GPS Tracking Device Beats Radar Gun in Court

MojoKid writes "According to a release issued by Rocky Mountain Tracking, an 18-year old man, Shaun Malone, was able to successfully contest a speeding ticket in court using the data from a GPS device installed in his car. This wasn't just any old make-a-left-turn-100-feet-ahead-onto-Maple-Street GPS; this was a vehicle-tracking GPS device — the kind used by trucking fleets — or in this case, overprotective parents. The device was installed in Malone's car by his parents, and the press release makes no mention if the teenager knew that the device was installed in his vehicle at the time."

Comments

Heh, heh, heh.

[Mesa MIke]

Take that, you oppressive pigs!
We've got counter-measures.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[von_rick]

All of this doesn't resonate with what I have learned in Hollywood movies. Malone should be the cops name. Its just doesn't sound right.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgot to say that his VERY OPPRESSIVE PARENTS installed the device on his car...

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[Chris Burkhardt]

Forgot to say that his VERY OPPRESSIVE PARENTS installed the device on his car...

Only to protect him from the cops.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[KGIII]

Parents making a choice to protect their children is oppression??? How old are you? (Really, I want a real answer.) I am a parent. I'd have my kids LoJacked if it could be safely removed (with minimal scar) at the age of 18, were legal, and could be proved to be safe. No questions asked and no they don't get a choice. *gasp* Choices are for me to make when it comes to protecting my child, not for you nor for the government, and sure as hell not for a child who doesn't know the differences between right and wrong. (I was going to go to sleep but this one caught my eye.) In one thread you (not just you but a generic you) scream for holding the parent's accountable and in another when they take reasonable steps to monitor their children it is oppression? I kid you not, I love my children and want to protect them from all that I can while allowing them the freedom to make their own mistakes, I'd LoJack their asses in a minute. They are aged seven and nine, they carry cell phones that let me know a fairly decent triangulation of where they are at all times. Those phones can call only numbers that my ex-wife or myself authorize. They both use the internet more often than some of you. They both aren't ever allowed a single moment of privacy. *gasp* Nope. They use a computer only in a main living area of the home and only when there is a responsible adult there to watch them. My goal isn't to prevent them from being hurt, it is to let them get hurt because that is how they learn, but to be there when they fall and to be able to make things as better as a daddy can make it.

Being a responsible parent means those things. My children do not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" (except my daughter). There is nothing I can't and won't search of theirs. There is no nook and cranny that I don't feel comfortable going into and looking at. I search for the parents of their friends. I go to their friend's houses alone so that I can meet the parents. They KNOW this and UNDERSTAND it because I've never talked to them like anything less than humans. (And yes, they both know why I would LoJack them if I could and BOTH agree that I should if I'm allowed to and haven't a problem with it.) "Daddy's job is to ensure your safety while allowing you the freedom to make mistakes and I always make it a point to balance the two as best as I can." Oppress? Are you high??? You just must not have children... When you learn love, that that you have for a child, you will understand. Maybe.

*gasp* I pick their video games out too! I limit them to certain movies. My daughter and my son each have about 10 cubic feet of space that is off limits. I bought, when they were way too young to understand even, a couple of fire proof safes. They have the only keys (as far as I know - I know I don't nor does their mother have the spare) for this case. This is where they can put anything that fits into that space and have it be as secret as they want it to be. Anything bigger should not be a secret when you're a child. My son leaves his wide open and stores his more expensive model cars in it. My daughter locks her safe because that is where her diary is and she doesn't want her brother to read it. Hell, I'm DIVORCED from this wife and we still have one of the most open families on the planet I suspect. I treat them like humans and I talk to them like that.

Finally I am not writing this for me. I wrote this for YOU. I want to get some sleep sometime soon as I have things to do in the morning. If you view a parent protecting their child in a reasonable (and hopefully open) manner as oppression than you fail. Your mother turning the handles in on the stove so that you're toddler self didn't grab them and get scalded and die is not oppression, it is love. Now go call your mother and tell her how much you love her, appreciate her, and then respond here if you'd like.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[timmarhy]

"No questions asked and no they don't get a choice"

there is a huge gaping hole in this kind of arguement. it softens them up to future government opression, since mum and dad lojacked me whats wrong with the government doing it, right?

living in your kids back pockets is a sure fire way to have them rebeling against you by the time they are 13. and yes, lojacking the frigging car is going too far.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[jacquesm]

My kid read this and is happy he's *my* kid and not yours. You probably score pretty good on the 'protect my kids' scale, but you don't respect them.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[HTRednek]

Absolutely!!!
There is an old saying that my dad used, and I use it still today. "Give your kids enough rope to run with but not enough to hang themselves."
You have to give your kids the ability to do what they want, so they can learn for themselves, but at the same time you need to protect them from MAJOR issues until they are old enough to think for themselves. If you hover too closely, yes, there will be resentment, but if you don't hover at all, you have no way of knowing when to intervene.
"Living in their back pocket" would be doing things such as being a chaperone, calling them every 15 minutes, following them around, etc... Lojack or GPS, etc, is not being too close. It allows a parent to give their children extra freedom while still giving the parent insight to verify if the child is doing what they say they are and wether they are capable of handling additional trust or not.
Parents who let their children run around blindly are either fools, or their Give-a-shit-o-meter is broken. The way many children of this generation, and my own (I'm 35 in case you're wondering), have turned out, I'm a firm believer that the government should require licensing to procreate. No license, means no government assistance should you be stupid enough to have a 5 kids on a $8/hr job. ....
Wow... is it just me or did I end up on a soapbox?
I hate it when that happens.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[moderatorrater]

You know, my parents ran our family as a dictatorship. We never voted on anything and we never got to choose what the house rules were. That doesn't keep us from participating in elections and getting politically active.

Kids aren't full grown adults and they shouldn't be treated as such. If you raise them properly they'll be able to understand the differences between home and government and act accordingly. Also, sometimes lojacking the car is going too far, sometimes it's not. Things like that should be taken on a case by case basis.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[KGIII]

Tricky tricky terms. I respect them but I think we may have differences in opinion as to how one shows that. First, I love them. Second, I protect them. Third I respect them. They go in that order for me but, well, I'm a Marine or at least "was" but, really, I'll always be a Marine. The first two they can't do for themselves. The latter one they don't have to earn BUT they should. If, at any point in time, one of my children came to me and said that they felt they needed (to use my above post as the example) a larger box to hold their secrets in I would ask why they felt that way and, if it was a good answer, I'd get them a larger box. In all actuality I would probably get them the larger box regardless, for simply having the forward thinking to ask, because my views aren't that important in this matter. To me it doesn't matter the size of the box. What matters to me is that they know they have a place that no one else can go.

They ask to live with me and I could take custody right this minute. I am probably the most strict parent on the planet that isn't abusive (I don't need to hit them or even belittle them for emotional abuse) but I expect and am given an exacting set of behavioral standards when they are with me. I don't disallow play, joking, or even dangerous play. If they want to make noise then they have the entirety of the time when no one is sleeping to do so and they encouraged to do so. If they want to play a practical joke or even give a bit of hassle to each other or to myself and my girlfriend they're allowed and encouraged to so as long as it doesn't become a personal attack. If they want to go out four wheeling or climb a tree then not only are they encouraged (wear a helmet and stay in the back three fields) to do so then I'll even go out there and show them how to wear a set of chaps and use climbing studs on the straight trees.

Heck, if they want to drive my truck or my wife's car and we're either here on the property or on the driveway leading into the last bit of driveway they can certainly do so. They can not only do so but they are going to go only a few miles an hour so they are even going to get to make a choice of freedom and not wear a seatbelt while their sit on our respective laps and drive.

Depending on the store and the motive while there they get a single dollar, a ten dollar bill, a twenty, or a hundred dollar bill. They do their own math and they get only what that provided. (Lately it has been a five dollar bill instead of the single or a ten.) Purchases ARE subject to monitoring but that's what they get, that is all they get, and it isn't an allowance. They aren't "allowed" anything. They WORK, yes WORK, for their food, school, special things, etc... They have helped to carry cords of wood since they were barely able to carry a small 2" stick. They do that because it is their job. It is your job, as a family member, to assist in those things that are done for the benefit of the family. There are no questions, it is what your job is and we all do it. To this day I still go over and even cut my ex-wife's wood down to ensure that it is dried in time to be burned cleanly and safely. With me standing over them (and they wrapped in Kevlar chaps with hearing protection and gloves) they too have actually sat there and helped limb a tree. Respect? Yes. I treat them like humans instead of the nanny state crap you see being done by people who seem to think children are a status symbol.

