kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) (05/08/89)
I am seriously annoyed by the silly 100 kph speed limit on the 401. I have considered using a radar detector, but from what I've heard so far (if you get caught): - the radar detector gets confiscated - you get nailed with a fine for using one - you get nailed for speeding - you get demerit points - your insurance rates go up What have your experiences been with radar detectors? Can police stop you (if you're not speeding) if they see a radar detector sitting on your dash? What are the relevant laws? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.edu Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
wheels@mks.UUCP (Gerry Wheeler) (05/08/89)
In article <9556@watcgl.waterloo.edu>, kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) writes: > I have considered using a radar detector, but from what I've heard so > far (if you get caught): > ... > Can police stop > you (if you're not speeding) if they see a radar detector sitting on > your dash? What are the relevant laws? My understanding, not necessarily correct, is that the transport of a radar detector is illegal in Ontario. That is, you can't carry one from here to there, not even in your trunk, not even if it is not connected. Visitors from more liberal places have been advised to leave their detector at home, or check it some place before they enter the province. If that is so, then I would guess the police could certainly pull you over if they see one on your dashboard. I know for certain they will pull you over if they see you respond when they trigger the radar gun. (I.E. they are travelling with no radar, then they trigger the radar and watch for brake lights. If you brake, you lose.) This information comes directly from a friend's brother, who is a police officer. -- Gerry Wheeler Phone: (519)884-2251 Mortice Kern Systems Inc. UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!wheels 35 King St. North BIX: join mks Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9 CompuServe: 73260,1043
bmacintyre@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Blair MacIntyre) (05/08/89)
In article <9556@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) writes: >What have your experiences been with radar detectors? Can police stop >you (if you're not speeding) if they see a radar detector sitting on >your dash? What are the relevant laws? Gee ... you don't watch enough TV ... just put a hat over it!!! :-) ( well, it works in the movies, and we all know how much they emulate real life!!! :-) Blair -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-///-= = Blair MacIntyre, bmacintyre@watcgl.{waterloo.edu, UWaterloo.ca} \\\/// = = now appearing at the Computer Graphics Lab, U of Waterloo! \XX/ = = "Don't be mean ... remember, no matter where you go, there you are." BBanzai=
soley@moegate.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (05/08/89)
First off I've directed follow-ups to rec.autos in the vain hope that this "discussion" will go there and stay there. In article <9556@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) writes: >I am seriously annoyed by the silly 100 kph speed limit on the 401. I >have considered using a radar detector, but from what I've heard so >far (if you get caught): > > - the radar detector gets confiscated > - you get nailed with a fine for using one > - you get nailed for speeding > - you get demerit points > - your insurance rates go up All of the above. I've had the pleasure of witnessing what happens to your confiscated radar detector (hint: it involves a sledgehammer). There are a number of practical reasons why you wouldn't want to bother with a radar detector, first off it's real easy for a cop to spot someone with a detector, some of the newest radar units the police have can even detect them. Once caught with a radar detector you can bet your boots the cop will go over your car with a fine toothed comb looking for the slightest infraction. Secondly it's also pretty easy for the police to set up a radar trap that won't set off your detector, radar detectors rely on the fact that you can detect the beam long before the machine can make a reliable reading, in the modern radar units the beam is much more tightly focused than it used to be, this eliminates 'phantom' readings and allows the officer to specifically pinpoint the vehicle the reading came from, so if the radar is pointed at an angle across the road, or set up just after a curve in the road your radar detector won't go off until you're already in range for a reading (this is why you'll often see OPP cruisers in the median at a 45 degree angle to the roadway), Thirdly an increasing number of the units out there only broadcast when the officer pushes a button to take a reading, against these your detector would only work if you got lucky and were in the path of the beam when someone else got a reading taken. So in other words if you buy a radar detector chances are the only thing it will do is beep when you've already been caught ($300 bucks for a box that will beep to tell me I've lost my licence, I'll buy that) >What have your experiences been with radar detectors? Can police stop >you (if you're not speeding) if they see a radar detector sitting on >your dash? You bet they can, they cannot randomly stop you and search for hidden units unless you exhibit behavior consistant with having one, but having it sitting right out on the dash is certianly probable cause (it's too bad we don't have laws against criminal stupidity, as that would apply too) I've tried to hold my tounge but don't think I can any longer so, zippo in hand it's time to FLAME ON: Ownership and operation of a radar detector is illegal, if you want to break the law in this fashion that's between you and the officer who WILL catch you. However it's extremely rude to say the least for you think that it's appropriate for you to expose system owners and administrators to the potential dangers you just have by using their systems to discuss an illegal activity, there are laws which prohibit use of communications systems (i.e. the phone lines) for illegal activities, although it's unlikely anyone would bother trying to enforce them in this case, and more importantly it can adversely affect the careers or professional image of the system administrators. When I brought USENET into my organization I accepted a certian amount of risk, but I felt the benefits were well worth that risk, but as SA I also have the right to minimize my risk by not carrying groups where such risk is high (like alt.drugs). You could have, through careful wording, asked the same question and gotten the same answers without making it obvious that you were intending to commit a crime. You've now made every ont.general reader guilty of conspiracy, and I think we deserve an apology!. FLAME OFF: Whew! -- Norman Soley - The Communications Guy - Ontario Ministry of the Environment Until the next maps go out: moegate!soley@ontenv.UUCP if you roll your own: uunet!{attcan!ncrcan|mnetor!ontmoh}!ontenv!moegate!soley I'd like to try golf but I just can't bring myself to buy a pair of plaid pants
