OPP pick up bounty of radar detectors

[Leafless]

An OPP crackdown on radar detectors near Brockville last week caught 11 drivers using the illegal devices on Highway 401. OPP said all 11 drivers were handed $170 tickets after being charged under the Highway Traffic Act with operating a speed-measuring warning device.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/c...67-de22b25f2110

Isn't this what radar detectors are meant for is to encourage good driving habits when confronted with police bouncing an electronic signal off of your private vehicle.

Lets face it, speeding is against the law, but no law has been broken unless one is caught in the act.

Bouncing an electronic signal off your vehicle with the police vehicle generally being parked and somewhat hidden is NOT the same as being monitored by a police vehicle on the tail of your vehicle recording your speed.

So in fact, with the case of radar, police are not physically establishing the fact you are speeding but depending entirely on the reading obtained electronically by radar.

Is this ethical?

Of course it is not ethical. And if it is not ethical why should it be unethical (and also illegal) for a motorist not to legally have a device, who's only job is to detect unethical electronic signals bouncing off of my private vehicle.

IMO radar detectors and their use should not be illegal.

Air space is free to everyone including any signals that happen to be in them and should be anyone's right to detect any electronic signals within that free air space.

What are your feelings relating to police unethically using radar to convict you of speeding?

[eyeball]

I think highways should be automated. This will eliminate the need for speed limits, radar detectors, breathalyzers, fear of impaired drivers, highway police etc etc.

In the meantime people need to be protected, from themselves and others. Radar is obviously a good tool and I'd trust its accuracy over a cop's judgement any day of the week.

Another even more effective solution would be to fit cars with engine speed govenors so speeding is impossible. At the very least this should be done for any car driven by a new or young driver or anyone convicted of speeding more than 3 times.

[guyser]

What are your feelings relating to police unethically using radar to convict you of speeding?

While I do not agree it is "unethical" for the Police to use radar , I do agree that the private motorist should be free to use a radar detection device.

On top of that I do not like the revenue generation that radar is used for. Radar ignores the fact that highway speeds can rise and fall depending on the amount of traffic.

Speed does not kill. (sudden stops do) Speed variance is the problem.

I guess....slow down and wave at the Govt Revenuers aka OPP. They do have that doofus Fantino at the helm so this will continue.

[Leafless]

While I do not agree it is "unethical" for the Police to use radar , I do agree that the private motorist should be free to use a radar detection device.

Police are supposed represent the good and enforce laws for the benefit of society.

Banning radar detectors for no other reason than that it interferes with their logic that police have the self-righteous exclusive use to use radar and you don't have the right to detect their signal is nonsense and makes police and their use of radar unethical.

But this is nothing new in this commie country where citizens have little or no input relating to laws or how the country is run.

It is up to police to devise a way so that their radar signal cannot be detected.

In the U.S. radar detectors, relating to private use, are only illegal in Virginia and Washington D.C.

In Canada they are legal in Alberta, B.C. and Sask.

[FTA Lawyer]

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/c...67-de22b25f2110

Isn't this what radar detectors are meant for is to encourage good driving habits when confronted with police bouncing an electronic signal off of your private vehicle.

Lets face it, speeding is against the law, but no law has been broken unless one is caught in the act.

????????????????????

Radar detectors are meant to allow users to speed and not get ticketed...can't really try to get philosophical on that one.

If no one sees the tree fall in the forest, does that mean it didn't fall? When you speed, you break the law...has nothing to do with whether you get caught. Apply your statement to rape or murder and I think you'll see what I mean.

Similarly, if detecting speeders with radar is unethical, then isn't wiretapping, surveillance tape, fingerprinting and DNA profiling out the window too? Are they not all just examples of police using technology of some sort to enforce law?

FTA

[Wild Bill]

????????????????????

Radar detectors are meant to allow users to speed and not get ticketed...can't really try to get philosophical on that one.

If no one sees the tree fall in the forest, does that mean it didn't fall? When you speed, you break the law...has nothing to do with whether you get caught. Apply your statement to rape or murder and I think you'll see what I mean.

Similarly, if detecting speeders with radar is unethical, then isn't wiretapping, surveillance tape, fingerprinting and DNA profiling out the window too? Are they not all just examples of police using technology of some sort to enforce law?

FTA

Here's another anecdote! However, it's personal experience as I was there when it happened.

Back in the 70's "fuzz busters" were just starting to appear. Here in the Niagara Peninsula a lot of American cars were caught coming across the border with radar detection units. There was also quite a black market selling them to Canadians, mostly salespeople on the road, it seemed.

In those days I was a passionate ham radio operator. This is the hobby of radio experimentation. To participate you needed to pass an exam in radio laws and theory and receive a federal licence to build and operate a radio station.

Hams were and are licenced to operate over a wide range of frequencies, including microwave. One of the long-standing traditions was to scrounge commercial gear and rip it apart to modify it for use in ham radio applications.

Now at that time police radar units were operating at a frequency of a bit over 10 gigahertz. This was so close to an assigned ham radio frequency range that radar detectors could be easily modified into transceivers capable of communication at this microwave frequency.

So my good friend "Ralph" is across the border one weekend at what we called a "Hamfest" in Rochester, NY. This was a weekend event for radio hobbyists, complete with a flea market of parts and gear. "Ralph" spots one of these radar detectors for sale and buys it on the spot.

So on his way home across the border "Ralph" has his box of radio junk purchases in the back seat and cheerfully declares it to the customs inspector. There's no duty on used junk so he's waved through but the inspector had noticed the radar detector. Sure enough, 10 or 20 miles up the QEW highway an OPP cruiser pulls "Ralph" over and proceeds to give him a ticket for possession of a radar detector.

Now "Ralph" came from an affluent family, with several lawyers on retainer for the family business. He thought this charge was going to be great fun!

You see, there were a lot of factors that didn't seem to have been considered in the provincial law. "Ralph" was licensed by the federal government to build and modify radio apparatus, which included radar detectors, by definition. The radar detector in question was not even in a functional state! It was in pieces, recognizable only by the case with the mfgrs labels and logo. It was not capable at the time of detecting police radar and besides, "Ralph" never had any intentions of using it for that purpose!

To add more technical factors to the issue, the state of technology at that time meant that both the police radar and the radar detectors were relatively crude, broadband devices. Even after the unit would have been modified for ham radio communication and experimentation it would still have detected police radar, as it was too crude to reject it.

"Ralph" believed that there was an obvious conflict here between being federally licensed to be a radio experimenter and the provincial radar detector law. All of us, not just his personal friends but any folks who were also ham radio hobbyists were very interested in how this could turn out.

We were disappointed! When our friend's lawyer filed his "motion of defense" or whatever you call the intent to fight the charge and the basis of your argument."Ralph" was asked to come see the Crown Attorney. The charge was dropped, with the understanding that "Ralph" was to keep quiet and the Crown would leave him alone. They also returned his radar detector.

So we never did find out how the issue would have been resolved. I've always been curious. It was obvious that whoever phrased the provincial law likely had never heard of ham radio operators and also likely was not technically educated in how police radar and detectors actually worked.

Perhaps someone in this thread like FTA Lawyer might enlighten me on how these conflicts are legally resolved.

[margrace]

While I do not agree it is "unethical" for the Police to use radar , I do agree that the private motorist should be free to use a radar detection device.

On top of that I do not like the revenue generation that radar is used for. Radar ignores the fact that highway speeds can rise and fall depending on the amount of traffic.

Speed does not kill. (sudden stops do) Speed variance is the problem.

I guess....slow down and wave at the Govt Revenuers aka OPP. They do have that doofus Fantino at the helm so this will continue.

But what about road racers who cause accidents for others?

[White Doors]

But what about road racers who cause accidents for others?

What about old people who cause alot of accidents?

[Topaz]

www.magma.ca/~fyst/appndxc.htm this is the site to find out how radar works and by reading it you will find the radar gun is NOT 100% accurate. First, radar is prone to interference as high voltage power lines, telephones lines, power stations and neon lights do emit lots of electmagnetic waves which the radar guns pickup. Radar cannot tell which target reflected off the waves and if two cars are travelling at high speeds the operator of the gun can't tell which car speed came up on the gun, so he has to decide which car to go after.I've hear do people getting off because the lawyer use science as the defence.

