stevebower Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 Quite by chance I have discovered that a previous owner has fitted a K40 laser jammer to my S8. Should I keep using it, or am I asking for trouble from the 'old bill'? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 Any jammer risks you getting done. IIRC it's not just a traffic offence but "obstructing an officer in pursuit of his duties" or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botang Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Any jammer risks you getting done. IIRC it's not just a traffic offence but "obstructing an officer in pursuit of his duties" or something like that. [/ QUOTE ] Almost right, its not a traffic offence its just obstructing an officer (i.e. no points), however it appears only a couple of people have ever been prosecuted, you pays your money you takes your chance (until they ban all detector/jamming devices then it may be more of a problem). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Almost right, its not a traffic offence its just obstructing an officer (i.e. no points) [/ QUOTE ] The key thing is it's an offence other than traffic which you normally have to declare on job applications, insurance quotes etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebower Posted January 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 Hmm. Not looking good. I think that 1st I need a switch to at least disable it in the meantime. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted January 2, 2006 Report Share Posted January 2, 2006 The good news is I've seen proof they work. A Thames Valley Police camera van was used by a group of us to check things and it kept getting errors when people used LRC100s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botang Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 [ QUOTE ] The good news is I've seen proof they work. A Thames Valley Police camera van was used by a group of us to check things and it kept getting errors when people used LRC100s [/ QUOTE ] As a device they are very good at their job, as i said you pays your money you takes your chance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 [ QUOTE ] The good news is I've seen proof they work. A Thames Valley Police camera van was used by a group of us to check things and it kept getting errors when people used LRC100s [/ QUOTE ] from what i remember of the day about 50% worked. they seemed very fussy on location/fitment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazthecab Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 I read somewhere on the 'net that the offence is "attempting to pervert the course of justice", that put me off straight away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scillyisles Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 AFAIK the legality of laser jammers has yet to be tested in court. There was the well publicised case of the guy in Wales who got caught using one (he was clocked 19 times on various occasions and eventually plod cottoned on that his car might be suspect) The case never went to court as he pleaded guilty. The offence that plod might try to convict you of is "obstructing a police officer in the course of his duties" not "perverting the course of justice". This is the same offence as the lorry driver was convicted of recently when flashing his headlights to warn oncoming cars of a speed trap ahead. Getting an error on a laser speed gun is quite common and plod is'nt going to think there's anything unusual about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botang Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 From my general interest in the subject Ive read quite a lot of items on the internet, and what scillyisles says seems to be spot on. The "perverting the course of justice case" that keeps getting reffered to seems to be the one detailed on ukspeedtraps.co.uk. As you will see as outlined in the March 14th update without any explanation the CPS dropped the case. There is a couple of cases documented that have prosecuted using the "obstucting an officer" offence. If you read the detail of these cases it appears that the drivers involved were goading the police by continually driving passed the camera well in excess of the speed limit. Obviously the Police could not ignore this situation and rightly dealt with it. One reason that the Police/CPS may have not brought many cases may be because they felt that if they lost it would set a precident and as a new Road safety bill was being put before parliment which tied up loose ends, by specificly banning laser jamers and radar/laser detectors. As it happens this bill didnt get passed as they ran out of parliment time (IIRC due to the election in May). Im sure at some point in the future it will be passed and my opinion will change at that point. What Scotty points out are very valid points, there is a chance if caught you may be prosecuted and as such have a conviction that you would have to declare if asked (although not a motoring one). On that basis its up to the individual to assess the element of risk, thousands of jammers must be being used on the roads and yet only a couple of cases can ever be reffered to. There is also the possibility of winning your court case if it ever went that far, again IMO that is a very real possibility, especially how things stand at the moment (chap got conviction for warning other drivers overturned). I would just like to point out im no expert this is only an opinion derived from reading websites and trying to get passed some of the rumor and seeing what facts are left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The good news is I've seen proof they work. A Thames Valley Police camera van was used by a group of us to check things and it kept getting errors when people used LRC100s [/ QUOTE ] from what i remember of the day about 50% worked. they seemed very fussy on location/fitment [/ QUOTE ] Wak's was 100%. I don't recall anyone failing but I'll certainly take your word for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Your right, from what I remember the cars that worked, worked 100% of the time. From memory there was a couple of cars where they did manage a reading/and or the jammer didnt go off/jam it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botang Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 From reading reports on the different tests the LRC100 seemed very reliable in various different installations. Other models seemed as though correct installation was quite critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebower Posted January 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2006 I think that Botang is right. I have also now heard that my K40 is 'pants', so the debate from my point of view is probably moot - it won't do the job anyway! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now