Text 437, 260 rader
Skriven 2004-08-27 12:03:01 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555.1)
Kommentar till text 394 av mark lewis (1:3634/12)
Ärende: Fido on the move via cell phone.
========================================
> >> MvdV> The problem with your theory is that the PAM does not
> >> MvdV> work on the European reflector plates.
> >> how do you know unless you've tried it?
>
> MvdV> I haven't tried it personally but I know of people who did.
> MvdV> And I know odf people who did some tests under laboratory
> MvdV> conditions.
> you can list these people for outside contact regarding
> this and their test results are available for the public??
Not off hand. It was many years ago and the article may not be available on the
net.
> did they use the same PAM formula that is available in the US??
I don't know. They tested several substances ranging from hair spray to oven
cleaner.
But I am not falling into the trap of having the burden of evidence reversed on
me. It was Roy that made the claim that it works. Let him come with back up for
his claim and then we will take it from there.
> MvdV> It doesn'r work. It is urban legend.
> TTBOMK, too many have used it over here and gotten away
> with it for it to be an urban legend...
Have you spoken to any of these persons? If not it has all the smell and feel
of an urban legend.
> >> are the european reflector plates (and other things based on
> >> the same "technology" like road signs) not based on the crushed
> >> glass particles in paint stuff that north american stuff is
> >> based on?
> MvdV> What I do know is that the plates are much better reflectors
> MvdV> than the road signs.
> probably due to colors used... white is better than others
> at reflecting... even moreso when laced with crushed glass
> crystals ;)
Standard Dutch plates are yellow which is almost as good as white. German
plates are white. French and Brittish plates are yellow in the back and white
in front.
I remember some FiroNet member - I think it was Dan Ceppa, but I am not sure -
mentioning that in the US one is allowed to repaint the plates themselves. In
The Netherlands this is a severe no-no. They are very strict and the
specifications are very tight. Only a handfull of firms are licenced to make
the blanks.
> MvdV> If you think about it for a minute you will know that it can
> MvdV> not work. The give away is the claim that one can not see it
> MvdV> with the naked eye.
> the claim is "one cannot see the PAM residue [...] with the
> naked eye"... that makes a huge difference...
No, the claim was; and I quote:
RW> The problem with that theory is that they can't tell if there's
RW> PAM on the plate until they see the video. Otherwise, it looks
RW> just like it's supposed to look to the naked eye.
> MvdV> Over here they use visible light for the camers. So if the
> MvdV> naked eye can not see it, the camera can't either.
> its not that simple... the cameras are also geared to look
> at certain frequencies of light ;)
Ok, so one can have a camera that can see things the human eye can not.
Granted. But what have we got here? A camera that can see the PAM that the
human eye can not. Ok, possible. But it sees so much of the PAM that it fails
to see what it is designed for: the number on the plate.
Now don't you find that a bit odd? Don't you think that this a a design flaw?
Don't you think that if it was that easy to fool the camera, the designers
would go back to the drawing board and simply remove the filters so that it
would see what the human eye sees: the numbers on the plate?
> MvdV> Maybe the cameras in North Amrica use infrared. Then it just
> MvdV> /may/ work/. In theory. I doubt it though. I suspect Roy is
> MvdV> feeding us urban legend too.
> some remote cameras use "visible", infrared,
"Visible infrared"? That is a contradiction in terms. Infrared is invisible, by
definition. Perhaps you mean "near infrared"?
> and ultraviolet technologies... some use a mix or only one or
> two...
> MvdV> Have you actually tried it yourself? If not how do you
> MvdV> know it works?
> i've never had a need to... i've not ever been in an area
> that uses those (illegal) cameras... i say "illegal"
> because over here, they are owned by private companies and
> the tickets are issued by private companies... not the
> police...
IOW, all you have is hearsay....
> >> MvdV> Those and the pure passive devices that only give a warning
> >> MvdV> when it detects a radar trap, are illegal too. When they see
> >> MvdV> you avoid speed traps by slowing down when in range of them,
> >> MvdV> they chase you and stop you. And they start looking. Don't
> >> MvdV> think you can fool them by hiding the thing. They know what to
> >> MvdV> look for and they will find it.
> >> that would indicate that there are live cops around
> >> watching and "profileing"...
> MvdV> There are. Not at every automated speed trap of course, that
> MvdV> would defeat the purpose of automation. But they do spot
> MvdV> checks.
