Does any camera come with a laser pointer?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Peter Jason, Jan 16, 2013.

  1. Peter Jason

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > and then you ask all the CHiPs on board where they
    > aim the Lidar gunsight.


    i don't need to ask anyone where to aim it. the information is publicly
    available. even the lidar guns themselves are too.

    > Being an expert in everything is hard work.


    maybe for you it is.
     
    nospam, Jan 18, 2013
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. Peter Jason

    nospam Guest

    In article <2013011721401258821-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >> If you are close enough to ID the vehicle in front of you
    > >> as a CHP cruiser and react, the officer has already clocked you with
    > >> his rear facing radar which cycles every 3 seconds with the forward
    > >> facing unit.

    > >
    > > if he's using radar, particularly rear facing radar from his stalker
    > > dual, then he doesn't need to be close enough to id the vehicle. he
    > > only needs a radar detector. in fact, even a crappy detector will pick
    > > up radar aimed directly at it with ample warning.

    >
    > ...and many a speeder has been stopped regardless of the detector
    > letting him know that somewhere out there a radar gun is operating.


    if a radar detector goes off and they ignore it, then they're not just
    oblivious, they're stupid.

    > There is also nothing more embarrassing to find that the car which
    > appeared coming towards you as you negotiated a sweeping bend has set
    > off your radar detector, and as much as you might have slowed to the
    > speed limit, you see that car making a U-turn to come up behind you.
    > All you can do when he asks if that detector is working, is say "yes"
    > as he writes the ticket.


    maybe with a crappy detector, but a quality detector will pick up the
    cop *long* before they get to the turn, so by the time they're clocked,
    they're already at the psl.

    > The same goes for the cruiser you come up on and you have managed to
    > slow to the speed limit, in what you believe was good time, only to
    > find him slowing down to allow yo to pass him and to find he has lit
    > you up to pull you over.


    maybe if someone is not paying attention.

    > > that doesn't matter. all of those cars have a distinctive profile.
    > > those who pay attention will notice it. oblivious people won't.

    >
    > ...and you notice that "distinctive profile at night?


    sometimes, however, night driving should not be as fast as on a clear
    sunny day. it's easy to overdrive the headlights.

    > Many drivers appear quite befuddled when the car in the lane next to
    > them is using a PA to indicate that he should pull over.


    then they're *very* oblivious. how can anyone not notice the car next
    to them is a cop??

    > > you do realize that knowing how to use traffic radar and lidar is not
    > > secret, right?

    >
    > Knowing information available on the internet and actually working with
    > VASCAR (no longer used in CHP vehicles, but use by some Cal SD's and
    > PD's), radar and LiDAR is something a little different.


    what makes you think i haven't used radar and lidar?

    > Also different jurisdictions use different equipment.


    of course. there's a variety of radar and lidar equipment, as well as
    others, such as enradd which is used in pennsylvania due to
    restrictions on radar use and a new system being developed that videos
    traffic, determines which cars are speeding, ocr's the license plates
    and issues tickets as needed, nicknamed vidar.

    > For example both
    > San Luis Obispo & Monterey County Sheriff's Departments do not use
    > Radar, but most municipal PD's in both counties do.


    what do they use? lidar? something else?
     
    nospam, Jan 18, 2013
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. Peter Jason

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > Why would a camera with a tiltable LCD screen be a "lesser camera"?


    top tier cameras don't have tiltable lcds, such as the nikon d4 or
    canon 1d.

    > Or do you mean that any camera not made by Canón or Nikon is a lesser
    > camera?


    pros mostly stick to nikon/canon for a number of reasons.
     
    nospam, Jan 18, 2013
    #43
  4. Peter Jason

    Bryan Guest

    Peter Jason asked:
    > Like laser pinpointing on rifles and pistols.
    >
    > I need it for shooting from the hip at weddings
    > and the like when the exposure is set for
    > pinpoint.


    Sort of. The Sony DSC-F707 has a built-in laser pointer that enables
    it to auto-focus in the dark. The camera is obsolete in many ways, and
    long out of production, but it was a great camera in its day. I hope
    to see some of its ground-breaking features again, including the
    laser.

    The F707's laser isn't for "shooting from the hip". It rapidly draws a
    pattern to provide lines with enough sharp contrast for the auto-
    focus. I could never even see it from behind the camera, though my
    subjects in front could see flashes of red when it kicked in. The
    laser is too low power and too fast moving to damage anyone's eyes.

