SLD920X radar detector/jammer - does it actually work??

[Mark Foster]

In article <pan.2005.06.28.17.28.34.353469@doubleclick.net>,
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:

So, how do you stealth a car, required by law to have a reflective
numberplate on the front of it?

All states DON'T require a front plate... for example, Arizona.

So, obviously, if you are really impelled to flout the traffic safety
laws, you should move to Arizona! ;-P

Why do you think that will prevent you getting nabbed.

During a coast to coast blast in 2003 I encountered a Kansas state
trooper sitting in the ditch that is the central reservation (about
100yds wide) on I70. I was in a car with no front plate (CA does require
them either) and yet was clocked spot on at 86mph. The police cruisers
have both forward and rear facing doppler radar on board.

--
Mark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK
E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk
PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1
--------------------------------------------------
"There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'"
[Driving, HMSO]

 

[Wes Stewart]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:49:34 -0400, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz>
wrote:

[snip]

All states DON'T require a front plate... for example, Arizona.

So, obviously, if you are really impelled to flout the traffic safety
laws, you should move to Arizona! ;-P

(Personally, I don't have a problem with going 35 in a 35 zone and
so on. And hell, my car is only calibrated to about 85!)

You must drive an *old* POS.

No, he could drive a newer car.

I happen to have a '99 Camaro SS that came with Z-rated tires. The
speedometer (and the car) goes to 155 mph. A V-6 Camaro shipped
without speed-rated tires has an 85 mph speedometer and a limiter to
match.

I also happen to live in Arizona and was once passed on one of our
interstate highways by an 18-wheel truck (lorry). I was doing about
85 at the time and after the shock wore off, I pulled up to about 110+
and caught up then "slowed" to match his speed. He was doing 99 mph.
Considering the location and traffic, it seemed okay to me.

OTOH, the (appropriate) speed limit in my neighborhood is 25 and my
wife and I are the only two people around who observe it. Simply
depends on what is prudent, not what some legislator sitting behind a
desk determines is "safe."

 

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:03:22 +0100, Chris Bacon <chrispbacon@thai.com>
wrote:

"Wrong time of the month". ROFL. What a tango alpha roger tango.

The last time I saw this addy it was Chris P Bacon and it was anthony
bournes then too.
pete

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <hl63c11ioboo45hb9jpdqh6hdg4dsld0re@4ax.com>,
n7ws_@*yahoo.com says...

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:49:34 -0400, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz
wrote:

[snip]

All states DON'T require a front plate... for example, Arizona.

So, obviously, if you are really impelled to flout the traffic safety
laws, you should move to Arizona! ;-P

(Personally, I don't have a problem with going 35 in a 35 zone and
so on. And hell, my car is only calibrated to about 85!)

You must drive an *old* POS.


No, he could drive a newer car.

I happen to have a '99 Camaro SS that came with Z-rated tires. The
speedometer (and the car) goes to 155 mph. A V-6 Camaro shipped
without speed-rated tires has an 85 mph speedometer and a limiter to
match.

I didn't think they did such silliness since the double-nickel crap.
My mini-peekup has a 120MPH speedometer, though I don't think I'm going
to test it soon.

I also happen to live in Arizona and was once passed on one of our
interstate highways by an 18-wheel truck (lorry). I was doing about
85 at the time and after the shock wore off, I pulled up to about 110+
and caught up then "slowed" to match his speed. He was doing 99 mph.
Considering the location and traffic, it seemed okay to me.

OTOH, the (appropriate) speed limit in my neighborhood is 25 and my
wife and I are the only two people around who observe it. Simply
depends on what is prudent, not what some legislator sitting behind a
desk determines is "safe."

The "safe" speed is supposed to be set at the 85th percentile. Other
than school-zones and such where the speed may change wrt time, I think
this is a rather sane target.

--
Keith

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:06:12 -0700, the renowned Wes Stewart
<n7ws_@*yahoo.com> wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:49:34 -0400, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz
wrote:

[snip]

All states DON'T require a front plate... for example, Arizona.

So, obviously, if you are really impelled to flout the traffic safety
laws, you should move to Arizona! ;-P

(Personally, I don't have a problem with going 35 in a 35 zone and
so on. And hell, my car is only calibrated to about 85!)

You must drive an *old* POS.


No, he could drive a newer car.