hazela@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Jose Reynaldo Setti) (05/08/89)
In article <9556@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) writes: >I am seriously annoyed by the silly 100 kph speed limit on the 401. I ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It seems to me that MTO data collections show that the average speed on 401 is over 100km/h. I am not sure about that value, but 110km/h is what comes to my mind. So, if you just follow the traffic speed you'll be going over the speed limit and unless the OPP decides to generate the world's biggest traffic jam they won't stop and fine some 3,000 drivers/hour... /jrs
landolt@yunexus.UUCP (Paul Landolt) (05/08/89)
In article <9556@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) writes: >I have considered using a radar detector, but from what I've heard so >far (if you get caught): > > - the radar detector gets confiscated Yup > - you get nailed with a fine for using one Yup > - you get nailed for speeding Yup, if you were speeding :) > - you get demerit points Again, if you were convicted of a Moving violation (posessing a radar detector does not, to my knowledge, fall into this catagory) > - your insurance rates go up Definitely! It goes on your PERMANENT record that you were caught with a radar detector. Having one means that you are making a deliberate effort to avoid being caught exceeding the limit. The insurance people hate this. >What have your experiences been with radar detectors? Can police stop >you (if you're not speeding) if they see a radar detector sitting on >your dash? What are the relevant laws? From what I know, if the police suspoect you are currently operating a radar detector, they may pull you over. They may NOT search your vehicle or your person unless you are in clear violation of the law. Mind you, if they see one of those little remote receivers, then I think they can rip the car apart until they find the main detection unit. Real fun, eh? -- Really: J. Paul Landolt | Some of us are born unto greatness, INTERNET: LANDOLT@Nexus.YorkU.CA | Others see no problem with swiping it! "The opinions expressed are mine. Don't blame the boss. She only hired me"
sarathy@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Rajiv Sarathy) (05/08/89)
In article <9556@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) writes: >I am seriously annoyed by the silly 100 kph speed limit on the 401. I >have considered using a radar detector, but from what I've heard so >far (if you get caught): > > - the radar detector gets confiscated > - you get nailed with a fine for using one > - you get nailed for speeding > - you get demerit points > - your insurance rates go up > >What have your experiences been with radar detectors? Can police stop >you (if you're not speeding) if they see a radar detector sitting on >your dash? What are the relevant laws? First of all, I don't think that this is the correct forum for a discussion of this type, so I've said follow-ups go to rec.autos (and changed the distribution to Ontario, because someone in California wouldn't really wan't to know about driving rules in Ontario). Secondly, not only "can they stop you (if you're not speeding) if they see a radar detector sitting on your dash", but they have now completed testing a new device which can be dubbed a "radar detector detector". As the dubbing implies, it gives the officer a signal if there's a vehicle with a radar detector installed -- on OR off! The device works by sending a particular frequency which causes the crystal in all radar detectors to resonate at a frequency which it (the detector detector) can detect. By pointing it in different directions, the officer can 'hone in' on a detector. Relevant laws? The Radio Act (I think that's what it's called) says that all frequencies are the Queen's property, and she grants you free access to certain (radio, television, wireless telephone) frequencies only. You must apply to receive ANY other frequency. Thus ALL scanners (the ones which can receive police, ambulance, etc.) signals are illegal, as are radar detectors. You must also apply for transmitting at ANY frequency (including radio and television). Thus, the police in Ontario have licences to broadcast and receive the frequencies that radar detectors use. However, the Transport and Communication Canada will not grant anyone else a licence to receive these signals. This brings up the question of enforcement. In Ontario, Quebec, and most Atlantic provinces, the provincial police (I guess the RCMP in the Atlantic prov's) enforce the law. In BC and Alta., nobody is enforcing the law, allowing anyone to use radar detectors there. I don't know what's happening in Manitoba. However, anywhere in Canada, no agency is going to charge you if you're using a scanner to receive police, ambulance, or aircraft frequencies, as long as you're not doing it for a commercial purpose. (ie. tow-truck operators are not allowed to receive police frequencies in order to rush to scenes of accidents before the police arrive to investigate). -- _____________________________________________________________________________ | Disclaimer: I'm just an undergrad. All views and opinions are therefore _ | | my own. /\ /\ /-----------------------------------oO(_)| | / \ / \ / NetNorth: sarathy@utorgpu | | Rajiv Partha Sarathy / \/ \/ sarathy@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca | | --------------------/ {uunet!attcan mnetor att pyramid}!utgpu!sarathy | |_____________________________________________________________________________|
lrbartram@watcgl.waterloo.edu (lyn bartram) (05/09/89)
In article <5880@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> hazela@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Jose Reynaldo Setti) writes: > >It seems to me that MTO data collections show that the average speed >on 401 is over 100km/h. I am not sure about that value, but 110km/h >is what comes to my mind. So, if you just follow the traffic speed >you'll be going over the speed limit and unless the OPP decides to >generate the world's biggest traffic jam they won't stop and fine >some 3,000 drivers/hour... Just so you don't fall into the trap of thinking "If he does something wrong, that means i can ...": the OPP can and will stop *anyone* for exceeding the legal speeding limit, and that could be you doing 120/kph while everyone else is doing 140. In practice, i drive the 401 regularly between KW and Montreal at an average 120/kph (faster in Quebec, of course) and have never been stopped in the past 10 years.
kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) (05/09/89)
In article <907@mks.UUCP> wheels@mks.UUCP (Gerry Wheeler) writes: >My understanding, not necessarily correct, is that the transport of a >radar detector is illegal in Ontario. That is, you can't carry one from >here to there, not even in your trunk, not even if it is not connected. >Visitors from more liberal places have been advised to leave their >detector at home, or check it some place before they enter the province. >If that is so, then I would guess the police could certainly pull you >over if they see one on your dashboard. A friend of mine doubts this line of reasoning. He says that a judge would throw the case out if you ever contested, since IF you were not exceeding the speed limit and you were not doing anything unlawful (weaving in and out), then the police officer had no reason to stop you. The justification: could the police stop ANYONE simply because they suspected they were using a radar detector? If they were empowered to do so, then they could justify stopping ANYONE, and for no particular reason... >I know for certain they will pull you over if they see you respond when >they trigger the radar gun. (I.E. they are travelling with no radar, >then they trigger the radar and watch for brake lights. If you brake, >you lose.) This information comes directly from a friend's brother, who >is a police officer. Aha! Radar detector technique tips! Yes, I knew that they sometimes do this randomly. Since the police do this, I would then assume that they are legally able to stop you for use of a radar detector (and thus my friend's above reasoning is invalidated). Aside: a police officer (friend of a friend) says that a rule of thumb used is to not stop cars going less than 120 kph, although I would watch out if I were alone on a stretch of highway... -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.edu Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
hjespersen@trillium.waterloo.edu (05/09/89)
In article <9556@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) writes: >What have your experiences been with radar detectors? Can police stop >you (if you're not speeding) if they see a radar detector sitting on >your dash? What are the relevant laws? Be careful. Waterloo cops use instant-on radar all the time. I learned it the hard way (although I managed to hide the detector and talk him out of the demerit points). Radar detectors are illegal to have in your car (even in the trunk). If you are caught, there is a fine and they take your detector away. However, considering you can get detectors for as cheap as $90 in the US, it's not long before you're back on the possitive side (not even counting insurance savings). -- Hans Jespersen
djsalomon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Daniel J. Salomon) (05/09/89)
In article <9556@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) writes: >I am seriously annoyed by the silly 100 kph speed limit on the 401. THEN STAY OFF THE 401. ---------------------- Automobile accidents are the major cause of death, brain damage, and crippling among young adults, and excessive speed is a major contributor to highway accidents. Speeders endanger their lives and the lives of everyone else on the highway. Don't buy a radar detector, just buy a gun and blow your brains out. That way you will only be killing one person. Every year there is at least one multicar pile up on the 401 because people already drive too fast there. I am seriously pissed off at brainless, macho speeders. They should require IQ tests before giving driving licenses, not just driving tests. Do I sound like someone that lost two good friends in car accidents?
jmsellens@watdragon.waterloo.edu (John M. Sellens) (05/09/89)
Radar detectors are unsportsman-like. (Excessive) speed kills.
