New Technology to trap speeders

 

New Technology?

Don't see a new technology mentioned. What are you talking about?

sorry about that

I agree. My excuse is the original title to the article threw me off. Change the title omitting the word new.

--
nuvi 785 nuvi 350, nuvi 270, GTM 20, jag in dash, mercedes in dash.

Still, A Bit Interesting

To see the evolution of technique's used to catch alleged speeders...

"Hey - that horse and buggy left Chicago at 9:00, and it reached Joliet by 11:00 - give 'em a ticket!" (assuming the typical horse and buggy traveled at 5 to 8 MPH, and the distance between Chicago and Joliet is just under 30 miles. It should have taken the trip at least 3 1/2 hours.) mrgreen

Today - you can make that same trip in just under 3 1/2 hours (oh - not construction season?) razz

--
And now, back to your regularly scheduled forum - already in progress . . .

.

Yes.. The time-distance method of determining speed isn't that new...

Our local police used to use a system called VASCAR back in the 1960's-1970's. It involved timing a vehicle over a precisely measured distance to compute its speed.

Here's a writeup on VASCAR.

http://www.1stradardetectors.com/support/technology-101/What...

Speed

Yes, Maryland has used that type for decades!

--
nuvi' 2450

Laser (Lidar) - Undetectable?

This is the third article I've read that claims police laser is not able to be detected. Not only is it detecable (with a good radar/lidar detector/jammer), but it can legally be actively jammed (unlike radar) in most states.

Why speed?

It's the tortoise and the hare thing. Long haul, you can make time but every time you stop you lose time. Go fast burn more fuel stop and buy more fuel. So on so forth. Go the flow whatever blend in. Be safe not sorry.

--
John_nuvi_

Somewhat true, and I mostly agree, but...

agg9900 wrote:

It's the tortoise and the hare thing. Long haul, you can make time but every time you stop you lose time. Go fast burn more fuel stop and buy more fuel. So on so forth. Go the flow whatever blend in. Be safe not sorry.

If you would normally average (that's including fuel stops, etc.) 50 mph on a 1,000 mile trip and you were able to increase your average speed to 65 mph, you just saved yourself about 4.6 hours of travel time. And, in my experiences, you probably wouldn't have burned up that much more fuel. I usually only average about 1-2 mpg worse than if I were maintaining the speed limit. This equates to only about a 15-30 mile "loss" in the distance I could have driven between fuel stops. Based on where I usually drive, the timing between my fuel stops remains fairly consistent, anyway. So, for me, it's really just a matter of how quickly I can drive the distance between each one.

As far as in town driving, I agree that driving with the flow of traffic is best. Trying to speed around slower traffic or down side streets will save, at most, just a few minutes. It's not worth it. Not only would you be angering a lot of other drivers and possibly pedestrians, but it's just not safe, either.

It all been arounf for a while

thank goodness the technology has slowed down a bit, for a while early on they only had two pneumatic air hoses laid across a road at a pre-spaced distance,not real accurate but then neither was the court system. then came Air craft stop watch surveillance, then X band radar, then boom an explosion of K,KA vascar,lidar and cameras.

It's the cameras that are becoming very clever in use.

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.