Mar 09, 2007 3:41 am) Rocky |
|
|
saw an episode of mythbusters the other day that dealt with speed cameras. They tried everything, and the only trick they found that beat them was the old rotating license plate trick that James Bond had on his AM! Even had no problem getting a clear shot at a Lambo that was doing ~140. Sprays, covers, nada. I think not washing your car and keeping mud strategically placed is a good idea..
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: stickguy (Mar 11, 2007 9:59 am) The license plate cover and sprays are supposed to react to the high strobe power and turn opaque. |
|
|
Replying to: stickguy (Mar 11, 2007 9:59 am) With the cameras they use in Maryland, at least, I know two tricks that will beat the camera. One is to drive a pickup truck, and leave the tailgate down. That'll block the view of the plate from the camera. Or, so I've been told. I've never tried it with my truck, but I've heard that it works, and it seems it would make sense. Another is to drive a tractor trailer. The cameras in MD are set up to take pictures of the tags on something roughly car-sized. Something overly long, like a tractor trailer, will get its pictures taken at times when the license plate won't be in range. A cop told me that one. Of course, neither of these strategies is the most practical in the world, for most people! Oh, and while mud or something else on your license plate would be good for confusing the cameras, if a cop happens to notice it, he can pull you over and give you a ticket. Or at least a warning. And sometimes if they get a partial license plate match, they're still going to send out a ticket to whomever they think it is, whether it's the guilty party or not. I remember hearing about some old lady who had an 80's Celebrity that was still tagged, but hadn't moved under its own power in years. They got a partial match on a license plate, and her plate was the closest match they could come up with, so they mailed her a ticket! I dunno the outcome of it, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Mar 12, 2007 8:40 am) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views
Traffic Laws & Enforcement Tactics
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle


Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats