| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6060
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:28 am Post subject: I run amok with a gun |
 |
|
I've discovered that one of the "funnest" things you can do on a Sunday is scare the snot out of some idiot doing 110KPH in a 60KPH zone, by triggering his radar detector.
I know I've mentioned it before but why on earth aren't we spending a few grand on littering black-spots with spoof radars that trigger detectors and cause those with them to slow down to the legal limit?
If central government isn't interested, perhaps there are schools who'd like to invest in such a device to protect their kids from idiots who speed past their gates every morning and afternoon while children are about.
Or maybe various councils (especially those of small towns who are on busy state-highways) might find such devices a very low-cost way of improving the safety of their roads.
I guess it's better to keep the nation's coffers filled by simply taxing speedsters than invest in technology that actually stops them from speeding in the first place.
Personally, I find that a rather sad indictment on what our governments have become -- focused more on revenues than actually protecting the people they serve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mopymoose
Joined: 11 Apr 2008
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
The problem is all the "speed-racer" wannabe muppets will be randomly breaking all over the State Highways for no obvious reason.
Even worse, they'll soon learn where the 'fakies' are and keep thier speed on and some other muppet up front will slam on the anchors resulting in an accident.
Same goes for schools. Mr Merc will just ignore the radar wanrings around schools as 'hell mate, they're just fake anyway'.
What they should do is reduce the monetary fine and increase both the demerit points and the penalty for being caught driving without a valid licence. Also crank down on the "allowed to drive for your job" licence which is used as a nice little get my licence back for some of the day trick, especially by people who are on call.
The problem is that speeding fines are really a speeding tax. People weigh up the cost of speeding against thier _need_ to save 5 minutes on thier journey. Fineing people is all well and good by why not actaully just take away the privelege of driving, its not a right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6060
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mopymoose wrote: | The problem is all the "speed-racer" wannabe muppets will be randomly breaking all over the State Highways for no obvious reason.
Even worse, they'll soon learn where the 'fakies' are and keep thier speed on and some other muppet up front will slam on the anchors resulting in an accident. |
That would be true -- except that now and then you replace the fake radar with a real cop and radar-gun. That way you *catch* even those with radar detectors because they don't slow down -- figuring it's just the fake signal.
After bing pinged a few tines and losing their license (through demerit points) they'll soon get the message.
Right now, these people are probably evading the penalties because their detector alerts them to the cop and they slow down before getting pinged. With some decoy radars out there, they'll never know if it's real or not so they'll have to slow down every time or get pinged from time to time.
| Quote: | | Same goes for schools. Mr Merc will just ignore the radar wanrings around schools as 'hell mate, they're just fake anyway'. |
Until a real cop turns up and catches Mr Merc who gets the shock of his life.
| Quote: | | What they should do is reduce the monetary fine and increase both the demerit points and the penalty for being caught driving without a valid licence. Also crank down on the "allowed to drive for your job" licence which is used as a nice little get my licence back for some of the day trick, especially by people who are on call. |
The problem is that if you've got a Merc, you've probably got heaps of dosh to pay a stiff fine.
You're right about the dispensation that allows most folks to get a license because of work commitments. Chances are that Mr Merc is self-employed and can come up with a very convincing argument to prove that he needs his license back from 6am to 6pm.
| Quote: | | The problem is that speeding fines are really a speeding tax. |
Exactly my point. So long as there are very healthy revenues to be garnished from those who speed, there's far less incentive for government to actually *stop* people from speeding.
Let's face it -- the government would be out a fair whack of dosh if we all suddenly started travelling at or below the posted limits and you can *bet* your bottom dollar that they'd come up with ways of recovering that lost revenue by hiking other fines to compensate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 2355
Location: Dunedin
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What about attaching a radar gun to some sort of remote controlled flying device rather than fixing it. That would get a few speedsters thinking about where they might be pinged. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6060
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter wrote: | | What about attaching a radar gun to some sort of remote controlled flying device rather than fixing it. That would get a few speedsters thinking about where they might be pinged. |
What a great idea Peter -- I can sell you the flying device *and* the radar 
Are you trying to promote my wares or something?
Actually, with the low-cost of these things you could just leave them permanently installed (and they could be kept covert, built into power-cabinets, atop power-poles, in street-signs or whatever).
Stick them at the worst black-spots and the speeders will never know for sure if it's a real cop or just a decoy radar so they'll have no option but to slow down because their radar detector has effectively been rendered useless.
I was thinking of just sitting down on the side of the road where SH1 passes through Tokoroa and pinging the people that are obviously speeding.
And then I realised that if I did ping someone with a detector, and they then had an accident as a result of braking hard or otherwise trying to avoid what they thought was a radar -- under NZ's loopy PC laws I'd probably be prosecuted for contributory negligence since it was my pinging that precipitated the crash.
What do you reckon -- what are the chances that'd be the case? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6060
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sorry to anyone contemplating buying my radar gun, it's already sold through the "Buy Now" option on TradeMe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uKoda
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 238
Location: Auckland
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was thinking about this very idea but for a different reason. On my street fast moving cars make quite distinctive sound and at least two or three times a week it's the police that are speeding. Not just a bit like most most motorist but really hauling. My guess they are frequently travelling at 80 to 100KPH or more which is why I was thinking it would be nice to find out just how fast are they going. Clearly if there is risk to person's life then the speed can be justified as a simple risk trade off but suspect in some cases the level speed could not be justified.
A case in point. I'm driving home and motorcycle passes me at speed. Faster than I though was safe and worthy of a ticket, but not an insane speed. I wasn't concerned for my safety as the mass of his bike at 30KPH more than I was travelling would not have risked my life, just my panel work. He was staying on his side of the road so a head on was not too likely. However the 4 police cars that passed me some minutes later was unnerving as if one of those had hit me all bets would have been off and they were having to cross the centre line. When I got home I listened to the chase on my scanner. In the 5 minutes it took me to get home the bike had travelled from Glenfield to Albany with only the police chopper able to follow it. The guy ditched and when in a house. It took close to 5 minutes for the first patrol to arrive. I have heard a few bike chases now and it's often the same result. Bike stops and 5 minutes later the police arrive because the chopper has been watching.
My point? To their credit the police actively avoid contact or road spikes with motorcycles but it is plain dangerous to chase them in cars. It's the police cars that put the public at risk as they are way lower performance a higher mass, a lethal combination and when you have mobs of them it increases the odds of a bad outcome for the public. Once the helicopter has a visual on the bike the cars should not be allow to speed any more as it then make little difference to the out come of apprehension but would make a huge difference to public safety. The hero here is not the adrenaline pumped cop behind the wheel but rather the helicopter. Given it's the once which makes our road more safe, not less safe, then that's the way to go.
I have heard it costs $2K an hour to run a helicopter so there has to be a real opportunity for a UAVs to do the same job so a fraction of the cost. If you take the cost of a cop car and two officers a UAV should be cost effective even before looking at the cost of running a helicopter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6060
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| uKoda wrote: | | I have heard it costs $2K an hour to run a helicopter so there has to be a real opportunity for a UAVs to do the same job so a fraction of the cost. If you take the cost of a cop car and two officers a UAV should be cost effective even before looking at the cost of running a helicopter. |
One of the big problems with operating UAVs right now is that of CAA regulations. There pretty much aren't any at the moment but there are plans to draft some up.
Unfortunately, the initial proposals look absolutely ridiculous.
For example, they want all "certified" UAV pilots to hold a commercial pilot's licence.
What?
Controlling a UAV is a totally different skillset and has little relationship to flying a full-sized aircraft for commercial purposes.
Indeed, I often marvel that whenever I offer a full-size pilot a fly of an RC model, they are often less capable than those with no flying experience at all. There's a *huge* difference between flying by the seat of your pants or instruments and flying from an external perspective.
Even the Geospatial Research Center (who have had $2m of taxpayer funding to develop UAV technology -- but to date have not demonstrated any autonomous flight after more than 18 months work, despite having a huge staff) use a RC model flier in preference to a commercial pilot to fly their test-craft.
(It's nice that the government chooses to tilt the playing-field so steeply against independent UAV developers like myself by "picking winners" in this way don't you think?)
But I digress...
The biggest problem we face right now with flying UAVs in airspace shared by full-sized helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft is that of collision avoidance. If a full-sized pilot doesn't see a UAV and the UAV is simply following a pre-programmed course the results could be disastrous.
This is one or the reasons that I've invested a lot of time in the field of collision-avoidance radar systems. It's now possible to detect another craft in the air and automatically have the UAV take evasive action to avoid collision.
Unfortunately, aviation law is a bit like copyright law and it'll probably always lag several years behind the technology associated with UAVs.
Until the two get in sync, we'll only see small, low-mass, slow-flying UAVs anywhere near a built-up area.
In the USA, one county sheriff's department started using tiny hand-launched UAVs to monitor crime-scenes and traffic but they got shot down by the FAA who threatened to prosecute them for violating the rules that forbid the commercial use of UAVs over built-up areas.
Trust bureaucrats to kick a good idea in the guts  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uKoda
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 238
Location: Auckland
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bruce Simpson wrote: |
One of the big problems with operating UAVs right now is that of CAA regulations. There pretty much aren't any at the moment but there are plans to draft some up.
Unfortunately, the initial proposals look absolutely ridiculous.
For example, they want all "certified" UAV pilots to hold a commercial pilot's licence.
|
The problem with governments and common sense is that it's not that common.
| Bruce Simpson wrote: |
The biggest problem we face right now with flying UAVs in airspace shared by full-sized helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft is that of collision avoidance. If a full-sized pilot doesn't see a UAV and the UAV is simply following a pre-programmed course the results could be disastrous.
|
I seem recall that real aircraft are not allowed to operate below a certain altitude over built up areas and models, in turn had a ceiling they must operate below and in that situation did not fall under the CAA regulations. So where is the problem? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kc
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 296
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:05 pm Post subject: Re: I run amok with a gun |
|
|
| Bruce Simpson wrote: | | I've discovered that one of the "funnest" things you can do on a Sunday is scare the snot out of some idiot doing 110KPH in a 60KPH zone, by triggering his radar detector. |
It's a shame you weren't a police office. 40Kph over the limit is (I believe) an instant driving ban these days. And at that speed they'd probably take your car away from you for a while too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6060
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:09 pm Post subject: Re: I run amok with a gun |
|
|
| kc wrote: | | It's a shame you weren't a police office. 40Kph over the limit is (I believe) an instant driving ban these days. And at that speed they'd probably take your car away from you for a while too. |
No wonder he looked so worried |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uKoda
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 238
Location: Auckland
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:21 pm Post subject: Re: I run amok with a gun |
|
|
| kc wrote: |
It's a shame you weren't a police office. 40Kph over the limit is (I believe) an instant driving ban these days. And at that speed they'd probably take your car away from you for a while too. |
My understanding is it is now reduced to 30KPH, or will be soon. I notice there seems to very little notification of such fundamental changes! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbwhite
Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 95
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:58 pm Post subject: Of things Police & Radars |
|
|
Of course you could simply adopt the NSW approach - make radar detectors illegal and confiscate the cars from boy racers...
...but that still fails to reduce the road toll or stop speeders...
What irks me the most is the pure revenue collection approach of the speed enforcers... Fixed speed cameras on freeways you could land a jumbo jet on....Radar and laser traps on clear open roads and freeways where no real risk exists....and then I see mums who try to break the land speed record in 40 kph school zones...with three kids strapped (sometimes terrified) in the backseat....and not a cop in sight.
The world is truly crazy and dummy radar traps are probably a start.
