By which I take it you mean "drive within the speed limit"?
Roman said:I saw an article in Newsweek during the first Gulf War, and there was a picture of a bunch of Iraqis jumping on a downed stealth bomber. The caption read that due to the radioactive material used in stealth technology, the Americans would get the last laugh. Well, it didn't say that, but that was what we were all thinking.
The radar is used to calculate your speed so if your car is 'stealthed' they would have no evidence against you.
Does chaff work?? You could stuff bags of small scraps of aluminum foil in your car and throw them out of the window when cops see you speeding.
What state are you in? I'm in Indiana and rarely pick up laser on my fuzz buster. I constantly pick up radar, though.I don't see any cops using radar, it's all lasers now. Better off making friends with a judge, or taking compromising pictures of one.
Good point. Spend $200 on a radar evading device to avoid paying ticketsOr dont speed.
A radar detector is generally less than $100, which is less than the price of one ticket. It's a no brainer, IMO. I don't understand why it's not a standard option when you buy a car.Good point. Spend $200 on a radar evading device to avoid paying ticketsOnly in America.
Last night on the news they advertised a device for $200 that evades all radar. The company also pays all tickets if you're not in a school or construction zone. Police groups are fighting to make it illegal in Missouri and Kansas. Not speeding is alot cheaper, easier on the car and safer.A radar detector is generally less than $100, which is less than the price of one ticket. It's a no brainer, IMO. I don't understand why it's not a standard option when you buy a car.
Sure, you can pay that much, or more. But you don't have too.Last night on the news they advertised a device for $200 that evades all radar. The company also pays all tickets if you're not in a school or construction zone. Police groups are fighting to make it illegal in Missouri and Kansas. Not speeding is alot cheaper, easier on the car and safer.
Holy Crap! I'd speed too I guess. I have city driving from home and out into the upscale suburbs so opportunities to speed usually aren't there. Plus I don't have a car that likes speed.Sure, you can pay that much, or more. But you don't have too.
And not speeding is easier, but slower. One of my offices if 75 miles from the other. I need to make time.
Because government and the corporations run this country, not the citizens. The auto manufacturers are gigantic corporations who want to get tax breaks and other favors from the government. They won't get them if they piss them off by making it easier for us to avoid paying fines.A radar detector is generally less than $100, which is less than the price of one ticket. It's a no brainer, IMO. I don't understand why it's not a standard option when you buy a car.
It's already illegal in Virginia. The fine for exceeding 80mph (128kph and a perfectly reasonable speed for today's vehicles on today's freeways) is $300. They don't want to miss out on that.Police groups are fighting to make it illegal in Missouri and Kansas.
Perhaps, but the effect on safety is difficult to measure. The primary causes of auto wrecks that result in death or serious injury in the USA are drunk drivers, incompetent drivers and poorly maintained vehicles. We could reduce drunk driving to near zero by installing a breathalyzer ignition interlock in every car at the factory, which wouldn't even be very expensive. We could get the incompetents off the road by making our licensing tests much stricter, as they are in many European countries where Americans have great difficulty passing them. As for the junk on the road (if you don't believe me just walk through any parking lot and measure the percentage of cars with bald tires and then extrapolate to dangers you can't see like brakes and alignment), more frequent vehicle inspections would help. Apparently the government doesn't really care about our safety because they don't do any of those things.Not speeding is . . . . safer.