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/09/89)
One of the reasons they make pocket radar detectors, as far as I know, is because you can hide them on your person. In some jurisdictions, the police need a much better excuse to perform a body search on your private person. (He said redundantly) Usually they have to reasonably believe you have drugs, or something. Thus if you take the pocket detector from your visor and put it in your pocket, they can't usually search your pocket. Anybody know what the rule is in Ontario? As far as I know they are allowed to search your CAR if they have reason to believe you have an illegal receiver in it, but I don't know what the rules are on your person. Seems to me it would make sense to put a sensor up under the hood, not on the dash. They look around your passenger compartment, but I have never had a cop check under the hood. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) (05/09/89)
In article <13670@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jmsellens@watdragon.waterloo.edu (John M. Sellens) writes: > >Radar detectors are unsportsman-like. I don't agree. Granted it's not full justification, but there must be something wrong with a law if most people don't adhere to it. (Or there is something wrong about the way we regard that law.) This goes for the 100 kph speed limit; and if police can use radar to enforce a law which most people do not agree with, then I feel it is fair to protect oneself by using a detector. >(Excessive) speed kills. Yup. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.edu Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) (05/09/89)
In article <13665@watdragon.waterloo.edu> djsalomon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Daniel J. Salomon) writes: >Automobile accidents are the major cause of death, brain damage, and >crippling among young adults, and excessive speed is a major contributor >to highway accidents. Speeders endanger their lives and the lives of >everyone else on the highway. Don't buy a radar detector, just buy a >gun and blow your brains out. That way you will only be killing one >person. Every year there is at least one multicar pile up on the 401 >because people already drive too fast there. I agree that *excessive* speed is a contributor to accidents. I too have seen SO many crazed maniac drivers it bugs me to no end. I believe that the essence to safe driving is to be aware of the limits of yourself, of your car, and of other drivers. >I am seriously pissed off at brainless, macho speeders. They should >require IQ tests before giving driving licenses, not just driving tests. Somehow there should be some way of determining a potential driver's attitudes with regards to safety, consideration, and just plain common sense. If such a test existed, it would encompass the problem of excessive speeding. >Do I sound like someone that lost two good friends in car accidents? ... I guess so. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.edu Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/09/89)
I know this isn't can.politics, but it's worth remembering that amongst the worst kind of laws are the laws that everybody breaks. They make everybody a lawbreaker or scofflaw, and that means that effectively any citizen can be stopped by the police any time the police feel like it. Who comes to a full stop, for example? Nobody. So if the police feel like pulling you over, they can, any time. What judge would trust your word over an officer's that you didn't come to a full stop. The JUDGE never comes to a full stop, I'll bet. I will bet he speeds, too, as do the cops, on and off duty. We do have some laws that prohibit the police from abusing this, but it's very hard to prove. It also creates general disrespect for the law. All in all it's a very bad thing. In some police states, they make sure that everybody not only breaks the HTA, but the criminal code as well. It makes it very easy to get political prisoners on criminal charges. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
landolt@yunexus.UUCP (Paul Landolt) (05/09/89)
In article <907@mks.UUCP> wheels@mks.UUCP (Gerry Wheeler) writes: > >I know for certain they will pull you over if they see you respond when >they trigger the radar gun. (I.E. they are travelling with no radar, >then they trigger the radar and watch for brake lights. If you brake, >you lose.) This information comes directly from a friend's brother, who >is a police officer. I was under the impression that trying to pick out someone with a radar detector using this method was entrapment. -- Really: J. Paul Landolt | Some of us are born unto greatness, INTERNET: LANDOLT@Nexus.YorkU.CA | Others see no problem with swiping it! "The opinions expressed are mine. Don't blame the boss. She only hired me"
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/09/89)
In article <13665@watdragon.waterloo.edu> djsalomon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Daniel J. Salomon) writes: >I am seriously pissed off at brainless, macho speeders. They should >require IQ tests before giving driving licenses, not just driving tests. Sounds like a good idea to me: let only the truly competent drivers onto the road... and then let them drive at any speed they like! Before the great 55 Mania hit the US, there were several states whose daytime speed limit was "a reasonable and safe speed". Literally; no numeric limit at all. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
dgibbs@bnr-fos.UUCP (David Gibbs) (05/09/89)
In article <3215@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: other stuff deleted >Seems to me it would make sense to put a sensor up under the hood, not on >the dash. They look around your passenger compartment, but I have never >had a cop check under the hood. >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 The problem with putting the radar detector under the hood, is that the radar detector is then sitting surrounded by metal, which radio waves tend to bounce off. (This is how the cop detects your car.) The reason the detectors are commonly put on the dash, is this leaves the detector surrounded by glass, rather than metal, so the radio waves can actually get to the detector in order to be detected. Also, it is kind of hard to hear the warning if the detector is under the hood of the car, unless the warning is awful loud, in which case someone might get suspiscious. (I guess pocket might work ok.) -David (dgibbs@bnr-fos.UUCP)
kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) (05/10/89)
In article <294@moegate.UUCP> soley@moegate.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) writes: >First off I've directed follow-ups to rec.autos in the vain hope that this >"discussion" will go there and stay there. > > [technical stuff deleted] > >Ownership and operation of a radar detector is illegal, if you want to break >the law in this fashion that's between you and the officer who WILL catch you. >However it's extremely rude to say the least for you think that it's appropriate >for you to expose system owners and administrators to the potential dangers >you just have by using their systems to discuss an illegal activity, there are >laws which prohibit use of communications systems (i.e. the phone lines) for >illegal activities > [some ranting deleted] >You could have, >through careful wording, asked the same question and gotten the same answers >without making it obvious that you were intending to commit a crime. You've >now made every ont.general reader guilty of conspiracy, and I think we deserve >an apology!. If you will re-read my original posting carefully (this time), you will notice that NOWHERE did I express an intention to commit any crime whatsoever. Discussing "criminal" activities is not a crime in itself, I'm sure you will agree. I believe I wrote, "I *have* considered using a radar detector..." (emphasis on past tense). This is indeed the case, and I never stated anywhere that I intended to actually use one. And in any case, I have used one, back when it was still legal in Quebec. I am fully within the bounds of the law. Too bad you were unable to discern my careful wording. I think *I* deserve an apology from *YOU*. BTW: you were wrong about radar detectors only going off in you were already being clocked. They tell you when people AHEAD of you are being clocked. Read Car and Driver *carefully*. -- Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.edu Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
rsanders@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Roger K. Sanderson P.Eng.) (05/10/89)
In article <3215@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > >Anybody know what the rule is in Ontario? As far as I know they are allowed >to search your CAR if they have reason to believe you have an illegal >...<stuff deleted> >Seems to me it would make sense to put a sensor up under the hood, not on >the dash. They look around your passenger compartment, but I have never >had a cop check under the hood. I have heard the story about the Police pulling over a guy who flashed his brake lights when they zapped him with the radar gun. The cop said something to the gist of: "I know you have a Radar Detector, you can show me where it is hidden, or we can tow your car to the station and tear it aart till we find it." Sort of negates the hide-it-in-the-hood philosophy. -- Roger Sanderson P.Eng. VE3RKS : usenet: {clyde|decvax|ihnp4|tektronix|ubc-vision|utzoo}!watmath!watdcsu!rsanders bitnet: rsanders@watdcsu.UWaterloo.ca packet: VE3RKS @ VE3EUK
soley@moegate.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (05/10/89)
In article <1989May9.152855.27968@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <13665@watdragon.waterloo.edu> djsalomon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Daniel J. Salomon) writes: >>I am seriously pissed off at brainless, macho speeders. They should >>require IQ tests before giving driving licenses, not just driving tests. > >Sounds like a good idea to me: let only the truly competent drivers onto >the road... and then let them drive at any speed they like! Here! Here! I find it ironic that most people who trot out the example of the German Autobahns as justification for no speed limits probably wouldn't qualify for a drivers licence in Germany, driver testing in Germany and Great Britian is much tougher that it is here, I also believe that in some European countries they impound your car if your licence is suspended. >Before the great 55 Mania hit the US, there were several states whose >daytime speed limit was "a reasonable and safe speed". Literally; no >numeric limit at all. I was under the impression that the only state with a system like that was Nevada, hardly qualifies as "several states". -- Norman Soley - The Communications Guy - Ontario Ministry of the Environment Until the next maps go out: moegate!soley@ontenv.UUCP if you roll your own: uunet!{attcan!ncrcan|mnetor!ontmoh}!ontenv!moegate!soley I'd like to try golf but I just can't bring myself to buy a pair of plaid pants
schow@leibniz.uucp (Stanley Chow) (05/10/89)
Does anyone *know* the law as related to radar detectors? I know for a *fact* that Customs Canada does not mind you owning one. They will happily let you import one and even register one for you (as proof that you owned it before going on a trip). I have done both of these at Ontario border points. Consider also that one of the biggest manufactors of radar detectors is right here in Ontario! BELtronics, I believe. I have one of their detectors, works fine. [For the worriers, I did not say I use it in Ontario. Since I lived for several years in the states and acquired the detector and used it while I was in the states, everything is strictly on the up and up.] Consider that many (at least some) provinces do allow radar detectors. The rules may be different, but detectors are legal. Now then, would anyone like to tell me why the RCMP (or any other police force) would have the power to confiscate detectors in the trunk of a car? Stanley Chow BitNet: schow@BNR.CA BNR UUCP: ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow (613) 763-2831 ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!schow%bnr-public I am just a small cog in a big machine. I don't represent nobody.