Finally, I hope, I'm not even DEFENDING my position. I haven't done this before so I don't KNOW if I'm doing it better than anyone else or if I'm failing horrifically. But they are happy. That is most important. After that? They are safe, they are more responsible than any other kids I know, they speak in clear English though they can't spell worth a damn, they are loving, they are kind, they are giving to those in need, and they articulate their needs and differences clearly.

| I wasn't done. I'll make this short, I hope. My mother recently died. (The first of this mon

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[Phydeaux314]

When I was six or so, when we'd go out in crowded places - like the zoo, train stations, etc - my parents would hook one of those extending leashes you get for pets on to a belt or overall buckle. I could wander 50 feet from them, I wouldn't get lost, and they wouldn't worry where I was.

Now, other people without children always called it cruelty, but other parents would come up and ask where to get the leashes.

However, I think the GP is going too far here. If you don't give your child any freedoms (to fail, do something stupid) they'll never learn anything about life, responsibility, and the consequences of failure. Unleashing a child that hasn't learned anything on the world does a disservice to the child and makes for one more idiotic kid-with-adult-powers the system has to coddle and watch out for.

People with no concept of personal responsibility are at fault for some of the worst tragedies the planet has seen.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[jacquesm]

Funny, I figured out the ex-military bit before you mentioned it.

House != barracks... if you want your kids to succeed in life and not just house them until they're 18 or something like that you'll have to allow them a lot of independence, otherwise they'll always be looking to you for their everyday decisions and one day you won't be there.

It's like bicycling with training wheels, at some point they have to come off, best if your parent is still around so they can catch you when you fall (or console you if they didn't catch you) :)

Good luck there, it sounds like you are in a pretty difficult situation and you're doing the best you can.

    Jacques.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[TheJasper]

Parents making a choice to protect their children is oppression???

Your arguments are filled with fallacies. While you have a right to take certain measures to protect your children this doesn't mean saying that you are protecting your children makes the measures right.

How old are you? (Really, I want a real answer.)

Trying to imply someone's opinion is invalid based on emotion.

I am 32 and don't have children btw.

Choices are for me to make when it comes to protecting my child, not for you nor for the government,

well that certainly isn't true. There are certain things that most people agree noone should be allowed to do to even their own children. Please tell me you don't think you can do whatever you want with your children.

In one thread you (not just you but a generic you) scream for holding the parent's accountable and in another when they take reasonable steps to monitor their children it is oppression?

Very nicely done. The generic you who could be many people with complete opposite opinions yet will be assumed to be the person you are arguing against must be wrong. Not only is 'he' always contradicting himself but you are also neatly assuming the validity of your own argument. How could anyone fail to agree with you.

I don't doubt you love your children. Do you respect them? perhaps. Ask them how they feel when they are teenagers and you still give them no expectation of privacy. The ends do not justify the means.

Ask yourself this. How did your parents treat you? Did you grow up being constantly monitored? Would you have liked it? Not that kids have to like everything their parents do but it needs to be asked.

Please think twice before presenting your arguments. It really is easy to justify just about anything on the basis of safety, on the basis of 'love', on the basis of 'they are mine'.

You argue very much from emotion. Emotion is valid and certainly plays a role. However it makes for poor logic. You can use to to explain why you think a thing should be a certain way. It cannot prove or disprove anything.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[KGIII]

They are happy and safe. I treat them with ten times more respect than I think people here understand and give them way more freedom than many and I'd allow them more but they must learn where the limits are first. They have a few hundred acres of private woods to play in when they are here with me. I don't hover or stand over their shoulder normally. I don't give them complete freedom (the people who write in below haven't any kids or, if they do, they'll be sorry) but I give them as much as I can do safely. They know that their phones track them, they knew that before they were given the choice to take them, and they take them because they watch the news too and see what goes on and they want me to be able to find them. (In my area they're more likely to get lost than to be taken.) I *gasp* limit my children's exposure to the internet at the ages of seven and nine! (Horrifically oppressive aren't I?) I do insist on the PC in the room and I, or my girlfriend, or my ex-wife back at their house, we really WANT to know the URL they are at. There is a free game site that my daughter, the eldest, goes to. Some of the games have things like undressing boys in them. Yes, yes I do restrict that content. She doesn't WANT to play that game but she has clicked on an inviting title and that's the resulting game and she was just as bothered as I. So, they are happy, they are safe, they are loved, and they are loving in return. As they change so won't my policies as will their methods to circumvent them. She's just nine and she's gone on dates where we didn't even go in the movie theater with her. It is not them that I don't trust, it is other people whom I know, first hand, will take a thread (such as this) and respond without actually understanding and that can cause harm that she doesn't need as well as far worse things. I'm no expert but I like the way the results have been so far. I get letters of praise from their school and the church that their mother has started to bring them to. *sighs* But, that's respect for you... I give them the respect to let them make choices and they asked/opted to go and so she started bringing them.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[KGIII]

My other post was long and actually truncated so that it only contained the information concerning the person's statement that I was responding to. If you would like then you can click and read the rest, I'm no expert in child rearing and surely wouldn't take advice from this crowd at slashdot for raising children BUT if you want to take the time to refresh and read the rest... It was such a broad subject that I had to ensure that I got the rest out there. I am, really, one of the most strict parents you'll ever meet. I'm also probably the most loving, responsible, and freedom allowing. I don't want to LoJack my kids 'cause I want to stop them from doing something. I'd do it because I want to help them when it is past the point where they've made poor choices. The cell phones do track them but those, we're not the government, aren't used to spy on them - they are there so that they can push a panic button and we can find them easily. While that does take some of the accountability away from the kids it adds a safety measure for us. If I were to allow my child to run a piece of power tool (and I have and will and do) I will also ensure he's wearing the proper safety equipment too. Those are the reasons in short, the rest of the posts might share some more reasons and some more anecdotal evidence. I'm a parent, I'm not perfect either. It is my first time at it so I'm sure I will make mistakes but right now I have happy, open, laughing, loving, respected, and respectful children so I'm sort of hoping I did it right.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[Kokuyo]

I've only read like a third of this drivel.... and drivel it is. My parents never had the means of protecting me like that. They had to trust that I would call if I stayed out longer (and I was basically allowed to stay out whenever I wanted and however long I wanted, because I was trusted to know myself when it was a good time to return home).

You know, I think I'm still alive and doing quite well for myself. Looking at the latest generation, though, who is always reachable and traceable by the likes of you, I'm not quite as sure about that.

One thing was funny, though... you let them make their own mistakes? What mistakes would that be? Choosing ketchup instead of sauce cafe de paris for their meat? Or perhaps wearing a brown belt with black shoes? The way you sound it's certainly not going to be stumbling over unsuitable websites or getting drunk at bloody fifteen. Not that I ever did that, because I somehow never saw the need to... well, contrary to some kids who weren't allowed to swear at home, and had to be home right after school.

Oh and contrary to them, I didn't have to hide my smoking habit. Because I didn't smoke. Even though my parents made it perfectly clear that they would not forbid it since they were such bad examples themselves.

I had a lot of freedoms as a kid and I am of the firm belief that I didn't fuck up even close as often as the average kid does. I've tried smoking exactly two times in my lifes (more to actually know what the hell I was talking about) and it was limited to just inhaling once per try. I tried space cookies, as smoking was out of the question, and found the experience to be less than stellar (although that was at age 20 something). I've had a bout of kleptomania around age 13 which I got under control on my freaking own without my parents having to watch my ass every damn second.

So would you allow your kids to make the mistake of shoplifting not once but several times? Would you let them learn to deal with it on their own? Sorry if I don't think so.

From my experience, parents like you produce social garbage that usually gets the fuck outa there as soon as they turn legal. I'm not saying your kids will do that... sometimes they become completely dependant and shy personalities, who can't function in this world without someone holding their hand. And I'm still not saying your kids will turn out like this, but I say chances are high. And if I get modded Troll for this, I'll actually be proud of it, because, frankly, people like you give me a very bad feeling in my stomach area.

Seeking freedom and wanting to be your own boss is like a basic instinct for a lot of humans. Trying to completely repress that, because the person in question doesn't have enough experience, often leads to rebellion and doing stupid shit out of principle. And besides, let me ask you a philosophical question: If my grandfather told you that you can't go out after 5pm because he thinks you're too young to make your own decisions, what would you say? You're an adult, right? But what the hell does that mean? It means you turned 18 already. Big freaking deal. Most of us manage to do that.

The ability to weight the pros and cons of your action is what makes you mature and that ability doesn't turn on at 18. It has to be learned, and from my experience, kids in the kind of environment you create often haven't learned that when they're given all the responsibilities and freedoms of an adult.

