I do find it kinda funny though that Supe is railing against the government using laser. Isn't his position that the government knows what's best for us...always? or have I stumbled into BiZARO world.

Laser will reflect off of just about anything. Hunters use laser range finders all the time to get readings on how far away a game animal is, so that they can accurately place their shots at extended range. They are particularly popular with bow hunters, owing to the looping trajectories of arrows even at close range. But, alas, therein lies the problem...

It is precisely because laser will reflect off of anything that leads to its inaccuracy in the manner in which police deploy it. It is absolutely imperative that it be reflected off the same surface for all signals that it uses to verify speed. Do some research on laser creep error; there is a plethora of reliable, authoritative information available on this topic.

The simple fact of the matter is that it is humanly impossible to hold a laser gun steadily enough while tracking a moving vehicle with it to ensure that common reflective plane criteria is met. Not at the ranges from which officers are "shooting" at moving vehicles. The claims of accuracy at extended ranges, 500-1500 yards, are patently absurd. If laser truly only reflected from flat, reflective surfaces, they would simply be unable to obtain a reading at the ranges they claim. No one can hold one steadily enough to track a moving license plate or headlight at 500 yards.

Fortunately, they don't have to. As Mike mentioned earlier, the beam itself will disperse over a 2.5 - 3 foot diameter at 500 yards, increasing to 4 feet or so at 1500. So the officer now has a 3 foot diameter circle that, if he is exceptionally steady, will be bouncing willy-nilly all over the front of the target vehicle. After all, we have been told they just aim at the entire front of the car at those distances. So when the unit receives the returning signal, did it get the part that bounced off of the license plate, the headlight, the top of the windshield, the road in front of the vehicle, a splash from a following vehicle, a splash from a vehicle beside it, or what? Neither the laser nor the officer have any way of knowing. The result can be wildly inaccurate readings.

If the officer is conscientious enough, he will use other means to verify that a vehicle is speeding. Unfortunately, many are not. Even more unfortunately, the courts, in their revenue generating zeal, turn a blind eye to these known problems and will take an officer purely on his word that he got a good reading. No evidence required, thank you very much, you can pay at the window on your way out.

I think it is unconscionable that these devices are still in use. They appear to be deployed almost exclusively to try to trump radar detectors. So essentially the powers that be are willing to compromise accuracy and convict innocent motorists in their zeal to possibly catch a few more that may be running detectors. I would venture to guess that far, far more innocent drivers get busted by bad readings than get busted while actually speeding with a detector. They are that inaccurate. The authorities deploying them know this. The courts know this. The manufacturers know this, and knowingly misrepresent their product. And yet they are still in use. That should concern us, here in America.

Interesting topic. I've seen alot of cars with jammers and I would assume they work. I think a ticket could be fought in court, I got off when the original speed gun was found to be inaccurate in court, so I assume the laser could be too with the right expertise.

And Jeff as far as the rifle analogy is concerned, I must disagree, yes it is difficult, but also doable without a tripod, a Canadian holds the record for a head shot (sniper rifle) in Afghanistan, and the distance is classified, but I will say it was easily over a mile.

Bob, I am a life-long competetive rifle shooter. I have literally grocery bags full of medals and more trophies than room to display them, won at ranges from 100 to 1,000 yards. I know very well how the rifle game is played and what is "doable".

This 2,430 meter shot by the Canadian Master Corporal Arron Perry was akin to a hole in one in golf. Yes, both are doable. Repeatable on demand? Hardly. Have enough people doing enough of any one thing long enough and eventually something remarkable will happen. This certainly does not represent a level of repeatability needed to convict citizens of any sort of infraction.

Straying just a bit, let's clear up some confusion about Perry. His rifle was the Barret M107, equiped with a front bipod. It has to be: it weighs over 40 pounds. It is chambered for the .50 BMG and wears a 16X Leupold scope. He had a spotter making range and wind correction calls; they had been operating from the same fixed posiion long enough to have made accurate assesments of both. This is done by firing and correcting repeatedly as the spotter and shooter work their way on target. There were lots of targets. His first shot at this target missed; some say knocking something out of his hands. That he didn't run like hell at that point casts a little doubt that Perry was that close. His second shot hit him in the chest, not in the head.

None of this has ever been classified. I know that adds to the mystique, but there is really no reason for it to ever have been classified. Almost immediately there were articles about this in The American Rifleman, Precision Shooting, The Varmint Hunter, Rifle, Guns and Ammo, and virtually every other shooting magazine on the planet.

Perry remained annonymous in the face of the American command's desire to issue his entire squad medals in appreciation of their service. They had done a fantastic job, as one of the most effective sniper squads in Afganistan. The problem was, the Canadian command did not want the publicity. One of them actually remarked that "Canadians are not killers"; he did not want to paint them in that light through the publicity the American medals would generate. That, and Perry was quite modest. He did not want anything he did to cast a shadow over the efforts of the rest of his team, so he requested his name not be used in the plethora of articles being written about him.

http://www.riflebarrels.com/articles/50calibre/50sniping.htm

http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/KillingShot_2430Metres.asp

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M107,,00.html

http://www.brianhayes.com/2005/08/world-sniper-record.html

Jeff, you're absolutely right, but your previous comments/analogy of keeping a "aiming" device steady to take a 1500-500M "shot" were a little skewed. A laser does not need to take into account wind, etc. Yes I know how hard it is to shoot at distance and especially with a good grouping as their are a lot of factors.

The point I was trying to make was the Laser scopes (speed) are not true precision instruments, and they don't need a sniper to be on the scope for the "speed" to stand up in court.

It was Rob Furlong who made the shot.
As for the "classified" stuff I was just trying to respect his wishes.

Whoa; don't mess with Jeff's kitchen!!!

Amazing, you definately know your stuff there.

"Classified" in Canada simply means if we tell ya, well then we'll have to kill ya.
I owned a rifle once, but as a developer I had too many dreams about shooting people, not killing them, but just injuring them, severly. I sold the gun and stuck to punching people, much safer.

Enjoyed the read though, cheers

Have you thought about anger management training?
Back to Laser: when a LEO aims at you and gets no reading he/she knows you have a jammer. Isn't that going to hack them off and they will "estimate" your speed? Thoughts?

No, unfortunately the "trunk" type systems are a problem, but it still works reasonably well in the police band and back-waters that don't have hi-end radio systems.

They cover that on the website and suggest that you turn the jammer off via the remote on/off switch right after correcting your speed. Makes sense.

Funny, you're not the first to suggest anger management?