I happen to have a '99 Camaro SS that came with Z-rated tires. The
speedometer (and the car) goes to 155 mph. A V-6 Camaro shipped
without speed-rated tires has an 85 mph speedometer and a limiter to
match.

Limiter? What's that, a governor? They actually control how fast you
can drive?

I used to have car which had 140km/h (87mph) as the *center* of the
speedometer. Top of the speedometer scale was twice that.

I also happen to live in Arizona and was once passed on one of our
interstate highways by an 18-wheel truck (lorry). I was doing about
85 at the time and after the shock wore off, I pulled up to about 110+
and caught up then "slowed" to match his speed. He was doing 99 mph.
Considering the location and traffic, it seemed okay to me.

OTOH, the (appropriate) speed limit in my neighborhood is 25 and my
wife and I are the only two people around who observe it. Simply
depends on what is prudent, not what some legislator sitting behind a
desk determines is "safe."

Superhighways were (and probably still are) banked for 120mph. But
25mph (40km/h) is a very appropriate top speed in a neighborhood with
kids on bikes, scooters, skateboards, inline skates, etc. etc.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Tom MacIntyre]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:03:58 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:06:12 -0700, the renowned Wes Stewart
n7ws_@*yahoo.com> wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:49:34 -0400, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz
wrote:

[snip]

All states DON'T require a front plate... for example, Arizona.

So, obviously, if you are really impelled to flout the traffic safety
laws, you should move to Arizona! ;-P

(Personally, I don't have a problem with going 35 in a 35 zone and
so on. And hell, my car is only calibrated to about 85!)

You must drive an *old* POS.


No, he could drive a newer car.

I happen to have a '99 Camaro SS that came with Z-rated tires. The
speedometer (and the car) goes to 155 mph. A V-6 Camaro shipped
without speed-rated tires has an 85 mph speedometer and a limiter to
match.

Limiter? What's that, a governor? They actually control how fast you
can drive?

I used to have car which had 140km/h (87mph) as the *center* of the
speedometer. Top of the speedometer scale was twice that.

I also happen to live in Arizona and was once passed on one of our
interstate highways by an 18-wheel truck (lorry). I was doing about
85 at the time and after the shock wore off, I pulled up to about 110+
and caught up then "slowed" to match his speed. He was doing 99 mph.
Considering the location and traffic, it seemed okay to me.

OTOH, the (appropriate) speed limit in my neighborhood is 25 and my
wife and I are the only two people around who observe it. Simply
depends on what is prudent, not what some legislator sitting behind a
desk determines is "safe."

Superhighways were (and probably still are) banked for 120mph. But
25mph (40km/h) is a very appropriate top speed in a neighborhood with
kids on bikes, scooters, skateboards, inline skates, etc. etc.

Or slower...at .25 second reaction time, 25 MPH, the vehicle travels
about 9 feet before you even begin to react. You can realistically
only go so low with this, leaving the rest of the responsibility on
the young people you mention.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:48:23 -0400, Keith Williams wrote:

In article <pan.2005.06.28.17.24.49.311658@doubleclick.net>,
eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net says...
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:23:54 -0400, Keith Williams wrote:
In article <Xns9682662C781E8jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.85>,
jyanik@abuse.gov. says...
"David Taylor" <davidt-news@yadt.co.uk> wrote in
driver@somewhere.in.the.uk.com wrote on Mon, 27 Jun 2005 13:03:15 +0100:
Incidentally, the jammer isn't supposed to be obvious. If it's working
properly, the speed gun just doesn't show a reading at all.

If they point a speed gun at you, and they don't get a reading,
I would call that obvious.

if there was no reflection of the pulses,the laser speed gun cannot make
it's measurements.
Is that "jamming"?
(no,it's stealthing)

Then they arrest you for not having, modifying, or altering your
license plate. Problem solved.

Except that, the way I understand it, there are states that don't
(yet) require a front license plate.

But why put so much effort into defeating a system that's only
intended to keep you from killing people?

You sound like one of the nut-jobs that brought us 55-and-alive.
Driving fast <> killing people. No link has ever been shown, limiting
the discussion to highways designed for speed, as the Ike system is.

In case you'd care to check, the discussion was about defeating
law enforcement systems that catch people who are breaking existing
laws.

Yes, the laws are wrong, and stupid. I don't argue that. Albeit I do
take exception to you equating me to a nut-job. That's Thompson's job.
What I argue is, how stupid do you have to be to walk up and spit in the
face of a guy who's three times your size, has a gun and a club, and is
authorized by the prince to use them on you?

