Printable View
Hey guys, this is with the paper that is being written regarding the use of radar detectors and banning them vs. pro's and con's to keep them. Couple of questions if you guys could weight in your opinion.
Is a radar detector just a license to speed for you?
How has your detector allowed or helped you to become a better driver?
Thanks guys
Stilldrivin
Escort 9500i (not updated... yet.. X Band and POP OFF)
G4 Veil with laser shield
Honestly...
1.) No, not at all but I used to pretend like it was until I met my first laser gun.
2.) It hasn't.
1) No it isn't a license to speed.
2) I actually think it makes me pay more attention because I tend to catch myself speeding and when the RD burps I snap back in and realize I am going to fast.
I would write your essay for you but don't feel like typing that much, right now. In my head I have your essay but that would take a while so I'll some it up.
Not its deffinatly not a license to speed. Though I do use it in a way, which I will admit too. Instead of doing 5 over I'm able to do 10, nothing wreckless but the detector is there for in a sense security so I'm able to speed a little bit more than normal. Yes people misuse it, and yes I have done it before but in general I use it for more important reasons than to just be able to do a little extra over. But I use it mostly because a lot of times I find my self speeding and not intentionally doing it. An example would be a speed limit of 45. I go 5 over and that puts me at 50 miles per hour. Well little did I know the speed limit just changed to 35. Well instead of doing 5 over and having a very small chance of getting pulled over for that speed I'm now doing 15 over. People everyday that never speed, obey the rules get popped for speeding. Was it intentional... no but it doesn't matter they still were breaking the law.
2.) Yes it has made me a much better driver. I'm much much more aware of my sorroundings and whats ahead, to the side, and behind me. Not for the best reasons but... (looking for cops). And I am also allowed to drive at the limits when it is safe to do so because of it. I can practice TSD rally driving on back roads and not have to worry about cops. I'm not endangering any body else but by a small minescule percent because I'm doing it at the right times, doing it on roads that have a very low population, and more. I'm endangering my life but thats a whole nother case. Yes maybe not for the best reasons but there are many more reasons why it can make me anybody a better more aware driver.
edit: I'd like to say though that I do misuse it in some ways but for the most part I don't. I'm not really doing anything thats out of this world or stupid. But i'm not going to lie to you either because I would like to give RD's a better name. But what I stated backs up that detectors are useful and can make you a better driver. Yes in a way they give you a license to speed but more in the way of a secure sense of feeling. But I would like to also state that even though I just said they in a way give you a license to speed, there not to give you a license to speed recklessly. 10-15 over yes and sometimes more as long as your not putting other motorist in harms way.
1. if used correctly with a rabbit and laser jammers it will give u a lot better chance against cops
2. it keeps ur eyes on the road when it goes off
So... where's the poll? :confused:
X2^ :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker
well over here a RD isnt going to save you much as its mostly laser but to answer the questions with regard to countermeasures in general (jammers also).............
1. you do have a lot better chance with them. theres always the time you have a wide open road all to yourself or with little traffic and youre in a hurry and need to make up time etc, so theres a peace of mind factor there.
2. i do find myself taking note of the PSL more since im running CMs (so i know what speed to drop to when lasered mostly) but if you are more aware of your speed then you will be more alert that you are over PSL than some idiot thats not paying attention while flying it :rolleyes:.
also i now can concentrate on the road ahead more and not be looking out for LEOs so much when cruising so thats got to help also.
not that i was so busy in the past checking out every bush, etc, for a possible LEO in hiding that i was an unsafe driver but im sure you get the idea ;)
It seems to me that I used to drive a lot faster in the past before I had a RD. There is this one highway in Michigan, US 131 that everyone goes about 75-80. I used to cruise at 90 but now that I have a RD and learned a ton about tactics the LEOs use, I actually don't speed much over 85 now. Weird huh:hmmmm2:
(1) Definitely not.
(2) Yes. If anything, being more involved in the speed-detections countermeasures community has made me much more aware of what tools and tactics enforcers may use to snag offenders, and towards that end, I've become much more aware of how many of these tools and tactics exist for which there are simply no good defenses against. The realization that these high-dollar speed-detections countermeasures are simple tools also makes one realize that it's the user who must optimize his/her usage of the device - unless the driver is alert and aware, even the best tool will not "save" him/her from a ticket.