In my personal opinion, kids should be confronted with responsibility as soon as they're able to handle it. It is our duty as parents to decide when that day comes. Some of us, though, don't want to get to know their kids that well or just don't have the time, so they just trace their every move to make sure they don't do anything wrong... and then they go and think that this way their kids are going to turn out to be well rounded and mature adults.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[jacquesm]

The problem is that kids will find ways around stuff that their parents restrict, no matter how clever you are with tech they'll be more clever than that. Kids today (and probably at any point in the past) can and will run rings around their parents, using their peers and technology to help them with that. Tracking their whereabouts is not going to help you one bit with this. (after all, all it tells you is where their cellphones were...)

That sets you up for a bit of a problem in the long term because they'll already have a habit of going around your back by the time it will really matter.

Better to get your kids to trust you, and for you to trust them. That way if something comes up that they don't know how to deal with they'll come to you first, instead of going to the 'peer' group (I use the world loosely) and hiding it from you because you're going to restrict it.

Forbidden fruits and all that...

The problems won't really start until they're in their teens, for your daughter somewhere around age 13, for your boy 14 or 15. That's when it matters that there is a huge bond of trust between you and them, basically you need to be able to let them go at that age and *know* they'll make the right decisions, even if you're not there.

It'll make you sleep better too :)

Right now you can control your kids but that time will be over sooner than you can possibly imagine, but the kind of relationship that you make with them now will persist long past that point and trust once gained is hard to lose.

Just for a small example from my own life:

I wasn't allowed to have a moped, but I was crazy about engines and anything associated with it, so a friend of mine who lived about 5 miles from my house housed my moped in his garage box... nobody, and I mean really nobody, including my control freak of a steph father, had any idea of what was going on. So much for all that control... (and believe me, you look like an angel in comparision, your intentions are clearly good).

So, when I had a kid myself I decided that control was not going to cut it, assuming that history would repeat itself. Give your kid repect and trust, get the same in return. Control your kids and sooner or later they'll slip the leash and you won't be the wiser until it's much too late.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[KGIII]

Oh my... Dude that is priceless! I mean, really. You just proved my point entirely. Kids are going to find a way around any monitoring system (and my methods are reactive, not even proactive - being a good parent is proactive, the other methods are for when some dirtbag decides he wants your children more than you do) and that's just it entirely! YES! You got it in one shot. Or two... They will find a way around any rules I impose or any methods I opt to use to track them. They will CHOOSE to do so. They will NOT have been chosing to be snatched by some pervert when they need to press the big red send button that sends an message to my phone and her mother's phone. If you think I'm stupid then yes think that I think a cell phone with tracking is going to prevent anything from happening. I am not stupid. I can't prevent ANYTHING while still allowing them to be children. I can educate them and put as many systems into play as I can that will help us recover from the times when the do make bad choices. NOTE: Not "if they make bad choices" They will. I will protect them, to my last breath, by ensuring I do what I can to help them when that time comes regardless of their ages. (Oh, my kids have motorized toys that go long distances. I'd say you can have a moped, were you my child, but I'd insist that you wear the appropriate protective equipment. I have no way of knowing if you'd take it off after you were out of sight BUT I'd insist by treating you like a human and explaining why I wanted you to do so and letting you know why it is a great benefit to you to do so and hope you listened all while appearing gruff or understanding and talkative as the mood dictated.)

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[ryszard99]

..and surely wouldn't take advice from this crowd at slashdot for raising children..

You seem to be suggesting that because i read slashdot (ie, part of the slashdot crowd) that i dont have good parenting advice.

As an uber geek and father of three children, I find that statement both arrogant and ignorant.

YMMV

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[Phydeaux314]

What sort of bad choices would your kid (or mine, this is hypothetical) make that would require you to have access to his or her exact location at all times?

If the child always has access to a "panic button" that lets a white knight come fix the problems, he or she won't learn how to cope and deal with problems without outside aid. I'd rather have a child stuck in a rough spot for a while and come out of it himself than have to rescue him every time he got into a situation he couldn't see an obvious solution to. I remember the first time I got in a really lousy position - drove a car off the road - but I managed to get the car fixed and back on the road with no lasting damage in an hour or so. I was so proud that evening that I had managed to rescue myself, and that's a feeling that every kid should have. A knowledge that they can take care of themselves if need be.

About your power tool example. Were it my child, I'd explain what the tool was for, how to use it properly, make sure the kid understood the consequences of misuse, and watch them the first few times they used it to make sure they followed the appropriate safety practices. After that, I'd trust the child to know how to use the tool and why the safety gear was important.

At some point you have to let the child figure out why the rules and safety regulations are there by himself. Hopefully the the child can learn from the explanation of the consequences, but I certainly couldn't - I had to figure out why something said "don't touch" by touching it. My mother is an avid believer in the "Burned hand teaches best" method of parenting.

As such, I've lost some of the nerves in my left hand from a thermite burn. However, you'd better bet I'm careful with pretty much anything explosive now. And, in the grand scheme of things, the small bit of nerve damage was worth a deeply ingrained caution for all things explosive and hot.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[mgblst]

Was this done to you when you were a child? Probably not, but you seemed to grow up ok? I have no problem with not letting them have a computer in their own rooms with internet access, but following their every move - it really just proved that you don't trust them, and you don't trust yourself to teach them any sense.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[KGIII]

At their age and, unfortunately not preventable without undo hovering, I'd say "getting in the car with a stranger because he offered you some candy" would be my primary concern and, really, other than that it is getting lost here. I am FAR more worried about the latter than I am the former. And, absolutely I'd let my children use some powered tools. BUT they must learn the safety first, as you said.

Some additional clarification, if you want? My daughter finally learned to climb. She climbed on the couch (I was still with my wife of the time) and stood up on it. She and her uncle who were there wanted to get her down. I told them that I'd rather that not happen and asked that they watch. She fell straight down at an angle that you'd think would break a child's neck (but onto a heavily carpetted floor) and got back up crying. They wanted to run to her and comfort her and, again, I said that I really wished they wouldn't and actually stood between them in the hallway so that they'd have had to push past me. She got back on the couch and sat her ass down and never ever jumped on the couch again. I think I am cautious, not over protective. I don't really STOP them from doing much of anything - I even encourage them to try most anything their hearts desire. I just want to be able to pick up the pieces like I think a good parent should.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[something_wicked_thi]

I am not infalable

We can see that.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[KGIII]

Bah, you should see me code. :P Besides, if you read what I wrote, I have two perfect and beautiful children. So I gotta be doing something right. (Actually? They're not perfect but they are beautiful only 'cause they got that from my ex wife. They are, actully, really really well behaved and excel scholastically.)

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[eggz128]

When I was five or so, I too would go to crowded places with my parents. I too would wander, but I wasn't kept on a lead.

One day, finally fed up of having to remain ever vigilant of my wandering, my parents decided on a simple course of action. They waited for me to begin wandering, then hid around a corner, just out of view of me, but at a point where they could still keep an eye on me (presumably using one of those convex security mirrors, I never did ask). They also let staff members where we were what they were about to do...

After five minutes of happy wandering I noticed I hadn't been yanked back from whatever I was busy with. After 7 minutes I begain to look visibly worried. At 8, realising I was very much alone I began to cry. By 10 minutes I was in full frantic bawling-my-eyes-out and screaming for attention mode. After 15 minutes they stepped out from around the corner to collect me and give me a bloody good bollocking for wandering off.

Apparently I never wandered again.

My parents: wise beyond their years, and utter, utter bastards :)

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[KGIII]

Actually, instead of being mean, I will tell you. Yes, yes I was allowed internet access in my room as a child. It was 1200 baud cradle modem with a Tandy laptop for the most part. And you know what? With all the proper upbringing in the world? I still got in trouble. If you should ever get the chance to talk to some of the old legislature branch here in Maine (where I came to go to Kent's Hill) you will find that there are a series of laws that they wrote with my name on them. I don't remember the model number but they had a DEC mainframe that tied in with the State of Maine's experimental (at the time) network - part of which was the driver's license database. Any/all connected schools got access to that database and entire system... So; When I was home, yes, my parents actually expected to go outside and call my name and have me show up within the next half hour or so for dinner. Now, it is my turn to ask you... Did you actually read what I wrote? If so then do you have any kids of your own? If you do then what are your plans when they do something stupid like get into a car and ride off with someone who's kidnapping them? If you do then do ya really think I think these methods are going to actually PREVENT anything? (Hint: They won't, they just make it more likely that we can recover the child safely in the event of a worst case scenario.)

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[Mr2001]

I'd have my kids LoJacked if it could be safely removed (with minimal scar) at the age of 18, were legal, and could be proved to be safe. No questions asked and no they don't get a choice. [...] I've never talked to them like anything less than humans.