If you're in _that_ much of a hurry to get where you're going, just
leave two minutes earlier. I read a write-up of a study once, or
maybe just heard it anecdotally, where they put two guys on the
road, and they told one guy, "Get there as fast as you can, and
screw the traffic laws!" and they told the other guy, "Get there
safe, and obey all of the traffic laws."

A couple of times a year I go out to visit my mother, which is a 1100mi
trip. 100MPH would add two days to time there or cut out two days in a
hotel in some dump along the way. In fact, 85MPH limits would likely
do it.

OK, so work towards changing the laws. Admittedly, it's not
speed that kills, it's stupidity and negligence.

But in the interim, going and being all in their face isn't the
action that gets them to change their mind, is it?

The fast guy, in about a 400 mile (600 km) trip, beat the law-abiding
guy by about two minutes. Less time than it takes to take a pee.

This is just too silly for words. Higher speed <> faster. Ok, if you
say so Rich! Yikes!

Well, I was talking about an experiment conducted on real roads in
real life here. Yeah, if you're on a race track, faster == faster. But
if you're breezing through some backwater whistlestop, there are
kids who have not yet been trained to stay off the road wif da
prose.[sic] And I did say that I had read a "study." The one guy went
balls-to-the-walls, the other guy drove gently, and the fast guy
only beat the slow guy by a matter of a few minutes - less time
than it takes you to finish your beer.

Why do they put speed traps where they put speed traps?

I've even heard that the cops DON'T MIND when the locations of
the speed traps are revealed, because "officially" their purpose
is to reduce risk; if people slow down to a sane speed during
the speed trap, the cops are "officially" just as happy as can
be.

Now, given that, if you're up in arms about entrapment, then I'm
with you a hunnert[sic] percent. They shouldn't hang out in
speedy spots just to nail people. They also shouldn't dress
nazis up in drag to entrap lonely old men who are only looking
for some companionship. Unfortunately, they _can_ do that, wrong
as it is.

In the interim, the pigs are only doing their job, and we all know
that jobs are scarce these days, expecially[sic] jobs that pay
like a union cop job. And they still have guns and clubs.

AND, now that I proofread, you're not a very good proofreader.
"100 MPH would add two days..." um I think you got that ass-
backwards. I personally have driven from Minneapolis, MN to
Biloxi, MS, in three days, at a rather leisurely pace. I've
also driven from So. Cal. to Minneapolis (or its suburbs)
more than once - AND BACK! - and an extra mile or two per
hour really didn't make all that much of a difference. I
once even submitted a "safety slogan": "Strive to Drive to
Arrive Alive."

My point is, why go to such great lengths to defeat a system
that's intended to deter lawbreakers, when you could back off
a little, get there within MINUTES of the target time, and
not endanger innocent bystanders - and not set yourself up to
get accosted by troops of uniformed goons, each of which is
armed with guns, clubs, and mace?

So, if you're in that much of a hurry, just piss in your car!
http://neodruid.org/images/Safe-Car.gif

Whay don't you walk everywhere, if speed doesn't matter?

Well, notwithstanding I don't know what "Whay" means, this
would resolve to the kind of question that's "baiting", AKA
"trolling". I drive my car, but I don't drive my car a
thousand miles an hour. I drive, at a sane speed, so there's
no need for me to be paranoid about speed traps.

Checkpoints, however...

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:51:50 +0100, joe parkin wrote:

In article <pan.2005.06.28.17.24.49.311658@doubleclick.net>,
eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net says...
The fast guy, in about a 400 mile (600 km) trip, beat the law-abiding
guy by about two minutes. Less time than it takes to take a pee.

That is just so wrong. Plenty of factors would influence the difference
in arrival time, unless the 400 mile trip was made in heavy traffic,
then the faster guy would arrive a lot earlier than the slow guy more
so, if the rolling traffic jams that we call caravans and lorries were
taken out of the equation.

I don't remember the exact specifics here, and the guy who wrote
the article could have been a raving lunatic, for all I know, and
maybe it was only like fifty miles, from one side of town to the
other, but the point was, in traffic, you don't gain that much
by driving like a maniac.

I can see removing speed limits for the long stretches, and some
states have already done that - I think Montana, and maybe Wyoming,
albeit my impression of Wyoming could be that it's more a matter of
"why pay some guy to go out into the middle of nowhere to trap
speeders?" so they just don't bother -

But the point was about defeating police radar. Why not just
drive around?