soley@moegate.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (05/10/89)
In article <1865@yunexus.UUCP> landolt@yunexus.UUCP (Paul Landolt) writes: >In article <907@mks.UUCP> wheels@mks.UUCP (Gerry Wheeler) writes: >> >>I know for certain they will pull you over if they see you respond when >>they trigger the radar gun. (I.E. they are travelling with no radar, >>then they trigger the radar and watch for brake lights. If you brake, >>you lose.) This information comes directly from a friend's brother, who >>is a police officer. > >I was under the impression that trying to pick out someone with a >radar detector using this method was entrapment. Huh? Entrapment occurs when a police officer in some way entices or coerces one to commit a crime, hence it would be entrapment for an undercover officer to approach you to sell a radar detector then arrest you for having it, if on the other hand you approach him... There are other legal concepts which might apply in such a case, if the use of the radar gun in such a fashion were considered to be a search, then the officer should have probable cause before using the gun in such a fashion. However considering that the radar gun is a routine tool of police work you would have to prove in court that it was being used specifically as to catch illegal detectors and not for speed limit enforcement, no chance of doing that I've said it before but I'll say it again, with the current level of technology used by the OPP and most municipal forces these boxes are virtually useless and real easy to for the police to detect. In addition to the moral implications you'd be pretty stupid to shell out good money on one. -- Norman Soley - The Communications Guy - Ontario Ministry of the Environment Until the next maps go out: moegate!soley@ontenv.UUCP if you roll your own: uunet!{attcan!ncrcan|mnetor!ontmoh}!ontenv!moegate!soley I'd like to try golf but I just can't bring myself to buy a pair of plaid pants
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/10/89)
In article <1865@yunexus.UUCP> landolt@yunexus.UUCP (Paul Landolt) writes: >I was under the impression that trying to pick out someone with a >radar detector using this method was entrapment. So what? You're thinking of the USA, where the police aren't allowed to use entrapment techniques. This is Ontario, in Canada, where they are. Anyway, I don't think this would qualify as entrapment in the USA. Entrapment occurs when the police goad you into committing a crime that you might not otherwise have done on your own. In this case, all they are goading you into doing is hitting the breaks. Hardly a crime! -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
schuck@client1.DRETOR.UUCP (Mary Margaret Schuck) (05/10/89)
In article <489@bnr-fos.UUCP> dgibbs@bnr-fos.UUCP (David Gibbs) writes: >In article <3215@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > (lots of other stuff deleted) > >>Seems to me it would make sense to put a sensor up under the hood, not on >>the dash. They look around your passenger compartment, but I have never >>had a cop check under the hood. >The problem with putting the radar detector under the hood, is that >the radar detector is then sitting surrounded by metal, which radio >waves tend to bounce off. > Also, it is kind of hard to hear the warning if the detector is >under the hood of the car, unless the warning is awful loud I have a friend who owns a detector which is mounted under his hood. It is mounted as close to the dash as possible and has a remote beeper which is mounted in his heating vents. I.e. the thing goes off and lights show up in his vents along with a beeping or whatever. He was stopped once by a cop who saw his brake lights go on and either did not get the "tell me where or I'll tear your car apart" or he successfully defied it (I'm not sure which.) I do know that even with the cops knowing that he had a detector they could not prove it or do anything about it. Is it quite legal for the police to make that kind of threat? Do they have that authority? It sounds like entrapment to me too... Mary Margaret Schuck.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/10/89)
In article <295@moegate.UUCP> soley@moegate.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) writes: >>Before the great 55 Mania hit the US, there were several states whose >>daytime speed limit was "a reasonable and safe speed". Literally; no >>numeric limit at all. > >I was under the impression that the only state with a system like that was >Nevada, hardly qualifies as "several states". Conceivably it changed while I wasn't looking, but Montana was another "reasonable and safe" state when I was a kid -- we vacationed there at one time, and my father liked the speed limit :-) -- and I seem to recall seeing a table with three or four such states in it. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
djsalomon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Daniel J. Salomon) (05/11/89)
OK I'm sick of hearing from speeders who think that driving should be a bigger thrill than playing video games. Speed if you want. Just stop sending me mail.