    There is a bit of a design flaw: The F707's laser emits from behind
    the filter ring. It worked fine through the multicoated UV filter that
    I kept on mine for protection, but other filters can render it worse
    than useless.

    The F707 is great for "shooting from the hip" though not because of
    the laser. Its lens-centric design with articulated body lends itself
    to a wide variety of viewfinding styles.

    Great camera.

    --
    --Bryan
     
    Bryan, Jan 18, 2013
    #44
  5. Peter Jason

    nospam Guest

    In article <2013011723383511967-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >>>> If you are close enough to ID the vehicle in front of you
    > >>>> as a CHP cruiser and react, the officer has already clocked you with
    > >>>> his rear facing radar which cycles every 3 seconds with the forward
    > >>>> facing unit.
    > >>>
    > >>> if he's using radar, particularly rear facing radar from his stalker
    > >>> dual, then he doesn't need to be close enough to id the vehicle. he
    > >>> only needs a radar detector. in fact, even a crappy detector will pick
    > >>> up radar aimed directly at it with ample warning.
    > >>
    > >> ...and many a speeder has been stopped regardless of the detector
    > >> letting him know that somewhere out there a radar gun is operating.

    > >
    > > if a radar detector goes off and they ignore it, then they're not just
    > > oblivious, they're stupid.

    >
    > Not ignore it. Just do not have the time to benefit from it.


    then it's a crappy detector. a good detector can alert long before that.

    > >> There is also nothing more embarrassing to find that the car which
    > >> appeared coming towards you as you negotiated a sweeping bend has set
    > >> off your radar detector, and as much as you might have slowed to the
    > >> speed limit, you see that car making a U-turn to come up behind you.
    > >> All you can do when he asks if that detector is working, is say "yes"
    > >> as he writes the ticket.

    > >
    > > maybe with a crappy detector, but a quality detector will pick up the
    > > cop *long* before they get to the turn, so by the time they're clocked,
    > > they're already at the psl.

    >
    > Good luck with that.


    no need for luck.

    > >> The same goes for the cruiser you come up on and you have managed to
    > >> slow to the speed limit, in what you believe was good time, only to
    > >> find him slowing down to allow yo to pass him and to find he has lit
    > >> you up to pull you over.

    > >
    > > maybe if someone is not paying attention.

    >
    > ...and that doesn't happen?


    of course it does. it happens all the time. most drivers don't pay that
    much attention. that's why some of them end up in a wreck. i've even
    seen idiots run red lights right in front of cops. it's mind boggling
    how oblivious some drivers are.

    > >>> that doesn't matter. all of those cars have a distinctive profile.
    > >>> those who pay attention will notice it. oblivious people won't.
    > >>
    > >> ...and you notice that "distinctive profile at night?

    > >
    > > sometimes, however, night driving should not be as fast as on a clear
    > > sunny day. it's easy to overdrive the headlights.

    >
    > ...and folks are not known to drive fast after Sundown?


    some do, and they probably do stupid stuff during the daytime too.

    > >> Many drivers appear quite befuddled when the car in the lane next to
    > >> them is using a PA to indicate that he should pull over.

    > >
    > > then they're *very* oblivious. how can anyone not notice the car next
    > > to them is a cop??

    >
    > It happens every day.


    then they deserve a ticket.

    > >>> you do realize that knowing how to use traffic radar and lidar is not
    > >>> secret, right?
    > >>
    > >> Knowing information available on the internet and actually working with
    > >> VASCAR (no longer used in CHP vehicles, but use by some Cal SD's and
    > >> PD's), radar and LiDAR is something a little different.

    > >
    > > what makes you think i haven't used radar and lidar?

    >
    > So how was that drive along?
    > I guess you got all the nuances of techniques, procedures, and
    > individual officer's experience filed away for future reference.


    who said anything about a drive along? a drive along is not the only
    way someone can obtain and use radar/lidar equipment.
     
    nospam, Jan 18, 2013
    #45
  6. Peter Jason

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Friday, January 18, 2013 6:55:08 AM UTC, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <>, Robert Coe
    >
    > says...
    >
    > > Real pros aren't too vain to be seen using a lesser camera when the occasion

    >
    > > warrants.

    >
    >
    >
    > Why would a camera with a tiltable LCD screen be a "lesser camera"?


    It could be seen as a gimmick or the main feature of that camera.
    Pros tend to go for solid relible products rather than the lastest thing unless of course ut';s very useful.