I guess the point is, (A) it's so simple to breeze by a speed trap -
just slow to the legal limit, and (B) the FCC has a thing about
transmitters.
--
Thanks,
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:17:07 +0000, David Taylor wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote on Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:23:08 GMT:

If you're in _that_ much of a hurry to get where you're going, just
leave two minutes earlier. I read a write-up of a study once, or
maybe just heard it anecdotally, where they put two guys on the
road, and they told one guy, "Get there as fast as you can, and
screw the traffic laws!" and they told the other guy, "Get there
safe, and obey all of the traffic laws."

The fast guy, in about a 400 mile (600 km) trip, beat the law-abiding
guy by about two minutes. Less time than it takes to take a pee.

The fast guy was obviously not very good at going fast.

Dang it, If I knew four people who could do a test like this, I'd do it.
It would require a timer at each end of the trip, and two drivers. It
obviously couldn't be made "double-blind", but they could go from point
A to point B and back with guy 1 in car alpha, and then have guy 1 and 2
switch cars, and then go from point A to point B and back again, with a
timer[1] on each end.

Another thing I'd like to do if I won the lottery is hire the blimp,
and take aerial videos of traffic patterns. I might throw it up on
the board in my "electricity is like water" lecture. ;-P

If an alien in a starship parked at a couple hundred thousand feet,
would transit routes look like bloodvessels?

Thanks!
Rich

[1] person with a stopwatch. Presumably, this should have 1/60 second
accuracy. ;-P

 

[Mark Foster]

In article <pan.2005.06.28.21.59.05.657654@doubleclick.net>,
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:17:07 +0000, David Taylor wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote on Tue,
28 Jun 2005 17:23:08 GMT:

If you're in _that_ much of a hurry to get where you're going, just
leave two minutes earlier. I read a write-up of a study once, or
maybe just heard it anecdotally, where they put two guys on the
road, and they told one guy, "Get there as fast as you can, and
screw the traffic laws!" and they told the other guy, "Get there
safe, and obey all of the traffic laws."

The fast guy, in about a 400 mile (600 km) trip, beat the law-abiding
guy by about two minutes. Less time than it takes to take a pee.

The fast guy was obviously not very good at going fast.

Dang it, If I knew four people who could do a test like this, I'd do it.
It would require a timer at each end of the trip, and two drivers. It
obviously couldn't be made "double-blind", but they could go from point
A to point B and back with guy 1 in car alpha, and then have guy 1 and 2
switch cars, and then go from point A to point B and back again, with a
timer[1] on each end.

If you're really interested in that sort of thing then you could do a
lot worse than pick up a copy of "Cannonball! World's Greatest Outlaw
Road Race" by Brock Yates.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0760316333/qid=1119997120/sr=2-1
/ref=sr_2_11_1/202-4657926-1595058

It's really quite a fascinating read.

--
Mark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK
E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk
PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1
--------------------------------------------------
"There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'"
[Driving, HMSO]

 

[Mark Foster]

In article
<m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST-C3A2D2.23201528062005@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.ne
t>,
Mark Foster <m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk> wrote:

In article <pan.2005.06.28.21.59.05.657654@doubleclick.net>,
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:17:07 +0000, David Taylor wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote on
Tue,
28 Jun 2005 17:23:08 GMT:

If you're in _that_ much of a hurry to get where you're going, just
leave two minutes earlier. I read a write-up of a study once, or
maybe just heard it anecdotally, where they put two guys on the
road, and they told one guy, "Get there as fast as you can, and
screw the traffic laws!" and they told the other guy, "Get there
safe, and obey all of the traffic laws."

The fast guy, in about a 400 mile (600 km) trip, beat the law-abiding
guy by about two minutes. Less time than it takes to take a pee.

The fast guy was obviously not very good at going fast.

Dang it, If I knew four people who could do a test like this, I'd do it.
It would require a timer at each end of the trip, and two drivers. It
obviously couldn't be made "double-blind", but they could go from point
A to point B and back with guy 1 in car alpha, and then have guy 1 and 2
switch cars, and then go from point A to point B and back again, with a
timer[1] on each end.

If you're really interested in that sort of thing then you could do a
lot worse than pick up a copy of "Cannonball! World's Greatest Outlaw
Road Race" by Brock Yates.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0760316333/qid=1119997120/sr=2-1
/ref=sr_2_11_1/202-4657926-1595058

It's really quite a fascinating read.