Stop right there. You might not let them know you think they're less than humans, but you made it loud and clear to us in the first few lines of your comment.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[KGIII]

I will respond to your troll with one in kind... The kind of parent who doesn't give a shit about recovering their child when something they can't prevent happens shows exactly how little love them. You are saying that you don't love your child enough to swallow your pride and do everything you can to work for their safe and speedy return? Good one... Tell that to your kindapped and then murdered children when you are sitting their with your wife and crying over their grave, good job. Step off the zealot box and accept that reality isn't what we want it to be - it is what it is, sorry. Troll away if you wanna. Imma gonna sleep. While it isn't exactly the same you still probably should just stuff any children you have into an oven to ensure that they're (insert your favorite term here - it is probably free seeing as you didn't see the whole bit about the conditions as to when I'd have consided doing so 'cause you're not wanting to read that much) and offing them now instead of doing the responsible thing and being the best parent you can be.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so you know, I'm 26 years old. I haven't lived under parental authority since I was 17, when I left for college, paying my own way and not receiving more than a birthday card from my family.

With that said, if my family had ever thought of installing something in my body so they'd have GPS tracking of me, not only would I carve it out with a knife just to spite them, but I'd most likely end their existences as well.

It seems to me that in your zeal to protect your children, you're ignoring the fact that they are humans, just the same as you. If you can't work with them to keep them safe - you're an adult, find a way - then frankly, you are failing as a parent.

And this is coming from someone who just recently had his own kid. I love her to death, and I'd die for her in a second, but I'd never compromise her own humanity for safety, even if I couldn't find another way. Yes, this means something terrible could happen to her, but as much as I wish it otherwise, that is one of the chances you take when you even bring someone into this world. She could die of cancer at 12, or be raped at 16, 26, or 86. Believe me; I thought of what a fucked up world we live in, and whether I could, in good conscience, be okay with someone I love more than life itself being subjected to these things.

But then I realized that that goes for everyone, at every time, and that's really just part of life.

She'll play on swing sets, play tag with friends, most likely she'll eat mud pies and play with sticks in the woods (unless, of course, by some weird fluke of life, she isn't interested). She'll come home with cuts, bruises, scrapes, and quite probably some broken bones. All I can do is hope that it isn't too serious. Maybe you're one of those horrible, domineering parents who want to wrap their kids in a bubble and attach that bubble to their hip, but I want my daughter to actually grow up, as a human, not just to physically grow up, but enter the world still as a child.

Of course, you could be a great parent, who recognizes how kids have to experience life, but still not be willing to take the risk of having them on a street corner giving blowjobs for crack. It's hard to tell from your previous comment for certainty.

All I'm saying is being a protective parent is one thing, but there's a fine line to being overprotective, and from what you said, it sounds like you really have no idea what that line is. If you're relying on the law to dictate your actions, vs. knowing what is inherently right and wrong, then you have got some serious parenting issues.

Of course, maybe because of those sorts of things being against the law, you don't participate in any insanity, and you're a great parent. I don't want to knock you without knowing, I'm just saying that by what you said, you're the type of parent that scares the shit out of me, and your kids are the types of kids that I see being the most fucked up members of society.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[theophilosophilus]

Referring the psychology at work in the parent-post's story about hiding from the wandering kid, my parents did a similar brilliant thing to delay my brother from getting his driver's license. My dad is a farmer and we live in a farm state. Because it was a small state, the driving age was 14 and kids would generally start as soon as possible. My brother had a way of finding trouble and so my parents didn't like the idea of him driving at 14. My brother hated farm work and so my parents led him to believe that they would force him to get his license when he turned 14 and make him help on the farm. He didn't get a license until much, much later.

As to other people's comments about the parents in this story, parenting is like everything else in this world, it needs balance. I've seen friends/kids rebel because of oppressive parents and I've seen kids destroy their lives because of parents that wanted to be their kids' "friends." One extreme is my mom's friend whose son could do no wrong and no one could tell her otherwise - until he died from drugs. The other extreme is my friend whose marriage is in shambles since he married a woman simply because his mom hated her.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[couchslug]

"House != barracks... "

Training, supervision, and gradual increase of unmanaged activities allows people to grow and become highly competent and empowered. The military/barracks model, done right, is actually a great way to produce effective people who can function independently meeting challenges far beyond those in (most) civilian life.

The only way to internalize self-discipline (self-mastery, the key to personal effectiveness) is challenge under imposed discipline.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[IndustrialComplex]

If the child always has access to a "panic button" that lets a white knight come fix the problems, he or she won't learn how to cope and deal with problems without outside aid. I'd rather have a child stuck in a rough spot for a while and come out of it himself than have to rescue him every time he got into a situation he couldn't see an obvious solution to. I remember the first time I got in a really lousy position - drove a car off the road - but I managed to get the car fixed and back on the road with no lasting damage in an hour or so. I was so proud that evening that I had managed to rescue myself, and that's a feeling that every kid should have. A knowledge that they can take care of themselves if need be.

This isn't some sort of 'panic button' it is a cell phone. I highly doubt that giving your child a method to call for help is somehow keeping them from dealing with problems. When I was a kid, they didn't have cell phones, I got a loud whistle for if I got lost in the woods or in trouble. Knowing that I could call for help certainly didn't give me any sense of immunity from trouble.

And cope with what exactly? What situation do you think a 10 year old could get into, requiring a cell phone to call for help, that they should deal with themselves? If there is ANY situation that warrants using a cell phone to call for help I do NOT want my 10 year old to try and deal with it themselves. The only thing they should be dealing with is understanding if the situation is beyond their ability to control.

I've been through survival training and I know I can last for a week dropped off somewhere with just what I have in my pockets, but I'll be damned if I don't still keep some sort of equivalent to the whistle that I used to carry as a kid.

You can learn to swim in the 3' deep section, there is no need to boot someone into the deepend.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[DataBroker]

I'm a parent of three sons. I too did the same as your parents and hid out of sight (peering through clothes racks, looking over the tops of aisles, or simply watching from around a corner 40 feet away).

My sons always noticed that I wasn't around after about 5 minutes. Each of them behaved differently though. One noticed and sat down and waited for me to get there (as he had been taught). One went off in search of me. The last, looked around, and couldn't have cared less: he kept on playing.

As for leashes, I just wanted to share their own "mental leash". I can now walk into a store with them and they each keep no more than a maximum distance from me. The 10 year old will go up to about 60 feet before he comes looking for me. The 8 year old will go about 40 on his own. The 5 year old will go about 30 feet. Each brother will go further with the other brothers in tow, up to the oldest brother's distance + 10 feet. Although this is not scientific, it's great for knowing how large of a circle I need to scan to quickly check for my kids' locations. (It also makes my wife think I'm psychic since I know within 5 feet where any kid is at almost any time.)

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[torstenvl]

"I'll take advice when/if I see the source actually ... making sense."

Translation:

"I'll take advice when/if I see the source actually ... confirming my biases."

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[gutnor]

"They had to trust that I would call if I stayed out longer (and I was basically allowed to stay out whenever I wanted and however long I wanted, because I was trusted to know myself when it was a good time to return home)."

His kids are 7 and 9 - while he looks like he is over the top - complete freedom to kids aged 7 and 9 is also over the top.

If I could also do anything I wanted by the time I was 16, at 7, I was not even allowed to chose not to eat my vegetable.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[ichthyoboy]

Seriously...won't someone think of the speeding tickets?!?!

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[iceperson]

I too have three children, and each is different and unique all three require different parenting skills. I believe that I am a good parent, but without knowing the child/children in question I would never presume to know enough to give good parenting advice to another person.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[nabsltd]

Besides, if you read what I wrote, I have two perfect and beautiful children. So I gotta be doing something right. (Actually? They're not perfect but they are beautiful only 'cause they got that from my ex wife. They are, actully, really really well behaved and excel scholastically.)

I'm really sorry to break this to you, but this means nothing. I'm not knocking your kids or anything, because they may be really great and may end up turning out to be really great adults, but at 7 and 9 their "state" isn't always indicative of what they will turn out to be.

Case in point...a friend of mine had a very authoritarian and over-protective father, and although he was the great student, well-behaved generally (especially compared to some of the friends he had at the time), that strict lockdown authority left him pretty messed up, and he's been in and out of therapy for years now. And, if you had asked his father, he would have responded pretty much like you do about your kids, at least when they were 7-9 years old (later, maybe not as much).

Again, I'm not saying that this is the way your family is, but it's just something to think about.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[timias1]

I totally agree with you, and your right to raise your children as you see fit. Obviously I raise exception to anyone who is harming their child, but you don't seem to fall into that category.The problem as I see it, is too many people out there think they have all the answers. And anyone who disagrees with them must be an wrong, or an idiot.