    >
    > do you mean that any camera not made by Canón or Nikon is a lesser
    >
    > camera?
    >
    > --
    >
    >
    >
    > Alfred Molon
    >
    > ------------------------------
    >
    > Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
    >
    > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    >
    > http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
     
    Whisky-dave, Jan 18, 2013
    #46
  7. Peter Jason

    gordo Guest

    If you use a red laser pointer, or any other color, won't you get a colored
    spot in your image?

    Also, it would be very distracting to the audience.

    Gordo

    "Usenet Account" wrote in message
    news:kd5il5$6a5$-september.org...

    On 15/01/2013 8:48 PM, Peter Jason wrote:
    > Like laser pinpointing on rifles and pistols.
    >
    > I need it for shooting from the hip at weddings
    > and the like when the exposure is set for
    > pinpoint.
    >
    > Peter
    >


    Perhaps if you learn to use a camera? There have been well known street
    photographers that have done documentary work with 35mm film SLR that
    "shot from the hip"

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
     
    gordo, Jan 18, 2013
    #47
  8. Alfred Molon <> writes:

    > In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
    >> > Lots of DSLRs or interchangeable lens cameras with tiltable LCD screens
    >> > around. Why wouldn't a pro use them?

    >>
    >> You won't find that sort of feature above the consumer-level produts; in
    >> the Nikon line (the one I know) it's not on the D700, D800, or D4 (or
    >> older models at that level).

    >
    > Actually lots of DLSRs and interchangeable lens cameras, good enough for
    > a "pro", have a tiltable LCD screen.


    There's an interesting terminology problem here. We're both right.
    Quite a few people use cameras that the market and the manufacturers do
    NOT market as "professional" to earn money (which seems like what
    "professional" ought to be based on).

    I was using the market category term.
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 18, 2013
    #48
  9. nospam <> writes:

    > In article <>, Eric Stevens
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> >> > > Lots of DSLRs or interchangeable lens cameras with tiltable LCD
    >> >> > > screens around. Why wouldn't a pro use them?
    >> >> >
    >> >> > You won't find that sort of feature above the consumer-level produts; in
    >> >> > the Nikon line (the one I know) it's not on the D700, D800, or D4 (or
    >> >> > older models at that level).
    >> >>
    >> >> Actually lots of DLSRs and interchangeable lens cameras, good enough for
    >> >> a "pro", have a tiltable LCD screen.
    >> >
    >> >those cameras may be good enough in some situations, but pros don't
    >> >generally use those cameras outside of a backup, and if they do, they
    >> >don't use the tiltable lcd anyway.

    >>
    >> Not true.
    >>
    >> I've several times seen 'a pro' (several in fact) using a Canon DSLR
    >> with a tiltable screen to enable them to see what they are doing when
    >> setting their cameras up for peculiar shots from a tripod. I've
    >> envied the flexibility that such a screen gave to their work.

    >
    > several out of millions of pros does not mean it's common. it's the
    > exception, not the rule.


    Which is strange (the use part). Because in the film era, swappable
    viewfinders, right-angle attachments, and the like, were hallmarks of
    the top-of-the-line professional cameras (the Nikon F series for example
    had swappable viewfinders, up through the F6 anyway). (The F100 is not
    part of the F series by the usual terms; it's more a follow-on to the
    N90).

    Generally, pros are more likely to take the extra trouble to shoot from
    unusual angles when they see a possible benefit there, and this makes
    viewfinder flexibility important to them. (Dyer-Bennet's Dictum: the
    best position to take a photo from is frequently the one that makes your
    knees hurt.)
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 18, 2013
    #49
  10. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

    > On 2013-01-17 09:36:40 -0800, David Dyer-Bennet <> said:
    >
    >> "Steve B" <> writes:
    >>
    >>> "Peter Jason" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Like laser pinpointing on rifles and pistols.
    >>>>
    >>>> I need it for shooting from the hip at weddings
    >>>> and the like when the exposure is set for
    >>>> pinpoint.
    >>>>
    >>>> Peter
    >>>
    >>> Bad, bad, bad.
    >>> Endangers eyesight.

    >>
    >> Class 1 lasers are safe "under all conditions of normal use" including
    >> using optics to concentrate the power.

    >
    > "Normal use" does not include aiming, at humans.


    Yes it does. That's completely and utterly normal for laser pointers
    for example.