Sorry about the wrap.

http://tinyurl.com/8sb23


--
Mark Foster, Brighton, Sussex, UK
E-mail: m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk
PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1
--------------------------------------------------
"There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'"
[Driving, HMSO]

 

[Jim Yanik]

Wes Stewart <n7ws_@*yahoo.com> wrote in
news:hl63c11ioboo45hb9jpdqh6hdg4dsld0re@4ax.com:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:49:34 -0400, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz
wrote:

[snip]

All states DON'T require a front plate... for example, Arizona.

So, obviously, if you are really impelled to flout the traffic safety
laws, you should move to Arizona! ;-P

(Personally, I don't have a problem with going 35 in a 35 zone and
so on. And hell, my car is only calibrated to about 85!)

You must drive an *old* POS.


No, he could drive a newer car.

I happen to have a '99 Camaro SS that came with Z-rated tires. The
speedometer (and the car) goes to 155 mph. A V-6 Camaro shipped
without speed-rated tires has an 85 mph speedometer and a limiter to
match.

Why couldn't they use the same 155mph speedo for both cars,but retain the
85mph limiter for the non-rated-tire auto? Why make and stock TWO speedos?
Then if you did go buy higher speed-rated tires,the limiter could be
reprogrammed to reflect the change.

I also happen to live in Arizona and was once passed on one of our
interstate highways by an 18-wheel truck (lorry). I was doing about
85 at the time and after the shock wore off, I pulled up to about 110+
and caught up then "slowed" to match his speed. He was doing 99 mph.
Considering the location and traffic, it seemed okay to me.

OTOH, the (appropriate) speed limit in my neighborhood is 25 and my
wife and I are the only two people around who observe it. Simply
depends on what is prudent, not what some legislator sitting behind a
desk determines is "safe."

I Agree.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Jim Yanik]

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in
news:4ua3c1lthhned78bh44gvosbrmjbth4o4s@4ax.com:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:06:12 -0700, the renowned Wes Stewart
n7ws_@*yahoo.com> wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:49:34 -0400, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz
wrote:

[snip]

All states DON'T require a front plate... for example, Arizona.

So, obviously, if you are really impelled to flout the traffic safety
laws, you should move to Arizona! ;-P

(Personally, I don't have a problem with going 35 in a 35 zone and
so on. And hell, my car is only calibrated to about 85!)

You must drive an *old* POS.


No, he could drive a newer car.

I happen to have a '99 Camaro SS that came with Z-rated tires. The
speedometer (and the car) goes to 155 mph. A V-6 Camaro shipped
without speed-rated tires has an 85 mph speedometer and a limiter to
match.

Limiter? What's that, a governor? They actually control how fast you
can drive?

It's mostly for lawsuit protection.Keeps people from exceeding the limits
of their tires;most people are unaware of such things like speed ratings of
their car's tires.

I used to have car which had 140km/h (87mph) as the *center* of the
speedometer. Top of the speedometer scale was twice that.

I also happen to live in Arizona and was once passed on one of our
interstate highways by an 18-wheel truck (lorry). I was doing about
85 at the time and after the shock wore off, I pulled up to about 110+
and caught up then "slowed" to match his speed. He was doing 99 mph.
Considering the location and traffic, it seemed okay to me.

OTOH, the (appropriate) speed limit in my neighborhood is 25 and my
wife and I are the only two people around who observe it. Simply
depends on what is prudent, not what some legislator sitting behind a
desk determines is "safe."

Superhighways were (and probably still are) banked for 120mph. But
25mph (40km/h) is a very appropriate top speed in a neighborhood with
kids on bikes, scooters, skateboards, inline skates, etc. etc.

depends on the time of day/night,whether vehicles are parked on the
streets,whether any kids are in sight-with a clear sight view of the
street,(parked cars prevent this.)and other variables,that people are
perfectly capable of judging themselves,if they apply their brains while
driving. But I'm not advocating 100 mph on city streets.I've been through a
lot of neighborhoods where somewhat higher speeds(maybe 35-40mph) were
perfectly safe,and some where I crawl through at 10-15mph,because of poor
sight lines,kids around,etc.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Jim Yanik]

Mark Foster <m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST@sussex.ac.uk> wrote in
news:m.e.fosterREMOVEMEFIRST-15F438.19444928062005@ptn-nntp-
reader03.plus.net:

In article <pan.2005.06.28.17.28.34.353469@doubleclick.net>,
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:

So, how do you stealth a car, required by law to have a reflective
numberplate on the front of it?