Is a radar detector just a license to speed for you?
No, it allows me to drive more responsibly without over speeding when desired and with better awareness.
How has your detector allowed or helped you to become a better driver?
I actually have toned down my speeding and drive more consistently & conscientiously.
Banning positives:
-More revenue from unknowing RD users.
Banning negatives:
-More time taken away from LEO's doing there real day to day job.
-A RD user wont be alerted to the knuckle heads ahead of him jamming on there breaks from the LEO ahead.
-A RD user is more aware of where the LEO's sit, and where they want the speeds kept down. (isn't that the purpose of catching speeders. Not every road needs to be monitored, nor are they)
-Crippling an industry, the STI would be the only RD sold.
-I have noticed some smart LEO's keeping there radar on when working an accident, this warns us RD users, and allows us, as well as the non RD users to slow down.
In ether case RD's will still be used banned or not, and speeders will speed with or without RD's.
Owning a RD makes you much more aware of your surroundings and a better driver because of it. If you abuse the use of a RD and speed irresponsibly (too fast or in bad areas to speed) you will get busted no matter what RD you have.
Thanks for the response, and the poll is just an open answer to the two questions posted at the beginning.
CJR-
I totally agree, and some of the articles I have been reading and studying tend to show a one sided view of how RD's just allow drivers to be reckless. This poll, along with other documents, would show very much to the contrary. It not only makes more drivers aware, but helps them track their speed more effectively. Also, a point made which was good, if the police would leave their radar on constantly it would slow drivers with RD's down before. Drivers without the RD would just slow down when they saw the police like they do now. This alone goes to show how aware and benificial these devices can be.
Again Thanks for the response and anymore will continue to help.
Stilldrivin.
That, sir, deserves a :dito:.Quote:
Originally Posted by languy99
Its so funny because I see people approach an over pass no problem, but I...take my foot off the gas, look on top, the median pillar, the shoulder pillar, and look behind it on the right side to see if there is anything hiding behind it...before I feel comfortable.
...but I know one of these days, I'm gonna 'outbrake' a laser hit that way.
\
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolishOne
A RD user is also going to be particularly cautious around turns and overpasses like FoolishOne stated above (many accidents are cause by visual obstructions). A restricted view of what's up ahead is something everyone should be cautious approaching (most aren't), but a RD user will be much more cautious. I know I am.
(A). No, two reasons why I use one. First, as the functions of LEO's is now about generating revenue and not traffic safety, traffic citations are a levy, that is a tax is which we the people have not decided by votes. And 2nd, it's a civil rights issue per the 4th Amendment of the Bill or Rights, being the issue of warrantless surveillance by the government. Just because I drive on a public highway paid for by some of my tax dollars; does not give the government the right to tell me that I've forfeited my rights to privacy, and that they have the right to infringe on it. As such, I maintain that I have the absolute right to protect that privacy, and will do so even if it means blatant and open and acts of civil disobedience.
(B). In some ways, as it helps to keep me alert. However, better yet then cops with radar guns would be to bring SWS online. Smart signs that would let you know of road conditions, a change in speed, or traffic conditions would serve everyone for the better.....
.
Is a radar detector just a license to speed for you?
No, it's a machine built for a purpose. To me it's a way to monitor a form of government search. I like to know who's shooting me, what they're shooting me with and where they are.
How has your detector allowed or helped you to become a better driver? I think the RDs (and certainly the police scanner) keep me more engaged with the road and what going on around me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaze Orange
Wow. I am blown away at how precise of a post this was. Great information and great insight. Quick question, are you a laywer? That read to me like a laywer so I was just curious.
Stilldrivin
Escort 9500i mounted high, not updated yet
G4 Veil with laser shields
This cracked me up... seriously? Wow!Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaze Orange
The 4th amendment has nothing to do with surveillance. Its Search and Seizure without probable cause. So, even as unrelated to the 4th amendment as capturing your speed with a device is, to refute your statement, if an officer has even the slightest thought that you might be speeding, he has every right to make sure you are or aren't, that's probable cause. The posted speed limit is a LAW and he/she, as a law enforcement officer can actively enforce that law and make sure all that are using the governement/state/province/county/whatever provided roadways are doing so within that law.