    >> Some laser pointers are Class 2
    >> or 2m,

    >
    > Most laser pointers are Class IIa or 2D.


    Some are, but that's still safe for use around humans so long as they're
    in visible frequencies (which laser pointers always are), because they
    won't damage the eyes fast enough that it can happen before you blink,
    and you WILL blink.

    >> and are safe if they're visible light (not infrared) because they
    >> won't damage your eye faster than you can blink (and aren't any threat
    >> to anything less sensitive than your retina).

    >
    > Tell that to the FAA and the reports of "flash blinding" cockpit
    > intrusion incidents pilots have experienced on final approach.


    Dunno what those sources are, do we? The laser safety standards are
    very formally laid out, you know.

    > Few folks are going to intentionally look at even a "weak" laser
    > source. Unintentional or accidental direct exposure to a laser source
    > mounted on a camera, where the subject is unaware of the potential
    > danger is the problem.


    Not a problem with properly chosen lasers. (And people look into Lasic
    machines deliberately all the time; just to be pedantic :).)

    >> Lots of fear about lasers around, but what you can easily get are hard
    >> to hurt yourself with.

    >
    > Stupidity of individuals using laser pointers as toys, and beyond the
    > recommendations of the manufacturers is the problem, not proper safe
    > use. Using them within safe guidelines is a far better idea.


    And safe guidelines say that up through class II you don't have to worry
    about damaging a human (for visible frequencies) in casual use.
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 18, 2013
    #50
  11. Kennedy McEwen <> writes:

    > In message
    > <>,
    > RichA <> writes
    >>
    >>I'm wondering though, if a weak IR laser would produce a visible laser
    >>spot on a subject via viewing through an EVF or LCD? If so, it might
    >>be possible to do what the op wanted without risking any injury or
    >>annoyance with the people he's shooting at?

    >
    > Just because you can't see an infrared laser doesn't make it safe!


    That's why he said "weak", of course.
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 18, 2013
    #51
  12. nospam <> writes:

    > In article <gIe2bAE$>, Kennedy McEwen
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> >I'm wondering though, if a weak IR laser would produce a visible laser
    >> >spot on a subject via viewing through an EVF or LCD? If so, it might
    >> >be possible to do what the op wanted without risking any injury or
    >> >annoyance with the people he's shooting at?

    >>
    >> Just because you can't see an infrared laser doesn't make it safe! Quite
    >> the opposite, an IR laser beam doesn't provoke a blink reaction or
    >> contraction of the eye pupil, as a visible laser would. Consequently
    >> the laser gets focussed on the retina without any natural restriction,
    >> causing much greater retinal damage. You don't get into the so called
    >> "eye safe" region until you are up around 1.5um, well beyond the
    >> response cut-off of silicon so it wouldn't show up on the EVF. Even
    >> then, the "eye-safety" is only achieved by absorption of the beam
    >> through the vitreous humour (the internal fluid in the eye) which isn't
    >> total, so there are still dangerous levels especially at close
    >> distances. For example, infrared laser rangefinders have minimum eye
    >> safe ranges.

    >
    > yet every day, police point infrared lasers at oncoming cars. although
    > they may aim at the license plate, plenty of the laser still hits the
    > eyes of the occupants of the vehicle. it's also 904 nm, well below your
    > 1.5 um limit.


    Class 1, right? So safe in that use and about any other.
    --
    Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 18, 2013
    #52
  13. "Steve B" <> wrote:

    > And just what if ............... a
    > stray dot flies upward when shooting in the back yard, and you hit a
    > billion to one shot of the cockpit of an airliner.


    Or you manage to zap its lithium-ion battery in the case of a
    Dreamliner!
     
    Gordon Freeman, Jan 18, 2013
    #53
  14. On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Peter Jason wrote:

    > Like laser pinpointing on rifles and pistols.
    >
    > I need it for shooting from the hip at weddings
    > and the like when the exposure is set for
    > pinpoint.
    >

    Probably not.

    But magazines like Popular Science used to have projects like how to make
    a pistol grip for your camera. Since I can picture those, I can even
    picture a sort of rifle grip, the stock against your arm and then a place
    to attach the camera.

    So you might as well start with that.

    Then buy a 1.99 laser pointer, mount it in some fashion. You might want
    to run it off external batteries (just AA are bound to last longer than
    the internal button cells) and a switch that can stay on rather than
    needing to be pressed. Holding the button on a laser pointer for more
    than a few seconds can be painful.

