Warning about LRC100......
20 May 2004, 09:36 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,574
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big500 - "HR8 used a Radar system in the X K and KU bands. The problem with this system was due to the power output of the laser guns there was a lot of spurious signal that could be picked up more then 1000 meters away from the target area, hence the birth of the original "radar detectors". "
Not quite true, the Radar systems employ RF, RF is hard to control as it is emitted from the antenna it bounces off anything and everything thus can be received at great distances - like you say >1000m.
The original "radar detectors" were not designed in any way to combat speed traps.
They were actually designed for owners of small boats. Reason being in fog unless you have Radar you wont be able to see other ships (that tend to be quite big and will sink your small boat no problem
). So they developed a detector that would detect the radar emissions from the big ships and would beep to let you know there was a large ship in the area.
Then some bright spark came up with the idea of using it in a car.
Us brits decided it was illegal to use them as under the wireless and telegraphy act it is an offence to receive any signal that is not intended for you. However after some years of debate and a rather nice case in court it was finally proved that a signal must have some message or meaning. The radar (and laser) devices are just emit a carrier signal, there is no data present and the detectors on sale were infact notifying the owners of the presence of this carrier - they were not actually receiving a "signal".
Not quite true, the Radar systems employ RF, RF is hard to control as it is emitted from the antenna it bounces off anything and everything thus can be received at great distances - like you say >1000m.
The original "radar detectors" were not designed in any way to combat speed traps.
They were actually designed for owners of small boats. Reason being in fog unless you have Radar you wont be able to see other ships (that tend to be quite big and will sink your small boat no problem
). So they developed a detector that would detect the radar emissions from the big ships and would beep to let you know there was a large ship in the area. Then some bright spark came up with the idea of using it in a car.
Us brits decided it was illegal to use them as under the wireless and telegraphy act it is an offence to receive any signal that is not intended for you. However after some years of debate and a rather nice case in court it was finally proved that a signal must have some message or meaning. The radar (and laser) devices are just emit a carrier signal, there is no data present and the detectors on sale were infact notifying the owners of the presence of this carrier - they were not actually receiving a "signal".
20 May 2004, 09:44 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure I fully understand the point of view that says it's unfair when you get caught speeding...? Seems to me that when you takes yer chances you've got to accept the potential consequences - basic risk and reward, 'fair' doesn't come into it. 
Then again, I don't see the point of doing a steady speed over the limit on a straight road either - I drive/ride fast because I like the involvement in accelerating, braking and accelerating again in the twisty stuff. Cruising along at a steady speed is boring, so why be bored AND get nicked?
That's not what I was going to say though. What's this about getting pulled for flashing oncoming vehicles at a speed check??? The whole point of a speed check, officially, is that they want motorists to slow down, and will punish those that don't. If you're flashing someone you're letting them know they should slow down - surely you're doing the feds a favour? How can they then argue in court that you did wrong? Does it go like this, "Yes, your honour, this gentleman caused another motorist to slow down to an acceptable speed. If it wasn't for his actions, the other motorist would have continued to drive recklessly, which we wanted him to do so that we could have a chance of catching him at it. We want to prosecute this driver because he discouraged someone else from potentially causing a fatal accident, which robbed us of a chance of punishing him instead."
Blah! And the magistrate says, "Yes, yes, I see. Quite correct. We must stop people from alerting other motorists as to their excessive speed. It is a scourge in this country! Too many motorists these days are failing to drive at excessive speeds due to this incorrigible interference from others. Give me the book - I shall throw it at him!"
The world's going mad!
Then again, I don't see the point of doing a steady speed over the limit on a straight road either - I drive/ride fast because I like the involvement in accelerating, braking and accelerating again in the twisty stuff. Cruising along at a steady speed is boring, so why be bored AND get nicked?
That's not what I was going to say though. What's this about getting pulled for flashing oncoming vehicles at a speed check??? The whole point of a speed check, officially, is that they want motorists to slow down, and will punish those that don't. If you're flashing someone you're letting them know they should slow down - surely you're doing the feds a favour? How can they then argue in court that you did wrong? Does it go like this, "Yes, your honour, this gentleman caused another motorist to slow down to an acceptable speed. If it wasn't for his actions, the other motorist would have continued to drive recklessly, which we wanted him to do so that we could have a chance of catching him at it. We want to prosecute this driver because he discouraged someone else from potentially causing a fatal accident, which robbed us of a chance of punishing him instead."