john@trigraph.UUCP (John Chew) (05/11/89)
In article <295@moegate.UUCP> soley@moegate.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) writes: >I find it ironic that most people who trot out the example of the German >Autobahns as justification for no speed limits probably wouldn't qualify >for a drivers licence in Germany, driver testing in Germany and Great Britian >is much tougher that it is here, I also believe that in some European countries >they impound your car if your licence is suspended. Careful about your wording there. I know of people who have a driver's licence in Germany, but who would never qualify for a German driver's licence. They are mostly young males who have come to North America and stayed for as long as necessary (some number of months) to get a local driver's permit, picked up an international license and gone home to wreak havoc on the Autobahn. North America does have a reputation for being a place where everyone has a driver's licence, whether they are a qualified driver or not. A few years ago, my mom finally went out and got her licence, even though she'll probably never need or want to drive a car, just because she was tired of people looking at her funny when they asked her for a licence as ID and she'd say she didn't drive. John -- john j. chew, iii phone: +1 416 425 3818 AppleLink: CDA0329 trigraph, inc., toronto, canada {uunet!utai!utcsri,utgpu,utzoo}!trigraph!john dept. of math., u. of toronto poslfit@{utorgpu.bitnet,gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca}
jeff@censor.UUCP (Jeff Hunter) (05/11/89)
In article <9585@watcgl.waterloo.edu>, kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) writes: > I agree that *excessive* speed is a contributor to accidents. I too > have seen SO many crazed maniac drivers it bugs me to no end. I > believe that the essence to safe driving is to be aware of the limits > of yourself, of your car, and of other drivers. > ... > Somehow there should be some way of determining a potential driver's > attitudes with regards to safety, consideration, and just plain common > sense. If such a test existed, it would encompass the problem of > excessive speeding. In the middle of this "I'm ok, but there's real bozo's out there" discussion I'd like to bring up the (possibly apochryphal) study that found: 80% of all drivers classify themselves as being "above average" Not to single anyone out; I'm sure that a lot of the posters in this thread *are* above average. However driving's one of those activities that interacts poorly with human nature. Your positive feedback (Hey, I'm doing great!) comes all the time, but all too often the negative feedback only comes in one big crunch when it's too late. Just for the record I'm a below average driver, but I compensate by driving defensively and carefully. (So I guess that makes me better than most out there. :-) -- ___ __ __ {utzoo,lsuc}!censor!jeff (416-595-2705) / / /) / ) -- my opinions -- -/ _ -/- /- No one born with a mouth and a need is innocent. (__/ (/_/ _/_ Greg Bear
mark@bnr-rsc.UUCP (Mark MacLean) (05/13/89)
In article <296@moegate.UUCP> soley@moegate.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) writes: >I've said it before but I'll say it again, with the current level of technology >used by the OPP and most municipal forces these boxes are virtually useless and >real easy to for the police to detect. In addition to the moral implications >you'd be pretty stupid to shell out good money on one. The OPP I see around Ottawa just have the radar that they hang out of the window of the car, and it does not look like they have the "speed-guns" here. Given that a small percentage of drivers in Ontario have detectors, I expect that the OPP does not perceive a need to upgrade their equipment. I have also talked to police who are using radar to look for speeders and they had the equipment set to trigger only if the car was going >20 or >30 km/h over the speed limit. This is an admission by them that the posted speed limit is unreasonable. If they truely beleived in it, then they would enforce it exactly.
ram@attcdso.UUCP (R. Meesters, Tech Support, AT&T Canada DSO ) (05/15/89)
In article <9556@watcgl.waterloo.edu>, kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) writes: > > What have your experiences been with radar detectors? Can police stop > you (if you're not speeding) if they see a radar detector sitting on > your dash? What are the relevant laws? As far as my understanding goes, It is illegal to USE a radar detector in your vehicle, but not to Possess one. The police may search your car for the device only if they have reasonable cause to believe you have one. If for instance, you had a radar detector in your car, but it was in it's original box in the back seat or trunk, the police could not legally confiscate it or charge you for it's use. However beware. If the police do have reasonable cause to think you have one, they can and will literally tear the insides out of your car to find it. I think the best policy is to simply give them the detector if you get stopped and accused of having one. It will save your car some agony, and they might just go easy on you if you are at least honest. Incidentally, the source of this information is from a friend who is presently enrolled in the police college at Aylmer. I make no claim to it's authenticity. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Meesters | AT&T Data Service Operations | "Calling YOU stupid would Toronto, Ontario | be an insult to stupid people" ...attcan!nebulus!attcdso!ram | - A Fish Called Wanda ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ram@attcdso.UUCP (R. Meesters, Tech Support, AT&T Canada DSO ) (05/15/89)