    Then you get the mix of a 'gun" and a laser.

    Of course, I'm not sure the laser is going to help the camera to autocosu.

    Michael
     
    Michael Black, Jan 18, 2013
    #54
  15. Peter Jason

    nick c Guest

    On 1/18/2013 1:13 PM, Michael Black wrote:
    > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Peter Jason wrote:
    >
    >> Like laser pinpointing on rifles and pistols.
    >>
    >> I need it for shooting from the hip at weddings
    >> and the like when the exposure is set for
    >> pinpoint.
    >>

    > Probably not.
    >
    > But magazines like Popular Science used to have projects like how to
    > make a pistol grip for your camera. Since I can picture those, I can
    > even picture a sort of rifle grip, the stock against your arm and then a
    > place to attach the camera.


    I think such devices are still commercially available. I've been
    thinking of getting one of those contraptions 'cause aging and shaking
    seem to be synonymous. Then-again, I wonder if the anti-gun people would
    be upset if someone publicly shouldered anything that looked like a gun
    being aimed. One would expect common sense to prevail. However
    ....(Shrug). :)

    >
    > So you might as well start with that.
    >
    > Then buy a 1.99 laser pointer, mount it in some fashion. You might want
    > to run it off external batteries (just AA are bound to last longer than
    > the internal button cells) and a switch that can stay on rather than
    > needing to be pressed. Holding the button on a laser pointer for more
    > than a few seconds can be painful.
    >
    > Then you get the mix of a 'gun" and a laser.
    >
    > Of course, I'm not sure the laser is going to help the camera to autocosu.
    >
    > Michael
    >
     
    nick c, Jan 18, 2013
    #55
  16. Peter Jason

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 07:55:08 +0100, Alfred Molon <>
    wrote:
    : In article <>, Robert Coe
    : says...
    : > Real pros aren't too vain to be seen using a lesser camera when the occasion
    : > warrants.
    :
    : Why would a camera with a tiltable LCD screen be a "lesser camera"? Or
    : do you mean that any camera not made by Canón or Nikon is a lesser
    : camera?

    You're reading too much into what I said. If anything, I thought I was
    agreeing with you. The drift of the thread had been that pros wouldn't touch
    anything but the finest equipment, and I cited a real-world example to contest
    that notion.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 19, 2013
    #56
  17. Peter Jason

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:04:09 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    : Generally, pros are more likely to take the extra trouble to shoot from
    : unusual angles when they see a possible benefit there, and this makes
    : viewfinder flexibility important to them. (Dyer-Bennet's Dictum: the
    : best position to take a photo from is frequently the one that makes your
    : knees hurt.)

    I've got good news for you, David: The older you get, the more you'll find
    yourself taking photos from positions that will fit that criterion.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 19, 2013
    #57
  18. Peter Jason

    nospam Guest

    In article <kdcihd$eg2$>, nick c
    <> wrote:

    > > But magazines like Popular Science used to have projects like how to
    > > make a pistol grip for your camera. Since I can picture those, I can
    > > even picture a sort of rifle grip, the stock against your arm and then a
    > > place to attach the camera.

    >
    > I think such devices are still commercially available. I've been
    > thinking of getting one of those contraptions 'cause aging and shaking
    > seem to be synonymous. Then-again, I wonder if the anti-gun people would
    > be upset if someone publicly shouldered anything that looked like a gun
    > being aimed. One would expect common sense to prevail. However
    > ...(Shrug). :)


    it's not the anti-gun people you have to worry about. if someone sees
    you aiming what looks like a rifle, particularly if it's at someone who
    has a real gun, things could suddenly change for the worse.

    or, they call the cops who show up with a swat team for some guy with a
    gun aiming it at buildings or people or whatever. that might not end
    all that well either.
     
    nospam, Jan 19, 2013
    #58
  19. Peter Jason

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >> >>>> If you are close enough to ID the vehicle in front of you
    > >> >>>> as a CHP cruiser and react, the officer has already clocked you with
    > >> >>>> his rear facing radar which cycles every 3 seconds with the forward
    > >> >>>> facing unit.
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>> if he's using radar, particularly rear facing radar from his stalker
    > >> >>> dual, then he doesn't need to be close enough to id the vehicle. he
    > >> >>> only needs a radar detector. in fact, even a crappy detector will pick
    > >> >>> up radar aimed directly at it with ample warning.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> ...and many a speeder has been stopped regardless of the detector
    > >> >> letting him know that somewhere out there a radar gun is operating.
    > >> >
    > >> > if a radar detector goes off and they ignore it, then they're not just
    > >> > oblivious, they're stupid.
    > >>
    > >> Not ignore it. Just do not have the time to benefit from it.