[sharkman]

The radar detection industry is in a continual technology fight with law enforcement radar technology. I was looking into a detector about 1 1/2 yrs ago when I had been dinged again in a speed trap on my annual summer trip to see family. At the time, the top-of-the-line model basically could not be detected by the latest cop technology and I was considering that one since it also had the best performance. I decided to slow down instead(at my wife's behest) and saved some coin.

It sounds like the cops have superior technology at the moment, but probably not for long. Around here they let you go over the limit by 10 km without bothering you. That's fast enough for me most of the time.

[guyser]

But what about road racers who cause accidents for others?

What about it?

Ok , first, they dont "cause" accidents for others. Racers are either involved or not in the accident.

Secondly,I refer you to my post....speed variance is the problem.

Edited May 29, 2008 by guyser

[Leafless]

????????????????????

Radar detectors are meant to allow users to speed and not get ticketed...can't really try to get philosophical on that one.

I could very well insist radar detectors are meant to alert one to SLOW DOWN, you are driving to FAST and the received signal proves it. Are you against promoting safe driving?

Radar detectors are a tool, an electronic radio device police use and have nothing to do with with breaking a law. The law cannot be broken unless you have a perpetrator, someone who physically breaks the law.

A radio receiver does not break the law, unless police undemocratically and unfairly class this device as a tool that interferes with a perpetrator that could or might be breaking the law.

If police are to dumb to come up with a device to that cannot be monitored that is their problem and not societies or citizens in a democratic free society that pay a fairly high price for a device to be warned they are driving to fast and must slow down.

If no one sees the tree fall in the forest, does that mean it didn't fall? When you speed, you break the law...has nothing to do with whether you get caught. Apply your statement to rape or murder and I think you'll see what I mean.

One hundred rapes or murders and no perpetrator one can only apply logic and SUGGEST and ASSUME the law has been broken. Without a perpetrator you lack the physical evidence and cannot prove anyone did in fact break that WRITTEN law. When a suspect cannot be found and after a length of time they close the books on that specific case without charging anyone for the alleged offense. Case closed.

When one speeds, again, no law has been broken unless there is a perpetrator that has been apprehended and charged. Then this proves the law has been broken with the perpetrator as evidence.

Similarly, if detecting speeders with radar is unethical, then isn't wiretapping, surveillance tape, fingerprinting and DNA profiling out the window too? Are they not all just examples of police using technology of some sort to enforce law?

Everything you mentioned, yes is unethical and sometimes illegal even if used by police.

But I think you miss the point in all of this.

We are talking radio frequencies and a citizen's democratic right to receive out of public air space, if they posses the associated technology, any type of radio signal within that public air-space.

Why the dramatic difference in U.S. law compared to Canadian law whereas in the U.S., only two states ban the use of radar detectors for private use.

Obviously the U.S. democratically speaking is light years ahead in comparison to oppressed Canadians.

Edited May 30, 2008 by Leafless

[Melanie_]

One hundred rapes or murders and no perpetrator one can only apply logic and SUGGEST and ASSUME the law has been broken. Without a perpetrator you lack the physical evidence and cannot prove anyone did in fact break that WRITTEN law. When a suspect cannot be found and after a length of time they close the books on that specific case without charging anyone for the alleged offense. Case closed.

Leafless, you've outdone yourself with logic here. A dead body in the case of murder, or collected semen or obvious bruising in the case of rape, are enough physical evidence to prove the law has been broken.

You might not know who did it, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Edited May 30, 2008 by Melanie_

[Leafless]

Leafless, you've outdone yourself with logic here. A dead body in the case of murder, or collected semen or obvious bruising in the case of rape, are enough physical evidence to prove the law has been broken.

You might not know who did it, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I can jay walk 1000 times, or speed 1000 times and if no police authority intervenes, what law has been broken? Simply to say, to jay walk or speed is against the definition of that law does not constitute any proof a law has been broken. Only a conviction will prove the law in question has been broken.

The same applies to a victim that appears to have been murdered. You might have a corpse but if there is no perpetrator, what law has been broken?

Without a conviction, all you have is the ASSUMPTION of the definition of that law has been broken.

[peter_puck]

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/c...67-de22b25f2110

Lets face it, speeding is against the law, but no law has been broken unless one is caught in the act.

Ummm......

So in fact, with the case of radar, police are not physically establishing the fact you are speeding but depending entirely on the reading obtained electronically by radar.