To those people: There is NO right or wrong way to raise your children. Child raising doesn't boil down into some algorithm that you can predict the outcome based on the variables. Your own childhood doesn't make you an expert on child raising. Your own experiences are 1/4 billionth of a possibility. I notice that the most vocal objectors don't even have kids. What a joke, that is like telling someone how they should write code, without ever touching a computer(My Slashdot analogy). I had all kinds of opinions about child raising, and as soon as I had my child, those got thrown out the window. To the ones with children, I guarantee you child react differently than mine. What you consider good parenting, I consider laziness. Be glad you have the right to do things your own way. and consider maybe my child has different needs than yours.

Whew I feel better now

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[Forge]

Hollywood fracks up a lot of stereotypes.

If you follow them Presidents are brave and willing to fight (Air Force One & Independence Day). Women in Miami are always hot (Every show with a Miami scene, except Golden Girls).

The rely big question in this story though is "will any consequences flow to the cop?"

You see Police do a lot of corrupt things for a lot of different reasons. One of the worst is to clock a car traveling well above the speed limit and then assign that recorded speed to the next car to come along.

This happened to me when I was pulled over for speeding without my radar detector going off. The cops claimed I was doing 71 Kph in a 50Kph zone. They were wrong on both counts.

1. The speed limit on that road is 80Kph
2. I was actually going just shy of 180Kph.

I pointed out item #1. without mentioning item #2 and avoided a ticket. The real trouble is that even if I had taken the ticket and challenged it in court I would be acquitted of the speeding charge but the cop would still be allowed to keep defrauding motorists in this way.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[kalirion]

Would you take advice on raising your kids from random people on the street just because one of them tells you he's a good parent?

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[cayenne8]

Good Grief, what are people so worried about these days? I guess it is a pure miracle that I and my peers survived to adulthood. When I was young...probably as young as 10-11 or so, when we went to the malls in Dallas, my mom and I would establish a time and place to meet, and I then went to look in the record stores, skateboard shops, and book stores (I usually would spend hours there) and toy stores. I'd meet back, etc. No problem, no worry.

We didn't have cell phones. When I was young, in the summers (and note, both my parents worked) after I was old enough..12-13 I guess, I was home alone during the summers, and I'd often take off on my bike or skateboard and roam the neighborhood, or maybe a couple mile+ radius and run around with friends, we'd sometimes grab some wood from houses being built around us...and build skateboard ramps on a dead end street...build forts in the woods, go running around with our pellet guns, go swim in the neighborhood pool, ride down the the shopping centers, etc. When young, my only rule was to call mom at the office or if she was home, to call home ever 2-3 hours to check in and let her know where I was. Amazing none of my friends or I died, eh?

I just find it hard to believe that the world has become such a more dangerous place out there. I find it hard to believe there are that many more sex perv. out there than then, I think this is a side effect of 24 hour news channels needing SOMETHING to grab attention and headlines.

Hell, I think one of the reasons so many kids are so fucking obese is that they don't go outside and play and have physical activity. I grew up when video games were coming out, and I can assure you that we all found Pong, Odessy, Atari and the Fairchild system just as enthralling as the video games of today are to kids now, but, we didn't spend 24/7 playing them. We interacted with each other in the neighborhood. We didn't have all our activities 'planned'. Yet we still have fun and were healthy. Sure, we got into mischief. But that is part of being a kid isn't it?

I gotta say...even with all the neat toys, computers, internet and gadgets that kids have available to them today, I don't think I'd trade my childhood time for one during today.

It just seems so confining with parents so scared and over bearing.

You listen to the parents and the news of today, and you'd think that if you raised a kid today like I and my generation were raised, that the parents would be arrested for child neglect or child abuse. What the hell happened?

I was just thinking on this the other day while driving through a neighborhood during the summer. On days like this, you'd see us kids out all over the place on our bike, etc. The streets are largely empty out there now. Our parents had to drag us in usually to get us out of the heat and make us cool off.

I was also observing the other day, that there were nothing but lawn services out cutting yards. Do teens not go out to mow lawns anymore for extra $$? Where do they get their spending money when they are too young to work fast food or the like?

I guess it is a miracle that we all grew up and made it to adulthood all these generations prior to the last couple.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[ciscoguy01]

This happened to me when I was pulled over for speeding without my radar detector going off. The cops claimed I was doing 71 Kph in a 50Kph zone. They were wrong on both counts.
1. The speed limit on that road is 80Kph
2. I was actually going just shy of 180Kph.

I pointed out item #1. without mentioning item #2 and avoided a ticket. The real trouble is that even if I had taken the ticket and challenged it in court I would be acquitted of the speeding charge but the cop would still be allowed to keep defrauding motorists in this way.

So the important part of your post and of the story is this:
1.The radar units used by the police are completely defective and unreliable.
or
2.The police who use them are lying.

I'd be really interested in knowing which it is.
If they are unreliable they need to be done away with as a speed measuring method.
If the police are actually lying that is even more disturbing, because no government employee is hired and charged with the responsibility to lie, cheat and steal in their job description, including the police officers.
They are only supposed to cite us for things we actually did. They are not supposed to fake crimes, though I suspect some of that does go on, I can't imagine why anyone would lie, cheat or steal for an employer. I sure wouldn't.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

[T-Ranger]

I'm confused. You seem to have foiled my ability to parse numbers.

80,000 what per hour?

mixed feelings about this

[corbettw]

Good thing: enabling people to install these devices voluntarily to defend themselves against false claims of speeding or reckless driving.

Bad thing: having the government mandate their installation, and at some later time mandating that the data be uploaded to a central processing facility.

Re:mixed feelings about this

[CRCulver]

Agreed. While some people fret about modern society approaching the dystopia of 1984 , I think it's scary that technology has moved to the point where government could easily do even more to hold citizens down. Orwell didn't foresee electronic tracking devices that could follow you wherever you go. In the book, the protagonist got a break from the telescreen for a few hours by walking down to a remote place. Now, even this means of privacy isn't guaranteed.

Re:mixed feelings about this

[plover]

It's likely that you already have a monitoring device installed in your vehicle. Cars made in the last decade have increasingly sophisticated recording capabilities that record detailed information about the car's state at the time of an airbag deployment or a seatbelt pretensioning event. Some of the data stored includes the speed, throttle position, brake position, seat belt usage, etc., and it stores a buffer of information for 20 seconds before the crash event and five seconds after. The older Restraint Control Modules simply recorded safety equipment usage, but not operational information. The new recorders are located in the Powertrain Control Module and store a lot more about your vehicle. This information is usually downloaded by an officer on the accident scene, and is admissible as evidence in court.

Of course it's not as bad as your scenario. It's not retrieved unless there's an accident. But it can be retrieved without your approval, so if you had your foot on the gas and had no signs of brakes being applied, it'd sure come out in a courtroom if you lied about your driving.

Re:mixed feelings about this

[Cathoderoytube]

In Quebec vehicle tracking GPS systems have been mandatory for years. It's mostly because the government made a deal with the car insurance people so all cars had to have the device installed as an 'anti theft' measure. It's a good example of how little it takes to force those things on people.

Re:mixed feelings about this

[grolaw]

Hey, Libertarians don't follow rules, they make them up as needed!

Meanwhile, those of us lucky enough not to be hit by a speeding Libertarian exercising his/her "rights" - unconcerned about the speeds the road was engineered for - get to enjoy the benefits of the progressive fine system that creates an incentive for Libertarians to OBEY SPEED LAWS.

This message brought to you by your local municipal/traffic court.

Re:mixed feelings about this

[s4ltyd0g]

It is most certainly not mandatory. None of my cars have gps tracking, including our 2008 model CRV.

Re:mixed feelings about this

[plasmacutter]

It is your right as a free person to risk your own life yes, but you have no right whatsoever to risk the lives of anyone else without their express permission to do so.

Because in doing so you take away their rights and freedom to decide for themselves and thus you are no better than any other tyrant.

Bullshit.

People have a choice of not using cars, there are bikes, or planes, or horses, or feet. They know the risks they take when they go on the road.

Let's replace traffic related deaths with something else to illustrate the absurdity shall we?

hundreds of thousands die from pollution related causes every year. Let's bring the whole damn economy to a grinding halt because we want our precious "security".

"People who trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security"

Re:mixed feelings about this

[Anonymous Coward]

>In Quebec vehicle tracking GPS systems have been mandatory for years.

Hmmm, no.

Maybe for some classes of commercial vehicles, but we don't have one, my friends don't have one, nobody I know has one. Maybe check with someone who lives in Quebec before you spout inaccuracies.

Re:mixed feelings about this

[damn_registrars]

We had the same thing in Minnesota when I lived there. We called it "private towing companies". They were known on multiple occasions to take cars without reason, and then demand their owners pay to get them back. On top of that, the Minneapolis police were completely unwilling to do anything about it.

