Article View: sci.electronics
Article #5870Re: Detecting Radar Detectors
From: John Pimentel
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 1990 03:16
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 1990 03:16
45 lines
2684 bytes
2684 bytes
In article <1990Aug15.230142.25956@xrtll.uucp> chris@xrtll.uucp (Chris Baisley) writes:
>In article <6141@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM> vekurpan@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Vincent E Kurpan) writes:
>>QUESTION:
>>
>>Why would anyone intelligent enough to build a radar jammer want
>>to risk several felony charges and at least one federal offense to
>>get out of a $35 traffic ticket. Anyone with the skills to build
>
>Well, because, at least in Canada, a $35 speeding ticket is more
>like $200. And that is only the start, because you will get a
>'line' (a printed report) on your driving record, which will without
>a doubt raise your insurance rates. The fine itself is fairly
>inconsequential, it's the other ramifications.
While in Massachusetts, a $35 speeding ticket was actually $50 at all
speeds until it went up to $50 for the first ten miles and $10 for each
mile thereafter. The charge hit the driving record where it stayed
for three years until "you" were good for one year then it dropped off
[on the anniversary all charges would drop one point, when everything
was ZERO, then the lot would drop].
Now, it remains on for seven years with a increase of 7.5% (?) of compulsory
and collision insurance [and some others] for each point above 15 pts [15
being middle -- 9 the lowest 35 the highest (Guess where the state wants
you :( -- range].
Good drivers were given a credit of 3 pts for every year they were good
to the maximum of 6 pts. Bad drivers were assessed. Some good drivers
who received "Good Driver Credits" last year were charged this year when
the window was blown open.
Traffic == 2 pts
Minor Accident == 3 pts
Major " == 4 pts [also I think DUI falls here]
One point off for every year that "you're" good.
That's why any idea to get around the "highway robbery" is a good idea.
Legality is for the courts to decide.
--
-------------------------------------------------------
John Pimentel ...!{decvax!mit-eddie!harvard}!frog!jp
Disclaimer: The opinion presented, is just that;
I take full responsiblity for those parts I've entered.
-------------------------------------------------------
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<18276@frog.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!crackers!cpoint!frog!jpReferences:
<26c63bee-32e.10sci.electronics-1@vpnet.chi.il.us> <4355@ash31.UUCP> <6141@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM> <1990Aug15.230142.25956@xrtll.uucp>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!crackers!cpoint!frog!jp From: jp@frog.UUCP (John Pimentel) Newsgroups: sci.electronics Subject: Re: Detecting Radar Detectors Message-ID: <18276@frog.UUCP> Date: 29 Aug 90 03:16:00 GMT References: <26c63bee-32e.10sci.electronics-1@vpnet.chi.il.us> <4355@ash31.UUCP> <6141@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM> <1990Aug15.230142.25956@xrtll.uucp> Reply-To: jp@frog.UUCP (J. Pimentel ) Organization: Charles River Data Systems Lines: 45