TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Radar Detectors

Re: Radar Detectors

Bitu (
8 Dec 2004 10:39:11 -0800

> does not matter. Radar detectors do not protect you against speed
> cameras, red light cameras or automated traffic enforcement equipment.
> Police officer operated speed traps are being replaced by cameras at an
> alarming rate. But thank God there is another solution for this. It is
> called PhotoBlocker Spray.

I have been using it for two years. Two years ago I was getting
photo-radar tickets every three months. Then I saw a FOX News report
that showed how well this PHOTOBLOCKER spray worked. It showed Denver
police Department testing it and cops actually called it surprisingly

I have tested the spray myself. I triggered one of these nasty cameras
intentionally one early morning when there was nobody around. I saw the
flash go off but I have yet to receive any tickets. It is a nice
feeling to know that I am not driving naked. These cameras are not for
safety they are all about revenue. I have donated enough money to the
local police department. They are not going to get me again for driving
5 miles over the speed limit.

See for yourself. They have the police test results on their web site

Cliff Sharp wrote:

> I earlier wrote about radar detectors and offered a defense. TELECOM
> Moderator noted in reply:

>> [Moderator's Note: First, try that explanation around here and a lot
>> of Chicago police would be upside your head in a minute. Second, for

> True, but they'd do the same in any other matter where they tried
> to assert jurisdiction while having none.

>> all your knowledge of FCC regs, how come you failed to mention the one
>> which specifically says you are forbidden to act upon or profit from
>> transmissions you happen to overhear which are not intended for you?

> Well, first, you're not forbidden to act upon overhearing a
> transmission, you're forbidden to act upon its content. Similarly,
> you can't profit from the content, but there's no prohibition against
> profiting from knowing that someone's on the air (although I can't
> imagine too many other uses for that tidbit of information).

>> What you hear on WGN-Channel 9 is intended for you to act upon and
>> benefit from, i.e. the sponsor's messages. Radio transmissions in the
>> frequency range where RADAR (it is an acronym for something, I forget

> RAdio Detection And Ranging.

>> what right now) are *not* broadcasts. They are transmissions by
>> (presumably) licensed radio operators and/or their employees (the
>> police). They are not for your ears.

> There's a Supreme Court decision on that; I lost the papers during
> my last move, but the folks at Escort (formerly Cincinnati Microwave)
> are happy to send out their radar packet to anyone who asks, and it's
> cited in there chapter and verse. Paraphrased, the Supreme Court
> Justice who wrote the decision said something to the effect that if
> the police can use sneaky, surreptitious means to spy on your
> activities (and in most cases without probable cause), the citizen has
> every right to avail himself of any and all means to detect such spying.

> But radar transmissions are broadcasts anyway. They are rarely
> specifically aimed, but sent to bounce off many cars (whether or not
> the operator can see many cars in the beam path) and detect the
> greatest frequency deviation caused by the Doppler effect. I believe
> 47 CFR 90 defines them that way, but don't have a copy to refer to and
> can't confirm. This is because the police aren't transmitting to
> themselves or other officers, but transmitting to the vehicle(s) and
> monitoring the echo.

>> How do you act upon or benefit from what you overhear on RADAR? You
>> slow your car down don't you? You act in your own best interest to
>> avoid a ticket, don't you? That amounts to acknowledging that you
>> overheard something on the radio, which is illegal to do. You can't

> See the Supreme Court mention above; the Supremes don't agree.

> In any event, the primary reason I bought a radar detector wasn't
> to speed. First, my very first speeding ticket was a fraud, and only
> luck got me out of it; the officer who wrote it had been thrown off
> the force before I got to court, and the unofficial scuttlebutt was
> that some judge had noticed that all his tickets for any given day
> showed exactly the same speed. He was apparently getting one good
> reading and using the same reading all day without resetting his gun.
> Had I had a detector at that time, I could have asked the officer to
> repeat his performance of getting a reading on me without setting off
> my detector, and could have testified in court that he wasn't
> transmitting when I was within his range, had he not been caught at
> it.

> The second reason is that everyone (now, admit it) can get a bit
> heavy on the foot without realizing it from time to time. If I toss a
> gum wrapper on the sidewalk, seldom do I get more of a reaction than
> "Pick it up", i.e. I get a second chance to correct my "error". With
> radar I don't get that chance. The detector serves to remind me to
> check my speed and make sure I'm doing what I wanted to do, that is to
> stay within the limits (or at least with the speed of traffic).

> Finally, there are occasional reasons where I use the detector to
> speed with impunity. Most of them involve those clowns who do 75 to
> pass me and then slow down to 40 until I pass them again. Once I had
> a bleeding passenger who had to get to the hospital fast, and didn't
> need the aggravation of bleeding at 25 MPH or that of bleeding at 0
> MPH while some officer wasted five precious minutes stopping me.

>> two-way radio transmissions then benefit from them is illegal. You
>> also seem somehow to think that a local police officer cannot detain
>> or arrest you for violations of federal law. They certainly can; they
>> can take cases to the US Attorney just as easily as they can take

> They can most certainly detain you in their capacity as duly
> authorized agents of the law, but they cannot confiscate property that
> does not cause an immediate danger to anyone or anything, and once the
> Feds are in on it their only recourse is to act as witnesses to the
> act. That takes the whole thing out of the purview of state law,
> which is the only place that radar detectors are banned.

>> cases to the local prosecutor. Most cops would tell you that you have
>> a smart mouth. PAT]

> With good reason, I might add. :-) But again, they'd do the same
> in any situation where they tried to assert jurisdiction or authority
> they didn't have.

> And there's always the alternative of building a 100 watt transmit-
> ter at 10.495 GHz and calling a Morse code CQ whenever I see a squad
> ... :-)

> I don't have the 800 number handy, but I believe Escort Corp. still
> sends out those "radar packets" free for those who'd like to see the
> court citations and quotes from the justice.

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Jim Hatfield: "Re: Will Radar Detectors be Regulated Out of Existence?"
Go to Previous message: Steve Sobol: "Re: Lycos Pulls Anti-Spam 'Vigilante' Campaign"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page