Just a correction:

In my above post about Laser speed measuring guns, I said that I think the cost
of a detector will be greater than that of a jammer.

What I *meant* to say was that the cost of a detector=measuring gun will be
greater than a jammer, and the cost of a "detector", if such a device were
feasible, would be even less.

Sorry for any confusion,

-Doug

     Hi all.  This is another "I’m posting this for a friend" article.  He
got a speeding ticket (high 90s in a 55) in Morgan county, IN and is wondering
if there is anything else he can do about it.  He’s 16 years old, and has one
other ticket, for disregarding a red light.  He would like any information on
what his chances are if he appeals, how he can lose points, etc.
     One point of information – the cop did not make him sign the ticket.  Does
this mean that he didn’t offically get it, or does this help him in any way?
     If you could e-mail responses I would be grateful.  I’ll summarize anythingI get, if anyone is interested.  
     Thanks.
     Laura

I have lost the address for the british cars newsletter (previously
british-c…@alliant.com). Could someone please update me?

Ray Flanery
flan…@msr.epm.ornl.gov

In article <9…@wells.UUCP> k…@wells.UUCP (Dave Heller) writes:
>  I must be missing something.  If someone is in the right lane
>going slower than I am and I get into the center lane to pass
>him and some speeder has to slow down because I’m there I should
>be criticized?

Of course not. In fact, all of us evil speeders should be shot.

>  This assumes that I am actually passing the car,
>not just pacing it, and that I’m not below the posted MINIMUM
>speed (around here usually 40mph on the TPK and I’s).

See, that’s the problem. Most irritating are the people who do 55 to
pass the car doing 54 in the next lane over. Or the people who do 55
to pass a whole line of cars doing 50. Take _longer_, please. In the
latter case, of course, you _could_ be courteous and move right (even
if it means slowing down) to let faster traffic by. I certainly do in
the same (although faster) situation. True, you don’t _have_ to, but
you don’t _have_ to hold a door open for someone carrying a heavy load
of packages, either. Should you be criticized for not doing so? I
maintain that you should.

> I have a habit of actually obeying the speed limit signs.  Maybe
>that’s why my accident and violation history is rather unexciting
>reading.

Small violation history — hmm, no speeding tickets. Well, looks like
this man doesn’t drive fast. But we already knew that. In this day of
stupidly low speed limits, not having speeding tickets is not
necessarily something to be proud of, unless it shows exceptional
skill at not getting caught.

Short accident history — You’re probably very scrupulous about
obeying other laws too, I assume? The ones that actually have
something to do with safety?

>break the law, I guess I can’t stop him, but I refuse to break the
>law myself to help him do it.

That’s fine. You can show courtesy in other ways. You don’t have to
break the law, but I detect an air of self-righteousness clinging to
this posting. It gets really irritating (and dangerous) when slow
drivers get self-righteous about their law-abiding habits, and force
others to slow down.

> And, by the way, what does speeding get you other than being a good
>way of advertising your childishness and stupidity.

Or the fact that you feel that your car control is good enough that
you are safe at the higher speeds. You may be right or you may be
wrong, but that reflects the need for more stringent driver testing,
not lower speed limits.

>  You don’t get
>there significantly faster

5 minutes out of 20 ain’t bad.

> (suggest timing your routes at max possible
>and 100% safe/legal)

There you go, equating "safe" and "legal" again. How many accidents do
you know about in which a sane speed over 55 (by "sane" I mean "safe
for conditions") was a clear cause of an accident, or caused death
where it wouldn’t have occurred at 55? Of the several accidents I know
the details of, _none_ meet these criteria.

>  your fuel mileage goes to hell.

I’m prepared to live with that. Besides, wasn’t the world supposed to
run out of gas in 1980? That’s what they told me in elementary school.

>You May Help Reduce My Taxes

Only nuking Washington will reduce your taxes

                                          -g

Hi-

I’m thinking about getting a new device for my car to supplement my radar
detector.

I’ve seen all sorts of stuff to give you extra warnings (even a device that
picks up a speed plane’s transponder signal!, sort of…), but I have narrowed
my choice down to either of the following:

1. Scanner: listen to local radio traffic to see what is going on. A real
   pain if you don’t really care to hear that there is a fresh batch at
   the nearest Dunkin Donuts or that Officer Dippy’s wife just had a baby.

2. "Repeater-Frequency" scanner: detects the output(s) from the repeaters in  
    police cars which re-transmit the handheld walkie-talkie signals to the
    base station. The handhelds have a rather limited range, so it is
    necessary to have the police car take the signal, and then send out a
    much stronger one which the main tower can hear.

I’d prefer #2, but I have no idea on how effective these devices are. I know
CT uses these repeaters, and I am wondering if the detection devices for these
are effective? Has anyone had any experience on these? Have there been any
write-ups about this in the auto magazines?

I COULD also just get a scanner and program it for the handheld control
frequencies (I’ve managed to hear some interesting conversations on the hand-
held frequencies, but I don’t want to be distracted by this while driving.)

Any suggestions/comments/info?

Thanks in advance for any/all help!

-Doug

dreu…@eagle.wesleyan.edu
dreu…@wesleyan.bitnet

Utah Senate bill 59 has passed through the senate transportation committee by
a 3-1 vote.  The bill will now go to the senate floor.  This bill is of
particular interest to us becuase it will govern the use of the photo radar
units which the different state and local authorities are now starting to use.