Ergo, Minneapolis essentially legalized car theft. You just had to be licensed as a private towing company to do it.

perhaps it was insurance motivated

[ya really]

I believe insurance companies give discounts to drivers (especially young ones) for having gps tracking installed in their cars.

Damn you, technology!

[FlyingSquidStudios]

The highly accurate radio wave reflection system or the highly accurate satellite positioning system? One of you must be wrong! Machines can't lie?! MACHINES CAN'T LIE?!!??!!

Re:Damn you, technology!

[_Shad0w_]

Computer says no.

Re:Damn you, technology!

[whoever57]

Computer says no.

For those who don't understand the joke in the parent post, see Little Britain

Re:Damn you, technology!

[TechyImmigrant]

>Now there's a neat project idea: create a GPS spoofing device.

That is a standard piece of GPS test equipment. A test GPS signal source and an antenna cone to place over the GPS device. Any time and location can be spoofed.

Re:Damn you, technology!

[MDMurphy]

Self reporting speed is decades old. Pre-GPS commerical trucks in Japan showed the speed of te vehicle by a series of lights on the top of the truck cab. A cop could pull them over for speeding just by looking at the lights.

Tachographs in Europe record speed in commercial vehicles as well.

Re:Damn you, technology!

[SPQR_Julian]

A series of lights.

As in, more than one light, and based on which ones were lit, the driver's speed is indicated.
For example:
1 light = 10 mph.
2 lights = 30 mph
8 lights = 100mph
If that still doesn't make sense, then you're just too retarded to understand.

Re:Damn you, technology!

[Slightly Askew]

"There...are...four...lights!"

So... what was wrong with the gun?

[jfengel]

The article says that he was doing 62 MPH according to the radar gun. The GPS says 45. If the GPS was right, why was the gun wrong? Bad calibration? Operator error? Dyslexia?

How many other people were caught "speeding" by the same gun,and are they planning to notify any of them that they have reason to believe the gun was wrong?

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

[kauos]

After he provided his GPS data as evidence, the cops should have back tracked from the point in time where the speed camera and the GPS disagree. They know the spot in the road, they know the direction he was heading in. He's an 18yo kid so surely he was speeding somewhere within the last 5 minutes.

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

[retchdog]

Except for a little something we call the Fifth Amendment: it wasn't the cops' GPS data, was it?

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

[Macrat]

Does that apply in the US anymore?

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

[raehl]

5th amendment doesn't protect you there. It only prevents you from incriminating yourself - it doesn't prevent evidence from your GPS being used. Especially if you introduce evidence from your GPS unit as a defense.

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

[retchdog]

Well, yeah. It's just harder to exercise what with the waterboarding and the electric shocks and the dogs and the deprivation, but you can still go ahead and try to remain silent.

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

[rahvin112]

Likely operator error.

For all their bluster guns are only accurate under very specific circumstances. The dopler effect and software used in the gun assumes certain things when making it's speed "measurement", the first is that the measurement is head on, a cop shooting your speed from greater than a 5 degree angle can alter the measurement dramatically and greater than 15 degrees and you might as well just disregard whatever it reads as the error will exceed 35mph. Second most guns are calibrated for approaching traffic, if shot from behind, they are extremely inaccurate. Third, unless the gun is a laser based measurement system the gun picks out the fastest object in it's line of site and a typical gun has a 15 to 25 degree measurement window such that if there is a car anywhere near you going faster than you then that car is the one that will get measured. Cops are typically trained such that they know these limitations and abide by the requirements, that doesn't mean all do and it doesn't mean cops don't lie or that your age,sex,ethnicity,clothing and what you are driving plays a greater role in whether you get tickets than just about any other factor including how fast you drive. An 18 year old in gang attire driving a sporty car can drive by a cop going 15mph slower than a station wagon with a 45 year old guy in a suit and the 18 year old will get the ticket and the cop won't look twice at the other guy. Such is life.

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

[gardyloo]

If the radar gun was indeed a Doppler radar device, then that's as close to a measurement of instantaneous speed as one can define. It doesn't need two distance measurements at different times; it needs a frequency shift over several (I'm guessing 50 - 100 for any sort of resolution) cycles of the wave. Since the period of the radar is likely something on the order of 0.05 ns, a Doppler radar gun may make its velocity determination with measuring only 1 - 10 ns, with great accuracy. That's instantaneous enough for Gov't work.

      Instantaneous speed is very important. No one cares if your average speed for an hour before an accident was 55 mph; they care if your instantaneous speed when you hit a pylon or another car was 120 mph.

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

[QuoteMstr]

I'm no fan of the cops, but measuring at an angle to the direction of travel decreases the speed as perceived by the radar gun.

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say your instantaneous speed at any one point in time would be zero. Without references to any other oints in time it is impossible to determine speed.

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

[pintpusher]

dude, take calculus.

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

[Phroggy]

Sure, which is why when the 5th Amendment (or the 4th, 6th, or 8th) is inconvenient, the government can just send you outside the US. Problem solved!

(The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the President can designate anyone, including US citizens and legal residents, as "enemy combatants" and ship them off to a military base in Cuba, which is technically outside the United States even though we have complete control over it.)

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

[batura]

Ahhhh.... That little known exception to the Fifth Amendment-- It doesn't apply to civil cases, which traffic cases are. You can be asked point blank* "Did you speed", and under penalty of perjury, you have to answer truthfully or be held in contempt of court. *: You have to be called to the witness stand, and in most jurisdictions, only you can call yourself. If you call yourself, you can be cross examined. **: I am not a lawyer, just interested in the law.

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

[91degrees]

Yeah. That's kinda how it's meant to work. Reasonable doubt and all that.

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

[charlesbakerharris]

Error at 15 degrees ~ (1 - cos(15d)), so around 3.4%. So the guy has to be going over 1,000 mph for your "error will exceed 35 mph" figure to be correct...

If the guy's causing a sonic boom, I suspect the ticket is going to stick. However, your high school physics grade would clearly never stand up in court.

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a lawyer, just interested in the law.

You'd better get that seen to, before it gets any worse.

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

[Khyber]

Let's see. For RADAR guns, air temperature difference, proper orientation (You don't try clocking someone from a perpendicular angle to the car) even rain can screw up the signal. If you're making a turn the radar gun will clock you at a higher speed than normal.

I love having a radar technician as a father. Hooray for knowing how radar works (Harpoon missiles, baby!) as you can get out of most any ticket.

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

[Khyber]

Thats why I'm always clocked going OVER the speedlimit when I make a right-hand turn?

I've had to fight this one twice, a radar gun will show it up as an INCREASE unless the angle of reflection is negative to the approaching vehicle (ie the cop is behind you trying to clock you.) I had to demonstrate this with two radar guns and police officers on bikes. I had them keep around 20 mph then clocked them as they turned. readings jumped from +/-2 mph to +10 mph (no decreases at all.)

His GPS is that accurate?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Perhaps he's just hard on the brakes as well as the accelerator.

Re:How he did it

[Mesa MIke]

If only.
GPS device gets time from GPS satellite, not user.

The most important point of the article

[aepervius]

is the so called professor revising his "expertise" so quickly and so radically. Now it would be interesting to know (or the court forcing him to say) on WHAT he based his first expertise and what new publicly available information made him change his mind, and why he did not make use of this information for the first written testimony. I get the feeling this guy is as much expert in GPS & radar gun, as my expertise in medicine forensic is (not much).

Re:The most important point of the article

[_Shad0w_]

My guess is the expert's original statement was based on the assumption that the device was a run-of-the-mill GPS navigation system, which probably aren't accurate when it comes to speed and position.

Although if that hypothesis is correct it does leave one wondering why they made that assumption and didn't bother checking; it certainly reads like he then took a closer look at the device, when the finding was contested, and realized that it was a much more high end device.

Re:The most important point of the article

[whoever57]

he device was a run-of-the-mill GPS navigation system which probably aren't accurate when it comes to speed and position.

It is difficult to tell how accurate run of the mill systems are -- I think they "snap" to the nearest road and I have seen my system think that I was off the road when driving at high altitude. Nevertheless, the ticket claimed he was doing 20mph over the limit and I am very confident that a run of the mill system is far more accurate than that.

Accuracy probably has more to do with traceability to some kind of calibration than real-world accuracy. I would guess that my system is typically accurate to about 20-30 feet.

Re:How he did it

[kauos]

what about the time being incorrectly recorded when taken by the speed camera? If the speed camera's absolute time was 1 minute slow, the guy could well have slowed down (especially if he ended up seeing the speed camera).

You can never trust the client ...