> must be between doughnuts OB-)
Doughnuts are not popular here. Too much sugar.. ;-)
> MvdV> Also some stretches are watched by cameras. The cops
> MvdV> are in a building somewhere else, but they can send cops on
> MvdV> fast motorcycles after you if the detect suspicious behaviour.
> if what detects suspicious behavior?
The cop that is watching the screen of course.
> talk about "big brother"... geez...
How is a cop watching a monitor more of a big brother than a cop lurking behind
a tree watching the road?
> >> >> Doesn't work very well with the laser light
> >> >> units though.
> >> MvdV> Does not work at all with the laser guns. Period.
> >> that would depend on one's distance from the gun ;) the
> >> beams aren't so constricted as to still be a few mm's in
> >> cross section at 1/8th mile ;)
> MvdV> /Radar/ detection devices don't work on laser guns. Period.
> hahahaha... tell that to my radar detector ;) it catches'em
> when they are aiming at me from any angle... does a good
> job, too... not that i've ever needed the detector for that
> purpose...
Then calling it a "radar detector" is a misnomer. A "radar detector" detects
radar and nothing else. If it detects laser radiation it should be called a
"laser detector". If it detects both it should be called a "radar and laser
detector". Or perhaps "speed trap detector".
> >> MvdV> What helps is a "laser shield" but they are illegal too
> >> MvdV> and as the laser gun speed traps are operated manually
> >> MvdV> they will see immidiately when your are using one. Again
> >> MvdV> they will chase you....
> >> again, those are manned stations... the original thread was
> >> about the automated, speed triggered cameras ;)
> MvdV> And then someone mentioned laser guns...
> right... some systems also use lasers in their detections...
> MvdV> Those are always manned.
> lack of knowledge == ignorance ;)
We were comparing the US situation versus the European. Here in Europe
automated speed traps are radar traps. Lasers are only used in manned
applications.
> MvdV> The laser must be pointed at the car you want to trace.
> MvdV> They usually point them at the licence plate as it is a
> MvdV> good reflector...
> no, they only needed to be pointed at a specific target
> zone and will then work with anything that enters that zone
> and reflects their beam back... any reflective surface will
> work...
Howver as, the licence plate is a good reflector, they /usually/ point them at
the licence plate.. over here.
> we don't have front mounted plates in all states...
I know that... But OVER HERE all cars have front license plates and as that is
a good reflector, they /usually/ use that to point the beam at... djeez, how
hard is it to understand that things are different here...
> MvdV> The laser guns are used on very busy spots where an automatic
> MvdV> radar trap would not work because it can't tell which car in
> yes, and its for "up close" work, too... at 1/8th mile
> (201m) or 1/4th mile (402m), the beam is quite large in
> diameter...
Large enough too be detected when it is aimed at the license plate, but then it
is already too late. Over here they use the gun from close up. Less than 100
metres.
> hummm... here's an interesting device...
>
> ===== snip =====
>
> Laserpro 904
>
> How does LaserPro work?
> =======================
> First, a brief introduction on how police laser speed guns
> work. Laser speed guns measure the speed of their target
> using the time-of-flight principle.
[ trim ]
Interesting indeed.
> emitter). When the detector "sees" the first pulse from the
> speed gun, it triggers the laser diode to fire back a pulse
> train, but at a much higher rate than that of the laser
> speed gun. Since the laser wavelength in both devices are
> the same, LaserPro's signal is accepted by the gun. The
> computation of speed is then delayed because the laser gun
> receives information it considers inconsistent.
And the cop operaing the gun will notice this and he or his partner will come
after you...
> i won't even mention that a driver that is properly
> observant should be able to see a police car that may be
> laser targeting before they get into range...
Over here they are not in a car. They hide behind a tree or something. By the
time you see them it is too late..
Or they hide around a corner. I have see them do that. You come around a corner
and there he is aiming the gun at you. No way to avoid it. Yes, I know that the
gun will have a deviation when it measures at an angle, but it doesn't matter,
when he sees you speeding you surely are as the gun always reads less than then
the true speed.
> Serco, the official distributor & installer of
> Gatsonometer's speed cameras have indicated that only 1 in
> 8 cameras (12.5%) is ever operational at any one time.
Same here in The Netherlands.
The aim is not to catch as many as possible, but to keep people from speeding.
A plainly visible but non operational camera has that effect.
Cheers, Michiel
--- InterMail 2.29k
* Origin: Michiel on the move... (2:280/5555.1)
|