Blah! And the magistrate says, "Yes, yes, I see. Quite correct. We must stop people from alerting other motorists as to their excessive speed. It is a scourge in this country! Too many motorists these days are failing to drive at excessive speeds due to this incorrigible interference from others. Give me the book - I shall throw it at him!"
The world's going mad!
20 May 2004, 11:18 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are correct, the world is going mad. In truth they don't argue anything and the status of the other motorist doesn't matter. All that matters is that they accuse you of obstructing a police officer in the course of his duties and they do you for it. In a magistrates court the circumstances that led to the allegations are not important, it's the word of the police against your word.
I am, currently, not aware of any cases going to court as there is a fixed penalty system for the obstruction charge. No one wants to go to court for obstructing a police officer and so any cases that I have been aware of have seen the motorist pay up and shut up. It offers a further revenue stream to the police.
I think you are still operating under the mistaken belief that you are innocent until proven guilty. The truth of the matter is that in a magistrates court there is a 96% conviction rate and you are guilty even before you get in the door. This is about getting your cash out of your pocket. Remember the police and the courts actually benefit financially from the the fines they give motorists so it is in their interests to ensure that you are "done" on a regular basis. It is also in their interests to pick on the law abiding, financially secure, middle class drivers as such people have an interest in and investment in society and are likely to pay up. Those driving uninsured in a stolen car etc. have no interest in society and when they default on the fine it is usually not followed up.
We are being made to pay for real crime.
I am, currently, not aware of any cases going to court as there is a fixed penalty system for the obstruction charge. No one wants to go to court for obstructing a police officer and so any cases that I have been aware of have seen the motorist pay up and shut up. It offers a further revenue stream to the police.
I think you are still operating under the mistaken belief that you are innocent until proven guilty. The truth of the matter is that in a magistrates court there is a 96% conviction rate and you are guilty even before you get in the door. This is about getting your cash out of your pocket. Remember the police and the courts actually benefit financially from the the fines they give motorists so it is in their interests to ensure that you are "done" on a regular basis. It is also in their interests to pick on the law abiding, financially secure, middle class drivers as such people have an interest in and investment in society and are likely to pay up. Those driving uninsured in a stolen car etc. have no interest in society and when they default on the fine it is usually not followed up.
We are being made to pay for real crime.
16 July 2004, 06:28 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LRC 100 is going to be discontinued and replaced with the LRC 400. It does the same job as the 100 but comes complete with transponder/receiver to activate outdoor lights or garage door. A legitimate use at long last, pity about the side affects!!
Release date is a bit vague, 4-8 weeks, but I'm taking pre-orders now.
Jason
Release date is a bit vague, 4-8 weeks, but I'm taking pre-orders now.
Jason
16 July 2004, 06:43 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jaycee
I have agroup buy going on at the moment and somebody questioned the legality of the LRC100 so I went and investigated! Below is a copy of what I have posted in the group buy section.
If anybody has anything concrete to back-up the legality I would be very interested to hear.
Maybe some of the police lads who post on here would like to comment on how the police view these devices?
Righty ho then, where shall I start?!!
After a discussion with my solicitor this mornining it would seem the LRC 100 is not a good idea for me to sell or you to buy!
Getting caught using one could leave you open to being charged with "obstructing the police in the course of their duty"
I could also be charged with "attempting to assist a person in obstructing the police in the course of their duty"
Having said that, you can also be charged with the above for flashing your headlights to warn oncoming traffic of a police presence.
After the conversation I pondered his answers and decided to ring the UK supplier of the LRC100. They got their legal representative to call me back and they have a completely different take on it.
They are legal to buy, legal to sell. They are legal to fit to your vehicle. The police are unlikely to prosecute you for using one unless you seriously take the **** ( I didn't realise this was a legal phrase!!) as per a case in Wales where somebody kept speeding past a camera van, the police couldn't get a reading so they pulled him over to investigate.