[vic-traill]

It's the same thing as a desktop, web client, or indeed the browser itself - the client can never be trusted.

Are the cops or the courts going to audit every GPS device or line of device code to ensure that 20 mph is *not* being deducted off what is written to the log above a certain speed?

Come to think of it, that's a great idea for OS or FSF - create code for popular GPS devices, and then produce the code for audit when you go to court contesting a ticket, while asking that the cops produce the code off of their device!!

Re:You can never trust the client ...

[yotto]

The GPS isn't logging the speed, or if it is it's as secondary, calculated data. I would assume (else I can't imagine this ever got him off) that they used the location data over time points. If you're here at point x at time a, and point y at time b, you were going (y-x)/(b-a) miles per hour.

Re:You can never trust the client ...

[MDMurphy]

Shaving 20 mph off the logged speed would never fool anyone. With a small amount of logged data you'd have positions, time and speed. If your speed is reported at 50 meters per second, the position better be different by 50 meters each second. So besides fudging the speed you'd have to fudge the time ( or positions ) as well. Your time as reported in the logged positions would have to run slow in additon to the bugus speed. If that were true, your log would not show you in the position the cop knew you were in at the time of the ticket.

Of course you could retroactively edit the entire log, but doing it in real time would ne tough.

Re:You can never trust the client ...

[grim-one]

The GPS isn't logging the speed, or if it is it's as secondary, calculated data. I would assume (else I can't imagine this ever got him off) that they used the location data over time points. If you're here at point x at time a, and point y at time b, you were going (y-x)/(b-a) miles per hour.

If you read the article, the expert witness (from the GPS company) states that the device gives instantaneous speeds - not averaged over a distance as you claim.

Re:Dot-point summary:

[Skapare]

I suspect the scenario between your step 1 and step 2 went something like this:

• Parents chew out kid for getting a speeding fine.
• Kid insists he wasn't speeding.
• Parents tell kid to stop lying.
• Kid insists he's not lying.
• Parents reveal tracker device and say they have the goods on him.
• Kid still insists he wasn't speeding.
• Parents check the recorded data on the GPS tracker.
• Parents apologize to kid.

Even a consumer grade

[www.sorehands.com]

I have a handheld Garmin GPS (with car mount) that specifications claim that it is within .75 knot accuracy on the speed display.

I used it to get out of a speeding ticket outside of El Paso. I said the GPS said I wwas doing 75, the cop said his radar gun said 76 and it is calibrated. I responded thatt my GPS uses government satellite signals. He let me go.
 

Re:Even a consumer grade

[freedom_india]

one mph over the limit??? That's illegal in some states (CT,NH). Laws in those states clearly say up to 5 mph above speed limit is allowed.
And judges have been known to throw the book at cops who waste their time for one mph.
Seriously, dispute the charge and force a jury to hear it on a Monday morning -:)
The cop would get such a dressing down, you will be smiling.

Re:Even a consumer grade

[EEDAm]

In the UK all police forces have a policy of not prosecuting people who are just slightly over the speedlimit so as not to bring the police force into disrepute with their local citizens.

Another take

[Gazzonyx]

Good thing: enabling people to install these devices voluntarily to defend themselves against false claims of speeding or reckless driving.

Bad thing: having the government mandate their installation, and at some later time mandating that the data be uploaded to a central processing facility.

My thoughts...

Good Thing: Everyone thinks the output of electronic devices is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Bad Thing: Everyone thinks the output of electronic devices is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Re:Another take

[AmiMoJo]

For this very reason I am working on a GPU tracking unit for my car, which will store the data encrypted on an SD card.

It will warn me about speed cameras, but in the event that one mistakenly flashes me I will have GPS data to prove it. The encryption will prevent abuse by the police in the case of such an event (I live in the UK so it's a real concern...)

Th thing is, it would be trivial to write a program that massages the records to get away with speeding. I don't think there are currently any measures to prove that speed camera data in the UK was not tampered with, but manufacturing an MD5 sum for the GPS log file would be easy enough. That's the thing though - if you rely on technology to try and enforce the law, you have to accept it's limitations too.

Re:Another take

[Alpha Whisky]

You might find this document interesting http://www.fai.org/gliding/system/files/tech_spec_gnss.pdf it is a spec for devices doing more or less what you want to do. And there are lots of applications to process the .igc files generated by these secure recorders.

Re:You can never trust the client - Already done

[michaelhood]

Come to think of it, that's a great idea for OS or FSF - create code for popular GPS devices, and then produce the code for audit when you go to court contesting a ticket, while asking that the cops produce the code off of their device!!

A variation of this has been done in a number of DUI/DWI cases. A number of defendants have demanded that the source for the breathalyzer be made available for review by the defense.

In the cases I'm aware of, the manufacturer has refused to release the source as their agreement/license with the relevant law enforcement agency does not provide for this.

I believe the outcomes have ranged, but in general this has been a successful defense.

Not always

[atari2600]

Only if the drivers allow themselves to be tracked at all times and allow the data to be uploaded to a location where the insurance company can monitor the data at their own whim and fancy. You are right though - I know Progressive gives discounts for kids who have GPS trackers in their vehicles.

By Neruos

[Anonymous Coward]

any type of non-video speed camera is not 100% accurate in a speed case and even those are not 100%.

A cop using any type of speed gun (laser, pop, etc) can almost 100% of the time, tell if a driver is speeding IF THE DRIVER is the only one in the LINE OF SIGHT. The issue with these guns is that they are CONE based and many things INCLUDING OTHER AUTOS will throw off they signal.

Most video speed cameras use a laser LINE OF SIGHT trigger, that produces a picture from a elapsed time. The picture is almost 100% accurate but not 100% accurate.

To this date, no hard factual science has proven that speed cameras have saved lives or reduces accidents.

Re:By Neruos

[grolaw]

To this date, no hard factual science has proven that speed cameras have saved lives or reduces accidents.

Yeah, I've noticed that the Brits found no use at all for their systems - it's not like tracking down the speeders in central London has saved lives. I guess that the Lancet was just not hard or factual enough a source...http://www.thelancet.com/newlancet

Re:By Neruos

[strelitsa]

I guess that the Lancet was just not hard or factual enough a source.

Considering that The Lancet recently got caught with their hand in the cookie jar making up bogus statistics about the number of war dead in Iraq at the behest of George Soros, I too have a hard time accepting anything said in The Lancet (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7b2_1199991668) as factual. They really have pooped in their own nest when it comes to integrity.

Laser

[cloffin]

Police departments routinely clock the wrong person due to the use of old fashioned radar rather than more specific laser radar. They wrongly think that because they are aiming it like a gun it is getting a specific person. It is sad that we have to go to an Orwellian extreme to fight such flawed evidence is regular Ka radar.

Another potential problem

[Sycraft-fu]

Is new guns and their "pop" mode. Basically it is an ultrafast start and shutdown mode for the gun. The reason is, of course, RADAR detectors. They've gotten quite good. They don't necessarily need the gun to be on and transmitting to pick it up. When the gun is in standby (with it's electronics operating but not transmitting a beam) they can still be picked up. Same sort of way RADAR counterdetectors work. Even though the detector itself isn't trying to emit anything, it does anyhow (as does any superheterodyne device).

Ok, great, however you might pause to wonder about the ability to electronics operating in the 30GHz range to quickly come on and stabilise and, well, you'd be right. Guns in "pop" mode aren't accurate. In part due to the fast start, in part due to less data points, they can produce unreliable readings. The gun manufacturers say that pop mode isn't to be used as a final speed measurement, but that doesn't stop police forces from doing so anyhow.

Or it could be even more simple: The gun wasn't calibrated. Like any precision device, they need periodic recalibration. Had this been allowed to happen, it is entirely possible the gun was producing inaccurate readings.

It is a good idea for all drivers to take a little time to educate themselves about various speed measurement technologies and such. While I'd say the majority of police departments use their equipment right and the tickets are legit, they aren't always. If you get nailed with a bogus ticket, you don't necessarily need GPS to fight it. Tell the department you want the calibration records for the gun in question, find out if it was in pop mode, etc, etc. If they screwed up, let the judge know and they'll most likely drop the ticket.

Re:Another potential problem

[Attila Dimedici]

Two points, speeding is a minor offense, falsifying the radar gun calibration is a fairly serious offense that can cost an officer his career. Second, the officer who uses the gun is not the person who calibrates it. There is a fairly involved paper trail to calibrating a device that involves two or more people.

Re:Another potential problem

[eth1]

Yet another possibility is that the officer had the gun in the wrong mode. Most radar guns & in-car radar have "stationary" and "moving" modes. In moving mode, the gun has to figure out how fast the officer's car is going, and add/subtract that from the speed of the target. Being in the wrong mode could easily cause this error.