Furthermore, one's speed on a roadway is not soemthing that can be kept "private". You are in public, outside of your home, on a public road or freeway, and that information is laid bare for all to see, pace, measure or capture in any way they see fit. Just as a law enforcement officer cant ARREST you for using a LIDAR or RADAR gun on the side of the road in a safe manner, you cant expect him not to use one either.
I could go on and on, but i'll close with this... traffic citations are not a levy, or a tax, they are a penalty for breaking the law. PENALTIES are put in place for all to see in an effort to keep people FROM breaking the law, thus generating safety. You honestly think if they just announce they were never going to issue traffic citations again that the roads would be a SAFER place? C'mon man. You are way out by Pluto here. Come back to earth and hang with the rest of us again. I promise we wont bite.
To answer the questions:
1. No a radar detector is not a license to speed for me, but it is a tool i use to avoid getting caught breaking the law.
2. It HAS made me more aware while i drive as other posters have said, not just in speeding but also in other infractions like red lights, traffic patterns etc.
It does sound like a lawyer, I'll agree... but a really BAD lawyer... that argument would get destroyed in a courtroom... obviously
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stilldrivin
No, but I studied some Consitutional law. My degree is in Forensics (M.Sc.)
The 4th Amendment....
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I'll debate Paperlantern later....library closing....and I've not much time to dig into case law....
Man that they should be throwing us in jail for speeding. :hairfire:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaze Orange
Doesn't that just confirm what Paperlantern stated? A speeding ticket is a fine not a warrant for search of your car or a tax, taxes are not optional you must pay them weather you speed or not.
We don't debate, we...teach, yeah, that's it...teach others of our opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaze Orange
Anyway, I'm stilling around to see what you have to say.
No, not a license to speed but it does help me travel a little bit faster than usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stilldrivin
It has helped me become a better 'spotter' at looking for LEO's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolishOne
You're right....the use of the word "debate" is often seen as being combative....which isn't my intent.
How about...."we'll sit around the campfire a wee bit, and chew the fat...":)
Speeding tickets are not a tax and they are for you breaking the law. However, the legislature, the cops, the judges, and the citizens all know most of them are BS and that's why they are treated so lightly. In practice they are a tax on the ignorant and the uncanny and people who do not spend hours researching the properties of traffic radar and how to defeat. Most people never even fight their tickets. So everyone knows that it makes money and the limits are not practical most of the time, but they don't care because you are still breaking the law.
I know, it's gay...
The 4th amendment has nothing to do with surveillance. Its Search and Seizure without probable cause. So, even as unrelated to the 4th amendment as capturing your speed with a device is, to refute your statement, if an officer has even the slightest thought that you might be speeding, he has every right to make sure you are or aren't, that's probable cause. The posted speed limit is a LAW and he/she, as a law enforcement officer can actively enforce that law and make sure all that are using the governement/state/province/county/whatever provided roadways are doing so within that law. paperlantern
Now, to say the 4th has nothing to do with surveillance errs. But first, lets have a civic lessons concerning the Bill of Rights. Rights granted in this Bill are not granted by our Government, but instead are, as so noted by the Framers, unalienable rights. That is, God given rights we are born with. The Bill of Rights is the citizen's leash on his/her Government to limit and restrict that Government from acts of tyranny that usrups a citizen's unalienable rights. This concept extends outward with a broad hand to control the behavior of Government agents such as Police Officers, and Judges.
Now, it is correct to say the 4th is about Search and Seizure, but focusing only on the Probable Cause clause which restricts and restrains the Government as to what can and can not be searched or seized, ....
(Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96.
And bypassing a neutral predetermination of the scope of a search leaves individuals secure from Fourth Amendment [p359] violations "only in the discretion of the police." Id. at 97.