The DoT don't want people advertising them as laser diffusers but will accept advertising it as a garage door opener with the side effect of disrupting laser guns. (for the time being)
I suppose the upshot is BE CAREFUL! I will happily sell a "Garage door opener" to anyone who wishes to purchase one on the understanding I have no responsibility for what you do with it!!
If the unit is well fitted, ie hidden, then it is unlikely the police would spot it as you drove past and wouldn't have time to give chase and pull your vehicle apart to find it.
I hope this helps because to me it still seems a very grey area and no doubt the law will be changed at some point to make the use of these illegal if they intefere with police guns and the manufacturer will have to amend future garge door opening mechanisms.
Jason
If anybody has anything concrete to back-up the legality I would be very interested to hear.
Maybe some of the police lads who post on here would like to comment on how the police view these devices?
Righty ho then, where shall I start?!!
After a discussion with my solicitor this mornining it would seem the LRC 100 is not a good idea for me to sell or you to buy!
Getting caught using one could leave you open to being charged with "obstructing the police in the course of their duty"
I could also be charged with "attempting to assist a person in obstructing the police in the course of their duty"
Having said that, you can also be charged with the above for flashing your headlights to warn oncoming traffic of a police presence.
After the conversation I pondered his answers and decided to ring the UK supplier of the LRC100. They got their legal representative to call me back and they have a completely different take on it.
They are legal to buy, legal to sell. They are legal to fit to your vehicle. The police are unlikely to prosecute you for using one unless you seriously take the **** ( I didn't realise this was a legal phrase!!) as per a case in Wales where somebody kept speeding past a camera van, the police couldn't get a reading so they pulled him over to investigate.
The DoT don't want people advertising them as laser diffusers but will accept advertising it as a garage door opener with the side effect of disrupting laser guns. (for the time being)
I suppose the upshot is BE CAREFUL! I will happily sell a "Garage door opener" to anyone who wishes to purchase one on the understanding I have no responsibility for what you do with it!!
If the unit is well fitted, ie hidden, then it is unlikely the police would spot it as you drove past and wouldn't have time to give chase and pull your vehicle apart to find it.
I hope this helps because to me it still seems a very grey area and no doubt the law will be changed at some point to make the use of these illegal if they intefere with police guns and the manufacturer will have to amend future garge door opening mechanisms.
Jason
16 July 2004, 06:51 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neil, I think it should be easily modified to do that. I would imagine it will act like a "virtual switch". When it receives the beam it will let the mains/battery power through to the desired unit. Sorry if that's a poor explanation, it's been a long week!
No idea on price yet but rest assured they'll be done at the best price for fellow SN'ers.
Jason
No idea on price yet but rest assured they'll be done at the best price for fellow SN'ers.
Jason
16 July 2004, 07:17 PM
#39
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 8,204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's used to switch on and off a CCTV/floodlight system then how can it be illegal. If I recall the adaptive cruise control on Nissan Primeras and some Jags will act as a 'jammer' if switched on. Will this proposed law make the adaptive cruise illegal too. If a device's primary purpose is to detect or jam then that's an easier one, if it has other uses that are installed and in use on it's owners property than that's a harder one.
16 July 2004, 09:10 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Prodrive LA
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hedgehog
You are correct, the world is going mad. In truth they don't argue anything and the status of the other motorist doesn't matter. All that matters is that they accuse you of obstructing a police officer in the course of his duties and they do you for it. In a magistrates court the circumstances that led to the allegations are not important, it's the word of the police against your word.
I am, currently, not aware of any cases going to court as there is a fixed penalty system for the obstruction charge. No one wants to go to court for obstructing a police officer and so any cases that I have been aware of have seen the motorist pay up and shut up. It offers a further revenue stream to the police.
I think you are still operating under the mistaken belief that you are innocent until proven guilty. The truth of the matter is that in a magistrates court there is a 96% conviction rate and you are guilty even before you get in the door. This is about getting your cash out of your pocket. Remember the police and the courts actually benefit financially from the the fines they give motorists so it is in their interests to ensure that you are "done" on a regular basis. It is also in their interests to pick on the law abiding, financially secure, middle class drivers as such people have an interest in and investment in society and are likely to pay up. Those driving uninsured in a stolen car etc. have no interest in society and when they default on the fine it is usually not followed up.
We are being made to pay for real crime.