In article <5880@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>, hazela@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Jose Reynaldo Setti) writes: > > It seems to me that MTO data collections show that the average speed > on 401 is over 100km/h. I am not sure about that value, but 110km/h > is what comes to my mind. So, if you just follow the traffic speed > you'll be going over the speed limit and unless the OPP decides to > generate the world's biggest traffic jam they won't stop and fine > some 3,000 drivers/hour... > Just a short time ago, the OPP set up a radar trap on the 400 going up towards Barrie. They were pulling over everyone they could catch doing over 110 km/h. This is in my experience not a common practice in Ontario, but the OPP have vowed to come down hard on speeders this summer. Just be glad you don't live in Quebec, where this has been a regular practice (especially on long weekends) for some time now. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Meesters | AT&T Data Service Operations | "Calling YOU stupid would Toronto, Ontario | be an insult to stupid people" ...attcan!nebulus!attcdso!ram | - A Fish Called Wanda ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (05/16/89)
ram@attcdso.UUCP (R. Meesters, Tech Support, AT&T Canada DSO ) writes: >hazela@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Jose Reynaldo Setti) writes: >> It seems to me that MTO data collections show that the average speed >> on 401 is over 100km/h. I am not sure about that value, but 110km/h >> is what comes to my mind. So, if you just follow the traffic speed >> you'll be going over the speed limit and unless the OPP decides to >> generate the world's biggest traffic jam they won't stop and fine >> some 3,000 drivers/hour... >Just a short time ago, the OPP set up a radar trap on the 400 going up >towards Barrie. They were pulling over everyone they could catch doing >over 110 km/h. This is in my experience not a common practice >in Ontario, but the OPP have vowed to come down hard on speeders this >summer. On the 400, driving at 110 km/h means you get passed by everything including contruction vehicles. The 400 has been notorious as a site of late-night drag races, skiiers and cottagers bombing around at 150 km/h, and some of the worst driving habits in the province. I doubt strongly that the radar cops there gave a damn about anything moving slower than 120. There's too much good fish to catch going WAY faster than that. I usually hate radar. But on the 400, I see more yahoos per km than anywhere else. It's not fair to compare it with the 401. Within the Toronto area, it rarely moves faster than the 400's slow lane, and outside Toronto, even the fast drivers are generally polite. I have not seen OPP radar operations anywhere as frequently as on the 400. Yet I have little pity for those who get nailed there. Despite the considerably lower traffic volume, I find driving the 400 a far more nerve-wracking experience than the 401. -- Evan Leibovitch, SA, Telly Online, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / {uunet!attcan,utzoo}!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504 Scientists have proven conclusively: Research causes cancer in lab animals
jmsellens@watdragon.waterloo.edu (John M. Sellens) (05/16/89)
In article <858@bnr-rsc.UUCP> mark@bnr-rsc.UUCP (Mark MacLean) writes: >I have also talked to police who are using radar to look for speeders >and they had the equipment set to trigger only if the car was going >20 >or >30 km/h over the speed limit. This is an admission by them that >the posted speed limit is unreasonable. If they truely beleived in it, >then they would enforce it exactly. Your conclusion does not necessarily follow. Some possibilities: - posted limit is unenforceable - not economically worthwhile to enforce limit (e.g. if it takes 10 minutes to give a ticket, why not give a high $ one instead of a low $ one) - enforcing limit not worth aggravating drivers - don't have manpower/facilities to stop everyone, so pick the most flagrant offenders - concentrate on people disrupting the traffic flow rather than those going with the traffic and on and on ...
john@hcr.UUCP (John R. MacMillan) (05/18/89)
In article <295@moegate.UUCP> soley@moegate.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) writes: |In article <1989May9.152855.27968@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: |>In article <13665@watdragon.waterloo.edu> djsalomon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Daniel J. Salomon) writes: |>>I am seriously pissed off at brainless, macho speeders. They should |>>require IQ tests before giving driving licenses, not just driving tests. |> |>Sounds like a good idea to me: let only the truly competent drivers onto |>the road... and then let them drive at any speed they like! | |Here! Here! Since when did doing well on IQ tests indicate how good a driver you might be? Some of the very intelligent people I know are frightening drivers ("absent-minded professor" syndrome perhaps). I'm all for making it tougher to get a licence, but let's do it based on driving skill, not something only loosely related. -- John R. MacMillan Sometimes you have to go for the two HCR Corporation in the bush. {utzoo,utcsri}!hcr!john
mark@bnr-rsc.UUCP (Mark MacLean) (05/18/89)
In article <13857@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jmsellens@watdragon.waterloo.edu (John M. Sellens) writes: >In article <858@bnr-rsc.UUCP> mark@bnr-rsc.UUCP (Mark MacLean) writes: >>or >30 km/h over the speed limit. This is an admission by them that >>the posted speed limit is unreasonable. If they truely beleived in it, >>then they would enforce it exactly. > >Your conclusion does not necessarily follow. Some possibilities: >- posted limit is unenforceable >- not economically worthwhile to enforce limit (e.g. if it takes 10 > minutes to give a ticket, why not give a high $ one instead of a > low $ one) >- enforcing limit not worth aggravating drivers These three indicate that the police do not beleive in enforcing the limit. This is not quite the same as their not believing in the limit, but the result is the same. It could mean that they do not have the manpower, but when I see them looking for speeders, they seem content to let some slow speeders go by to wait for faster ones. They could probably write more tickets (and generate more revenue) if they just went after the first speeder that went by. >- don't have manpower/facilities to stop everyone, so pick the most > flagrant offenders This may be their stategy, however I suspect that they might be more effective at reducing average speeds to the limit (assuming that is their goal) if they randomly ticketted anyone exceeding the limit. This would probably not be very good public relations for them. >- concentrate on people disrupting the traffic flow rather than those > going with the traffic This is the same as my conclusion.