Is this ethical?

It is more accurate. I have spent many minutes trying to figure out why it would not be ethical, but I have failed to come up with even a single reason.

It is certainly more ethical than the concept of undercover cops and wiretaps (not that I am saying that either of those are unethical)

[peter_puck]

On top of that I do not like the revenue generation that radar is used for. Radar ignores the fact that highway speeds can rise and fall depending on the amount of traffic.

Speed does not kill. (sudden stops do) Speed variance is the problem.

Yes, highway speeds do rise and fall, but the police account for that. For most of my adult life I have driven at least 20 Km/h over the speed limit on highways. I have been "painted" by police radar probably hundreds of times. How many tickets have I gotten ? ZERO

Why? because I drove in a sane manner, I did not weave in and out of traffic, I did not speed in snow storms, I did not tailgate. It makes me wonder what the people getting the tickets were doing.

As for speed not causing crashes - that is just silly. A car is harder to control at high speeds. It also does alot more dammage when it stops in a hurry.

[HisSelf]

I rarely speed, and when I do, it's because I wasn't paying attention and let myself be swept up with the local (ahem) enthusiasm. I don't understand speeding. To paraphrase William Shatner, "I could speed, but why?". I have been often amazed by the coniptions this causes in drivers who are stuck behind me as I putt along trying to drive at exactly the speed limit. Come on folks. At least it gives you time to check your Crackberries. LOL.

Do you get there any faster? By a minute? Two minutes? Do you think it really makes a difference?

Try obeying the law. It's a lot more peaceful. And it's cheaper too! The idea of paying big bucks for a radar detector so you can avoid speeding tickets that will cost you big bucks is just a little, well, odd...

Edited May 31, 2008 by HisSelf

[sharkman]

When you are driving on the highway at least an hour from major cities(the way most of Canada is), you do get there much sooner if you speed. 10 k over the limit means you shave off 10 k every hour and double with 20 k. On a 5 hr trip, that would be up to 100km sooner. That is one reason why people speed. Another is a habit of impatience which drives every decision they make.

It was mentioned earlier that speed does not kill. Speed variance is the problem. I agree with this, however the source of the speed variance comes from driving above a safe speed for the conditions and then having to slam on your brakes for the invariable normal slow down. Or an activity which divides your short attention span such as talking on the cell(or some of the more idiotic activities such as shaving, putting on make up or eating cereal while driving, all witnessed by the author of an article I read in the last couple of years) and missing the normal slow down warning signs.

Removing speed variance from the equation is not realistic, so driving carefully is the only option. And as with those under the influence of pot or booze, many innocent people also pay with their lives for the selfish decisions made without thought.

Edited May 31, 2008 by sharkman

[HisSelf]

When you are driving on the highway at least an hour from major cities(the way most of Canada is), you do get there much sooner if you speed. 10 k over the limit means you shave off 10 k every hour and double with 20 k. On a 5 hr trip, that would be up to 100km sooner. That is one reason why people speed.

My comments were related to city driving. I don't speed in the country as well, but you have a point. Maybe what we need are more situational speed limits. More expensive, unfortunately, because they are harder to enforce, to legislate, and to communicate to drivers. Is it really more efficient? Would be a good transportation study.

[Kitchener]

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/c...67-de22b25f2110

Isn't this what radar detectors are meant for is to encourage good driving habits when confronted with police bouncing an electronic signal off of your private vehicle.

No. Obviously they are meant to help people get away with breaking the law.

no law has been broken unless one is caught in the act.

FTA Lawyer's question marks basically say it all here.

with the case of radar, police are not physically establishing the fact you are speeding but depending entirely on the reading obtained electronically by radar.

Radar isn't physical?

Publish the paper; you'll be the most famous physicist in the world.

Is this ethical?

Yes.

[Leafless]

No. Obviously they are meant to help people get away with breaking the law.

No radar detectors do not help drivers break the law.

They help drivers avoid being CONVICTED of breaking the law.

Therefore, if you are not convicted you are not legally proven breaking any law.

FTA Lawyer's question marks basically say it all here.

If FTA chooses to employ personal opinion over legal consequence of breaking a law, that is his option.

An opinion carries no legal weight, a conviction does.