I am, currently, not aware of any cases going to court as there is a fixed penalty system for the obstruction charge. No one wants to go to court for obstructing a police officer and so any cases that I have been aware of have seen the motorist pay up and shut up. It offers a further revenue stream to the police.
I think you are still operating under the mistaken belief that you are innocent until proven guilty. The truth of the matter is that in a magistrates court there is a 96% conviction rate and you are guilty even before you get in the door. This is about getting your cash out of your pocket. Remember the police and the courts actually benefit financially from the the fines they give motorists so it is in their interests to ensure that you are "done" on a regular basis. It is also in their interests to pick on the law abiding, financially secure, middle class drivers as such people have an interest in and investment in society and are likely to pay up. Those driving uninsured in a stolen car etc. have no interest in society and when they default on the fine it is usually not followed up.
We are being made to pay for real crime.
16 July 2004, 09:54 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Gloucestershire, home of the lawnmower.
Posts: 4,531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, doesn't the Construction and Use regs cover the use of the LRC100 ?
I.e. you will only show white light to the front, red to the rear, orange for indicators etc. ? I do believe it specifically says you *must* not show anything else. I think that covers laser light at specific frequencies (probably covers LED washer sprays as well).
I.e. you will only show white light to the front, red to the rear, orange for indicators etc. ? I do believe it specifically says you *must* not show anything else. I think that covers laser light at specific frequencies (probably covers LED washer sprays as well
).
16 July 2004, 10:10 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nick
I'm very interested Jason
Any chance of a new group buy for an Origin B2 + LRC400?
Any chance of a new group buy for an Origin B2 + LRC400?
Jason
16 July 2004, 11:18 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nick
I'm very interested Jason
Any chance of a new group buy for an Origin B2 + LRC400?
Any chance of a new group buy for an Origin B2 + LRC400?
I'd like to put my name down for one of each. How much will the current one with the B2 cost with any leads and fixing kits that r needed.
(Just in case i can't wait!)
Chris
17 July 2004, 01:00 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by Nick
I'm very interested Jason
Any chance of a new group buy for an Origin B2 + LRC400?
Any chance of a new group buy for an Origin B2 + LRC400?
Put me down on the provisional list for both
Criss
20 August 2004, 12:19 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Surviving as a soldier of fortune on the Los Angeles underground...
Posts: 7,181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are legal to buy, legal to sell. They are legal to fit to your vehicle.
...and I've you're a scooby owner in Amsterdam - It's illegal for the police to search your car...
</vincent vega>
seriously though - lots of interested points raised, interesting reading for someone in the middle of buying a B2.
20 August 2004, 12:27 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Surviving as a soldier of fortune on the Los Angeles underground...
Posts: 7,181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by p1doc
i nearly bought one then a friend told me about someone in carlisle who passed police 3 times in 1 month ,each time the police could not register his speed so after 1 month they went to his address as they wrote down his no plate each time he passed (presumably to ensure he was a regular offender rather than a machine error) CONFISCATED his car for 2 months found the jammer and he is being charged with perverting the course of justice 3 times!!
i know where i live the roads are jammed with hidden police so the above is feasible-this put me right off the laser jammer as if you do not have a door opener why else would you have one fitted
martin
i know where i live the roads are jammed with hidden police so the above is feasible-this put me right off the laser jammer as if you do not have a door opener why else would you have one fitted
martin
If so, then he should have known better - I doubt they'd have got his reg plate on his first pass through.
20 August 2004, 12:49 PM
#50
I organised a GB on these a few months ago and it does what it says on the box.
Mine however has lately been playing up and I've been told to return the whole kit for a replacement model....a LT-400
I've been told that the LRC100 has now been replaced but I have no further details.
Bob
Mine however has lately been playing up and I've been told to return the whole kit for a replacement model....a LT-400
I've been told that the LRC100 has now been replaced but I have no further details.
Bob
20 August 2004, 12:53 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is taking the **** and then really taking the ****. Serves him right really. Most people would use it for the purpose it's meant for- protect and alert you so you slow down until away from the scene!!
Jason
Jason
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
charlesr
General Technical
9
28 September 2015 09:16 AM
TylerD529
Lighting and Other Electrical
5
20 September 2015 12:10 PM