All states DON'T require a front plate... for example, Arizona.

So, obviously, if you are really impelled to flout the traffic safety
laws, you should move to Arizona! ;-P

Why do you think that will prevent you getting nabbed.

During a coast to coast blast in 2003 I encountered a Kansas state
trooper sitting in the ditch that is the central reservation (about
100yds wide) on I70. I was in a car with no front plate (CA does require
them either) and yet was clocked spot on at 86mph. The police cruisers
have both forward and rear facing doppler radar on board.

Uh,we were discussing LASER speed guns.Not radar,for which lack of a front
plate has little effect.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Pig Bladder]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:16:50 +0100, Mark Foster wrote:

In article <d9pef6$8ev$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
steve robinson wrote:
Incorrect , they are not required on the front of motorcycles or
motorscooters

Yes, bravo well done for stating the one exception to the rule. Made your
day has it, feel that you've added something useful and worthwhile to the
fount of human knowledge tosser?

Ooh, touchy.

What NG are you strange people posting from?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Pig Bladder]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:09:33 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:46:42 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
brimstone@hotmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps if I'd said "cars and lorries" instead would that have satisfied
you? Since the motoring NG this is posted in is primarily about car driving
my phrasing was in context. It#s tossers like you that make groups such as
this such bloody hard work. Now FOAD.

Why are you getting so upset?

All he did was bring up a couple of instances which you hadn't
covered.

Besides, who knew you were posting from uk.rec.driving.? There are
currently four newsgroups to which this thread is being crossposted,
and even if we knew that it had originated in uk.rec.driving, there's
no hint that it's primarily about car driving (as would be obvious if
it came from uk.primarily.about.driving.cars) is there?

And here, I was thinking that I was to fault here for cross-pollinating.

But interestingly, this time, it wasn't my fault! ;-D

Possibly less interestingly, my news client (pan on Slack) whines
at me when I send this crosspost - it seems to think that there
are no such NGs as alt.uk.law or uk.rec.driving. Are my posts getting
to those NGs even though they're not on my server? (Verizon.net)
(The computer doesn't whine about uk.legal .)

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Brimstone]

Pig Bladder wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:16:50 +0100, Mark Foster wrote:
In article <d9pef6$8ev$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
steve robinson wrote:
Incorrect , they are not required on the front of motorcycles or
motorscooters

Yes, bravo well done for stating the one exception to the rule.
Made your day has it, feel that you've added something useful and
worthwhile to the fount of human knowledge tosser?

Ooh, touchy.

What NG are you strange people posting from?

uk.rec.driving We're all really good friends apart from the carping,
sniping, piss-taking and name calling. Just one big happy family really, in
fact "Mark Foster" and "Conor" are getting married next week and I'm due out
of the asylum, errrrr sometime.

 

[Chris Bacon]

turtill wrote:

Chris Bacon wrote:
"Wrong time of the month". ROFL. What a tango alpha roger tango.

The last time I saw this addy it was Chris P Bacon and it was anthony
bournes then too.

I sent that a bit hastily, perceiving the poster I was replying to
had somewhat over-reacted. I was, as well, attempting to be humerous.
Apologies to the person I replied to if it was taken otherwise.
However, I have no idea who you are, or the other person you mention
is. Please leave me out of any vendetta, thanks.

 

[Brimstone]

Chris Bacon wrote:

turtill wrote:
Chris Bacon wrote:
"Wrong time of the month". ROFL. What a tango alpha roger tango.

The last time I saw this addy it was Chris P Bacon and it was anthony
bournes then too.

I sent that a bit hastily, perceiving the poster I was replying to
had somewhat over-reacted. I was, as well, attempting to be humerous.
Apologies to the person I replied to if it was taken otherwise.
However, I have no idea who you are, or the other person you mention
is. Please leave me out of any vendetta, thanks.

There's no vendetta, honest.

(Just be careful who's knocking at the door before you open it. )

 

[MrBitsy]

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote in
newsan.2005.06.28.17.24.49.311658@doubleclick.net:

But why put so much effort into defeating a system that's only
intended to keep you from killing people?

How do you work that one out?

--
MrBitsy