A number of years ago the Queensland Police used cardoard cutouts of Police cars placed at blackspots. That certainly worked to slow folks down....until they got used to them.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kc
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 296
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:03 pm Post subject: Re: Of things Police & Radars |
|
|
| kbwhite wrote: | Of course you could simply adopt the NSW approach - make radar detectors illegal and confiscate the cars from boy racers...
|
Our government is one step ahead of you. They've already done this - though the act has not yet come into effect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kc
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 296
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: Re: I run amok with a gun |
|
|
| uKoda wrote: |
My understanding is it is now reduced to 30KPH, or will be soon. I notice there seems to very little notification of such fundamental changes! |
Not wanting to sound high and mighty or anything but I'm not sure this is correct. It might be...so I went digging.
Found the following in the Land Transport Act 1998 No 110 (as at 1st Oct 2007):
Section 95:
Mandatory 28-day suspension of driver licence in certain circumstances
...
(c) driven a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding—
(i) the applicable permanent posted speed limit by more than 40 km an hour (which speed was detected by a means other than approved vehicle surveillance equipment); or
(ii) any other speed limit by more than 50 km an hour (which speed was detected by a means other than approved vehicle surveillance equipment).
I havent looked up what constitutes a piece "approved vehicle surveillance equipment" but I'm guessing a "speed gun" is one. So from that, I think you'd have to be doing 50kph over the limit. I'm a bit confused as to how "c" part (i) can be enforced without using "approved equipment". Wouldnt the argument become a bit "he said, she said...." stuff? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uKoda
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 238
Location: Auckland
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: Re: I run amok with a gun |
|
|
| kc wrote: | | uKoda wrote: |
My understanding is it is now reduced to 30KPH, or will be soon. I notice there seems to very little notification of such fundamental changes! |
Not wanting to sound high and mighty or anything but I'm not sure this is correct. It might be...so I went digging.
|
My source of information was a velocity tax collector who was gathering revenue from me last year and it a legally known fact such person would never lie!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zippity
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:13 pm Post subject: You made a great sale |
|
|
US $69.95 according to Link
[Edit by Greg] Link condensed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian O
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 1015
Location: Christchurch
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:48 am Post subject: Not necessarily |
|
|
| mopymoose wrote: |
Even worse, they'll soon learn where the 'fakies' are and keep thier speed on and some other muppet up front will slam on the anchors resulting in an accident.
Same goes for schools. Mr Merc will just ignore the radar wanrings around schools as 'hell mate, they're just fake anyway'.
|
Not necessarily. The trick is to have them concealed and on a random timer so Mr Merc is never sure exactly where it is. Moving them around would also enforce the climate of uncertainty.
At US$200 communities could afford to buy them and spread a little of their own FUD.
In fact it would be interesting to see whether the Constabulary's reaction. If they tried to ban them on some flimsy pretext it would reinforce the belief that speed fines are designed for revenue gathering.
As to some other muppet slamming on the anchors, whatever happened to 'duty of care'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bruce Simpson
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 6060
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: Re: Not necessarily |
|
|
| Ian O wrote: | | As to some other muppet slamming on the anchors, whatever happened to 'duty of care'? |
An interesting questions.
One of the *very* few accidents I've ever been involved in was when I was just 18 or so. I was driving (quite slowly) past a picture theatre when the crowds were coming out and stopped because it looked as if some kids were going to run out onto the road.
The car behind me rammed me (doing quite a bit of damage).
A cop happened by while the other driver and I were discussing the situation.
The cop said he wouldn't charge us but if he had, we'd both be ticketed. The other driver for failing to being able to stop within half the visible distance and me because I'd stopped on road without reasonable cause to do so.
I was not happy -- had to pay for my own repairs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hans
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 57
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I had a good laugh after reading about the guy in the Merc getting a scare after you pinged him with a radar. It's a pity that you couldn't charge the idiot. I thought that the radar detectors already were illegal. I can't see a legal reason for using them. If you're not going to speed, why would you have one?
Regarding the UAV laws, I hope that they remain sane, as I'm interested in this field of research. Obviously there needs to be some kind of regulation if they're going to fly within built-up areas, but wouldn't that have more to do with the autonomous mode? I'd be more concerned about a UAV's ability to avoid collisions if radio contact were lost than pilot error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