These considerations do not vanish when the search in question is transferred from the setting of a home, an office, or a hotel room to that of a telephone booth. Wherever a man may be, he is entitled to know that he will remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The government agents here ignored "the procedure of antecedent justification . . . that is central to the Fourth Amendment," [n24] a procedure that we hold to be a constitutional precondition...)...
is to ignore the Privacy clause, the reasonable expectation of privacy contained not only within the 4th, but also in the 1st, 3rd, and 5th Amendments. As always, the interpretation of The Privacy clause, in substantial part is through the lens of societal norms about acceptable levels of privacy from governmental intrusions.
more later....
I don't quite get your point, when a LEO pulls me over for speeding he doesn't search my car, and if he's asks I have the right to say no, and i have said no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaze Orange
Wasn't this thread about speeding?
So far nothing has contradicted my statement. Yes you bolded the "Wherever he may be", but again, clocking you on a freeway is not searching, OR seizing. The speed of your car IS public information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaze Orange
A police officer cannot SEARCH your car just for pulling you over for whatever traffic infraction. But if he pulled you over because your vehicle matches the description of one involved in a previous crime, or he smells marijuana, he CAN, THATS probable cause.
What you are eluding to, is that your speed is a private thing, and someone finding out your speed is a search and seizure. Which is NOT true, and no matter which way you bend it or turn it, it will NEVER BE. A speed limit is a law put in place to keep roads safe, people exceeding the speed limit are breaking the law. Capturing one's speed is how that law is enforced. Your reasoning is like saying a cop watches you run a red light but should do nothing because its your business.
Let's step back for just a minute and put ourselves in a world where Blaze Orange's thoughts are true. It is now illegal to capture one's speed because that is private, and all LIDAR/RADAR and other forms of speed calculating are all banned, even police are ordered to ignore speeders because it is private information. Would anyone HONESTLY WANT to drive in that? No restrictions of any kind on speed, on ANY road, ANYWHERE. You probably think hell yeah, but it would be chaos, roads would be closed 3- 4 days a week everywhere from fatal crashes. The person is smart, people are dumb. It would be an all out free for all on every road, 100+mph on freeways, people screaming down streets that used to 35MPH at 60 - 70+. No pedestrian would be safe, i know i wouldn't want to try and cross the street.
Speed limits will never go away, and speed enforcement will never change, because its necessary to keep people safe, no twisted, screwed up statement you can come up with, or get out of a legal book anywhere will contradict it, or change it.
I for one feel very lucky to live in the area I do and to have the system in place that I do. Some countries dont govern traffic anywhere near as consitantly. Some places have "police" that have radar equipment, but there are no posted speed limits. Plus thier equipment isnt calibrated... ever... Cops can pull you over for doing 46 in a 45 one day, then the next day pull you over in the same place for doing 43 in a 40, and hit you with a bigger fine when you argue with him that he just told you it was a 45 zone the day before. Yes I feel very lucky. And instead of griping about it, so should you.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by mhardy2288
He may be eluding to that, but I see no relevance other than to quote legal information that has nothing to do with his point and make it sound like it supports his point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paperlantern
I can quote legal terms too:
Search and seizure is a legal procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems whereby police or other authorities and their agents, who suspect that a crime has been committed, do a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence to the crime. We are also provided the right to be free from "unreasonable" search and seizure. This right is generally based on the premise that everyone is entitled to a reasonable right to privacy.
So I am guessing if what is being eluded to is correct and I am caught speeding anything over the speed limit they will take my car and everything relevant to that crime.
Strange I have been pulled over dozens of times and I still have my car. Its also odd that I was asked by an officer to search my car and I told him no, so he didn't and couldn't by law. It would have been unreasonable.
O, and by the way:
law enforcement needs to obtain a search warrant before engaging in any form of search and seizure. Search and seizure would be "unreasonable" without a warrant or without permission.
Privacy clause, now that's an interesting idea. I have the right to privacy when I am out in the public. Well I guess that means if I am out in the public and I want privacy I should go inside. or just not get caught doing whatever i want. :)
I'm going to move the topic over to another thread in a wee bit, so as not to hijack this poll. Also, my computer keeps locking up when I'm visiting this forum (my home system is too primative for this forum, and posting from the library ain't working with their 30 minute time limit, and a 20 mile round trip. I'll soon be upgrading to something better shortly as a 10 year old computer is just too much of a dinosaur....back later, so hold those thoughts, please)