    > >
    > >then it's a crappy detector. a good detector can alert long before that.

    >
    > The practice in New Zealand is for the operator to track a possible
    > offender with the speed gun turned off. At a suitable instant he
    > squeezes the trigger and - bingo - he has a speed reading. At the
    > same instant the radar detector in the car goes off and - bingo - the
    > driver knows he has been nabbed.


    like i said, crappy detector. a good detector will alert when the cop
    targets a car in front of you. by the time your turn comes, you're well
    aware he's out there.

    > That's why some years ago I gave up on radar detectors and put my
    > faith in cruise control instead.


    as long as you are still paying attention.

    > >> >> There is also nothing more embarrassing to find that the car which
    > >> >> appeared coming towards you as you negotiated a sweeping bend has set
    > >> >> off your radar detector, and as much as you might have slowed to the
    > >> >> speed limit, you see that car making a U-turn to come up behind you.
    > >> >> All you can do when he asks if that detector is working, is say "yes"
    > >> >> as he writes the ticket.
    > >> >
    > >> > maybe with a crappy detector, but a quality detector will pick up the
    > >> > cop *long* before they get to the turn, so by the time they're clocked,
    > >> > they're already at the psl.
    > >>
    > >> Good luck with that.

    > >
    > >no need for luck.

    >
    > Just pray for sloppy technique.


    no need to pray.
     
    nospam, Jan 19, 2013
    #59
  20. Peter Jason

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >> >> Not ignore it. Just do not have the time to benefit from it.
    > >> >
    > >> >then it's a crappy detector. a good detector can alert long before that.
    > >>
    > >> The practice in New Zealand is for the operator to track a possible
    > >> offender with the speed gun turned off. At a suitable instant he
    > >> squeezes the trigger and - bingo - he has a speed reading. At the
    > >> same instant the radar detector in the car goes off and - bingo - the
    > >> driver knows he has been nabbed.

    > >
    > >like i said, crappy detector. a good detector will alert when the cop
    > >targets a car in front of you. by the time your turn comes, you're well
    > >aware he's out there.

    >
    > And when there is no car in front of you .... ?


    how often is there no traffic for miles?

    and if there really isn't any traffic for miles, then there probably
    isn't a speed trap either, because a cop isn't going to want to sit
    around waiting for the lone car to show up.

    > You are the one he gets. By the time he has finished either writing
    > out a ticket (or has chased you) a zillion cars have passed and the
    > next car he gets will have no warning.


    if a zillion cars have passed in the few minutes it takes to write a
    ticket, then there *is* other traffic, which means there were cars in
    front of you.

    plus, a lot of times the cops will leave the radar on while writing the
    ticket so that other drivers pick up the radar signal and slow down.

    > >> That's why some years ago I gave up on radar detectors and put my
    > >> faith in cruise control instead.

    > >
    > >as long as you are still paying attention.

    >
    > Do you really think I would be dumb enough to cruise at a speed in the
    > danger zone?


    i didn't say cruise at illegal speeds.

    the problem is that some people put the car on cruise and their
    attention level drops, resulting in getting too close to the car in
    front of them or not noticing changing traffic patterns or changes in
    the road itself, such as turns that require a much lower speed.

    that is why there's now adaptive cruise control, which uses radar or
    lidar to determine how close you are to the car in front of you and
    adjusts your speed accordingly.
     
    nospam, Jan 19, 2013
    #60
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jess Guim

    Come One, Come All

    Jess Guim, Dec 2, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    477
    Jess Guim
    Dec 2, 2003
  2. Curtin/Dobbs

    Does laser CAV Trump DVD?

    Curtin/Dobbs, May 12, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    1,896
    Monte Castleman
    May 15, 2004
  3. Replies:
    30
    Views:
    7,274
    Alpha
    Apr 25, 2005
  4. Networking Student
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,474
    vreyesii
    Nov 16, 2006
  5. =?Utf-8?B?a2VoaTY2?=

    Any drivers out there for the Samsung ML-1740 laser printer?

    =?Utf-8?B?a2VoaTY2?=, Jul 14, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,007
Loading...

Share This Page