file.newsgroup.cars.101635 Maven / Gradle / Ivy
From: [email protected] (Markus Strobl 98121)
Subject: Re: Photo radar (was Re: rec.autos: Frequently
In article [email protected], [email protected] (Bradford Kellogg) writes:
>
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (richard welty) writes:
>
>|> Q: What is Ka band radar? Where is it used? Should a radar detector be
>|> able to handle it?
>|>
>|> A: Ka band has recently been made available by the FCC for use in the US
>|> in so-called photo-radar installations. In these installations, a
>|> low-powered beam is aimed across the road at a 45 degree angle to the
>|> direction of traffic, and a picture is taken of vehicles which the
>|> radar unit determines to have been in violation of the speed limit.
>|> Tickets are mailed to the owner of the vehicle. Because of the low
>|> power and the 45 degree angle, many people believe that a radar
>|> detector cannot give reasonable warning of a Ka band radar unit,
>|> although some manufacturers of radar detectors have added such
>|> capability anyway. The number of locales where photo-radar is in use
>|> is limited, and some question the legality of such units. Best advice:
>|> learn what photo radar units look like, and keep track of where they
>|> are used (or else, don't speed.)
>
>Photo radar and mailed tickets make no sense at all. Speeding is a moving
>violation, committed by the operator, not the owner. The owner may be a
>rental agency, a dealer, a private party, or a government agency. As long
>as the owner has no reason to expect the operator will be driving illegally
>or unsafely, the owner cannot be held responsible for what the operator does.
>The car may even have been driven without the owner's knowledge or consent.
>I can't believe a mailed ticket, where the driver is not identified, would
>stand up in court. This is obviously a lazy, cynical, boneheaded, fascist
>way to extort revenue, and has nothing to do with public safety.
>
>- BK
>
We had those f*****g photo-radar things here in Sweden a while ago.
There was a lot of fuzz about them, and a lot of sabotage too (a spray-can
with touch-up paint can do a lot of good...).
Eventually they had to drop the idea as there were a lot of court-cases
where the owner of the car could prove he didn't drive it at the time
of speeding.
I especially recall a case where it eventually proved to be a car-thief that
had stolen a car and made false plates. He, ofcourse, chose a license number
of a identical car, so the photo seemed correct...
In conclosion: Photo-radar sucks, every way you look at it!
/ Markus