The main points are:

1)Photo radar will be limited to high traffic areas where speed is a problem.
  The primary use will be on city through streets and especially school zones.
  The units will not be used on low traffic areas or sparsely populated areas.
  This includes about 95% of Utah’s interstates.

2)All conditions of the lease agreements between the manufacture/supplier and
  the law enforcement agency leasing will be made public knowledge.  This will
  include but not be limited to the service records, revenue records, and
  amount of tickets issued and revenue generated from those tickets.

3)The units will only be operated by a law enforcement officer and not by a
  certified civilian technician, usually an employee of the leasing company.

I haven’t heard who introduced this bill, but whomever it was must like to
drive.  Most of the law enforcement agencies have been talking about this
photo radar as the solution to all their problems.  Someone in the senate,
however, has seen that things like a civilian tech maning the unit could
cause problems.

If this bill passes, it might be bareable to have the photo radar around.  I
drive fast, but it always chaps my cookies when people blast through a 20mph
school zone with kids everywhere at 45 mph.

We’ll see what happens when the bill hits the senate floor for debate.

Dan

m…@yoda.byu.edu

Go JAZZ!!!
DoD #0071,RP90

—————————————————————
            This is not Don Pardoe speaking
—————————————————————

Hi-

Just a note about unmarked cars in Mass:

Other posters as well as myself have noted that the Mass State Police are using
Mustangs. I’ve seen them only on the Masspike, and then only after they have
stopped people.

Today I got a good look at one passing me. It was a White Mustand LX, with NO
extra lights or antennas whatsoever. When I saw him coming from behind me, I
thouht he may be a police officer (he was weaving in and out of traffic a
LOT!), but as he passed, I saw no lights or exterior indication that he was an
officer. He was wearing his uniform, but I couldn’t tell that at the time he
passed me.

The license plate was: MA  155-RTZ. I amn wondering if there is some "code"
that the unmarkeds use to identify themselves to each other.

The gu y got on the road right at the I-290/I-395 interchange on the Eastbound
Masspike (I-90), drove RECKLESSLY for a while (although he did signal), and
then about 5 minutes later I saw he had pulled over a Taurus right before the
maintenance station (where there is occassionally a MARKED police car trap).
I saw he was wearing a blue uniform as he got out, but as I said, while he was
driving it was hard to tell. The rest of us passed him at about 80 MPH (how he
singled out one car I dunno…), and I thought that was that. BUT, later,
near Exit 3 (Wellesly?) he passed us all again (we were still doing 80!), so he
must have been going at WELL over 90MPH to catch up with us. He parked the car
in front of the Police Station on the Westbound side of the Pike right before
the I-95/I-90 JCT in Newton.

The windows on the Mustang were NOT dark/tinted,as they are with many such cars
in CT.  

I would thus suggest caution if you see a Mustang LX coming up beind you
(today’s "event") or one parked on the side of the road (perhaps with his
hazards on) (last few sightings, AND he used instant on radar) , that you slow
down. This seems to be new in Mass (maybe a year or so), so most drivers don’t
seem to be used to it, as they are in  states like CT.

Guess that’s it…any more sightings please let me know…

-Doug

dreu…@eagle.welseyan.edu
dreu…@wesleyan.bitnet

In article <1991Feb14.045704.15…@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, f…@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Fernando J. Selman) writes:

**  This seems pathetic to me.
**  Anyway, I would never tail any police car at 110.  Don’t know what
**in the world got into my friend there….?
**  Late-night boredom maybe?
*
*By law a patrol car can not speed unless it have its lights on. To follow
*a speeding police car with no blue lights (or wathever) on can be used as
*defense against a speeding ticket. I would not do it, though.
*
*                                - Fernando

Actually, I had a friend who followed a police car that was doing 70 mph
who got a ticket. He went to court to contest it and argued that if the
cop can speed why couldn’t he. Anyway, the ticket stuck. By the way,
this friend of mine accumulated more then 30 points in NJ. Some people
just never learn do they.

To slightly bend off of the radar detector subject, I’d like to
bring up "avoiding detection" by somehow absorbing or jamming
the signal sent from the radar.

I read in some "more information" that I got from a company called
"Consumertronics" that they sell stealth paint. You’re supposed
to paint your car with the stuff and will no longer be detected
by radar. Has anyone got experience with this stuff? It’s quite
expensive and I don’t think it comes off after applying, so I thought
I’d check here first…

Another (old) method is to put aluminum foil pieces in your hubcaps.
Anyone ever tried that?

If anyone has other techniques that they’re using I’d be interested
to hear more.

By the way, I’m a little new to the net and haven’t followed the
threads for too long. If I’m starting something old here, please
flush my mailbox with what I missed

Peter.

Disclaimer: I now ride the bus to avoid detection

For anybody that is interested I have found (I know i’m not the first)
some fun and practical things that can be done with the E-brake of
front wheel drive cars in low traction situations.  If you are on
slippery roads and enter a turn too fast the E brake can be used to
save you.  (I’m talking like heavy snow and ice)  If your wheels are
turned and your’e just pushing straight for the ditch the E-brake can
be  used to slide the back around to line you up.  (It only works on
the back wheels)  Usually on quick pop is enough to do it.  If you are
for example turning to the left and get into this situation, but you
find that the backend swings way too far out to the right.  You can
correct this by turning the wheels hard right and applying some gas.
Try this in a parking lot sometime.  It’s practical and fun as all get
out.
    Charlie