Radar isn't physical?

In the sense of how speed of a vehicle is computed with or without human intervention.

I.E.- Speed detected, for instance, by a police aircraft involves an officer manually calculating your speed by physically actuating some sort of timing device vs. radar or laser that electronically, automatically via computer, computes your speed.

Let us not over complicate matters.

[eyeball]

I rarely speed, and when I do, it's because I wasn't paying attention and let myself be swept up with the local (ahem) enthusiasm. I don't understand speeding. To paraphrase William Shatner, "I could speed, but why?". I have been often amazed by the coniptions this causes in drivers who are stuck behind me as I putt along trying to drive at exactly the speed limit. Come on folks. At least it gives you time to check your Crackberries. LOL.

Do you get there any faster? By a minute? Two minutes? Do you think it really makes a difference?

Try obeying the law. It's a lot more peaceful. And it's cheaper too! The idea of paying big bucks for a radar detector so you can avoid speeding tickets that will cost you big bucks is just a little, well, odd...

If I know I'm perfectly capable of driving faster than the posted speed limit then it doesn't take long for my frustration to build if I'm impeded. I live in a very rural area and I often encounter little if any traffic on the way to work. Our highway is fairly curved so only a few passing opprtunities exist. I've been driving the same road for nearly 30 years and I know it like the back of my hand and if the conditions are good I'll often toodle along at 30 kms over the posted speed limit. Occasionally I'll come across somone who insists on driving the speed limit and typically I blow on past them. Sometimes however I'll come across two or more cars that are maintaining the speed limit. This is not a problem if the cars ahead of me leave sufficient space to pass them one at a time but if they all bunch up close to one another...the phrase lead, follow or get the hell out of my way quickly springs to mind and I find myself passing two three and even four cars at a time.

Its not surprising to often find the slowpokes speed up to match my speed when this happens. I guess they must be thinking to themselves that it'll be safe for them to speed now because it'll be me who gets caught by the radar trap.

People are sure funny animals.

Edited June 1, 2008 by eyeball

[Kitchener]

Obviously they are meant to help people get away with breaking the law.

No radar detectors do not help drivers break the law.

Sometimes it feels like this whole website is populated with people who read every tenth word and then fill in what they wish the post had said.

They help drivers avoid being CONVICTED of breaking the law.

After have broken it, yes. Like wearing gloves helps a murderer get away with breaking the law.

Or is murder too not a crime unless you get caught?

Speed detected, for instance, by a police aircraft involves an officer manually calculating your speed by physically actuating some sort of timing device vs. radar or laser that electronically, automatically via computer, computes your speed.

The fact that you think that electrons aren't physical, or that a computer isn't "a timing device", does not make radar unethical. It just means you don't have much of a clue.

[Leafless]

Sometimes it feels like this whole website is populated with people who read every tenth word and then fill in what they wish the post had said.

After have broken it, yes. Like wearing gloves helps a murderer get away with breaking the law.

What legal authority do you posses to determine that another citizen has broken a law?

Or is murder too not a crime unless you get caught?

According to the books it is a criminal offense to murder.

But no crime has been committed until a suspect is charged and proven guilty of breaking that written offense.

The fact that you think that electrons aren't physical, or that a computer isn't "a timing device", does not make radar unethical. It just means you don't have much of a clue.

It means you don't have a clue, that picking ANY KIND of a transmitted frequency out of public air space should not be considered a crime, unless you believe Canada is a communist regime.

[Wilber]

They are legal in BC. I've owned a couple of them but haven't used one for several years. If I'm going to stick something on the inside of my windshield a GPS is far more useful. Radar detectors really are of limited value. They work well with the constant on sets the police often use while driving their cars but these are old technology and will eventually be replaced. They are not very useful against the instant on radars or laser guns that police most often use in radar traps. In that case your only chance of detecting them without getting caught is if they happen to zap someone else when your detector is in range. Anyone who thinks that they are safe from getting caught because they have a radar detector is living in a fools paradise.

Stay within 10 K of the limit and no worries, 15 K and the most that will probably happen is a slow down signal from the cop, school zones and playgrounds excepted as they should be. I have no patience for people who speed in residential areas which is all too common around here. I can't believe how many people think it is okay to do 80 K down someone else's front street.