I've used some of these, and done exactly this. Had the gun in "moving" mode while I was stationary, and had a "WTF? He can't *possibly* be going that fast!" moment.

Of course, if that's the case, shame on the officer for not double-checking (or worse, trying to "save face").

A cool way around...

[Creepy Crawler]

First we can use GPS gear to get our locale.

Instead of using some recorder, we can transmit this on the HAM bands via GPRS, and have it recorded via a local digipeter for a webserver.

We now have hard-ish logs to cook, along with federal laws backing us up, as it is illegal to transmit on a radio that you are not in the vicinity of. And since the data is real-time, you can argue that we have local logs X, and server logs based on my Federal License at Y.

Re:How he did it

[Alsee]

If your GPS time was off by even one second, your position would be off by about 300km -- give or take depending on satellite geometry -- there's no way to separate the two.

Sure there is. The GPS clock system is independent of our common business-day clock. GPS does not incorporate time zones, does not incorporate daylight savings time adjustments, does not incorporate leap years or leap days or leap seconds or anything else. It is not tied to any earth time system. The GPS network simply counts its own seconds, independent of our earthly wall-clock time conventions.

The GPS unit likely has an independent clock circuit so that you can have a clock even when you are not receiving any GPS signals. And if it is running off of satellite time, it would have to have some stored translation factor to convert the satellite time to an earth-clock time, to account for time zones and daylight savings time and other adjustments, and to account for the fact that the satellite time *does* drift out of sync with official earth time systems. In fact due to leap seconds and whatnot, GPS time has drifted 14 seconds out of sync with GMT / UTC Coordinated Universal Time.

The fact that it was even physically possible for him to manually set the clock proves that the satellite time was not being directly displayed on the clock, that there is either an independent internal clock and/or some stored translation factor to convert the GPS network's internal clock system into whatever "common local time" you want displayed on the user-clock. None of this would would be used in the GPS position calculations.

-

That can't be right ;-)

[Chrisq]

That would mean that road deaths are a greater threat than paedophiles and terrorism ...... Oh.

Old news?

[Ptur]

Ehm.... I remember reading this story about a year ago (maybe more or less), does anybody have an exact date on when this happened or is this just another urban legend that keeps coming round?

Re:How he did it

[phagstrom]

0) Put your own GPS sats, which you can control, into orbit.

Might be taking it too far, but what the hey.

Re:Overprotective?

[syphax]

I'm a fairly responsible, straitlaced person, and always have been.

But I made some really poor choices while driving as a teenager. Fortunately, I just had a lot of near misses and a couple fender benders.

But I drove like an idiot.

I have four boys. The oldest are 6, so I got time still, but you bet they'll have GPS installed on any vehicle they drive that I control. And/or video cameras.

It's not being overprotective, it's realizing that 40k people die a year in the US in auto accidents, and young men have their hand in a sizable fraction of those.

Re:How he did it

[91degrees]

Don't know is GPS devices are different from my satnav here, but with Tomtom, I need to set the clock manually. I can then press "sync" and it goes to the closest half hour based on GPS time.

Re:18 = still a kid

[mjwx]

I thought the same thing. Some parents are quite happy for their offspring to fight in Iraq at that age. Others monitor them to make sure they don't speed. I bet there are a few that would do both!

I wager that quite a few parents who would do one would also do another, both conditions describe parent without a strong grip on reality.

In most countries an 18 year old is considered a legal adult who is able to vote, joint the armed forces (that bit is mandatory in some nations), buy and consume alcohol and take responsibility for their own action (I.E. pay their own fines, go to jail). In Australia the only thing you are not permitted to do between the ages of 18 and 21 is have a homosexual relationship, after 21 its fine. I, as an Australian have never understood why the US treats people between 18 and 21 as half an adult.

Re:Speed = Distance/Time

[Slorv]

The GPS used does not record average speed. It's a simple track recorder which records position x times per second. The average speed is calculated from the trackdata depending on the length of time you want to average over.
This is the way many vehicle trackers work since then there's no need for GIS data, maps, in the GPS itself. You take the track data and you can calculate average speed etc over any section of the road.

An observation: since GPS-trackers are used on many thousands of vehicles this can't possibly be the first time we have GPS versus radar case. But this is a 'good' case since the GPS for once showed data in favour of the vehicle owner/driver. So, I might wrong here but I believe this is used as a cleverly placed advertise for GPS-tracking devices in general and RMT in particular.

FYI

[CBob]

In NJ and I'll assume most states, your car's onboard data can be downloaded w/o a warrant or need for consent. From what I remember, GM & Ford used to (and may still) maintain that the vehicle data is *their* property. On-Star etc already allow remote access to some(or more) of this data.

How long before your car gives you a ticket?

Must be that new math

[EmagGeek]

If you travel 100m at 100m/s and 100m at 50m/s, you have traveled 200m in 3s for an average speed of 66.67m/s, not 75m/s.

Just enough rope..

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

I think that if I gave them a car, that would be just enough rope to hang themselves.

If I gave them a lojacked car ... then they'd either accept the car WITH lojack, or not accept the car. Either way, I offered.

and if my kids are smart, they'd find a way around being tracked, and I'd congratulate them for it. Then I'd tell them I actually had two tracking devices in it (which I wouldn't) ... and watch them go crazy trying to find the second, non-existant one....

"Hello this is Onstar...."

[space_hippy]

And the following fines have been automatically removed from your back account:

Rolling though a stop sign 5th and Main at 9:21am: $120

Parking meter expired for 3minutes 18 seconds at 11:57am: $50

Speeding 38mph in a 35mph zone at 5:58pm: $80

Failure to use turn signal while making a lane change at 7:09pm: $35

and your oil is over due for a change by 51 miles: Manufacture warranty now VOID

Due to these violations you vehicle will no longer be allowed to operate , sorry for the inconvenience of leaving you stranded on the highway in the middle of nowhere at 3:47 am. But it's your own fault for not doing what your told.

Why did he get the ticket?

[Luterek]

Are radar guns highly inaccurate or did the cop profile the person because they are young and it's unlikely he would get a fair trial (his word vs the older cops)? I'd like to know how the police corrected this problem to ensure it does not happen again.

A Bicyclists retort

[NotmyNick]

I have repeatedly gone past these thing that display your speed. Quite often, I see my speed displayed as close to double. I have a handheld GPS and knew that I was going ~15MPH, but I would see on the display that I was going 31MPH. I think that it was the approaching spokes of my bike that was causing the discrepancy. It would be apparent that the same thing could be going on with "spinners" and irregular wheels that are used on cars that young people have.

who's at fault

[Binder]

The real question here is wether the radar gun is ineffective (in which case stop using them). Or did the cop do something naughty (in which case legal action should be taken against him).

Re:for a group who makes so much fun of psychology

[cayenne8]

"Nothing wrong with protecting your kids from the consequences of their actions ... when the consequences are unjustified by their actions. Which is usually the case when the cops take someone young to court."

Sure takes the fun out of being a teen tho....thank God my folks didn't have this when I was young. I had a blast....but, didn't get into trouble, made my grades....worked etc. But, I ran around...partied...didn't get DWI's (hell, I got pulled over once half tanked, but, was close to home and the cop let me drive home warning I'd go to jail if he saw me out again that night, man, you'd not see THAT happen again these days).

There are only 'consequences' of actions if you do something wrong or get caught. Kids have to make mistakes and take chances in order to grow. If you parents are so over protective, how are you going to learn....and being young is the time to be a little reckless and have fun. You get to be 'resposible' and adult acting soon enough...

Re:Horizonal Position

[gurps_npc]

Completely Wrong. ALL GPS devices calculate your position in three dimensions. The military uses them to fly missiles. They could not do this if they were as poorly designed as you think. While it is true that the LCD DISPLAY only show your horizontal position, the machine knows your exact location in all three dimensions (plus time) and uses those numbers calculate your speed etc. You need to realize the difference between what the machine knows and what it tells you. It almost always knows a LOT more than it shows.

Re:for a group who makes so much fun of psychology

[suggsjc]

There are only 'consequences' of actions if you do something wrong or get caught. Kids have to make mistakes and take chances in order to grow. If you parents are so over protective, how are you going to learn....and being young is the time to be a little reckless and have fun. You get to be 'resposible' and adult acting soon enough...

That is truly great advice, but can be misused in the hands of idiot parents who substitute "Kids have to make mistakes" with "Kids should have no rules or discipline." Part of being a (good) parent is setting rules and limits, then justly punishing when their children do (and they always will) break the rules. What makes it difficult is that no two children are the same, so there isn't a one-size-fits-all crime/punishment rulebook to follow.

Great parents respect their kids, but they also "instill" respect in their kids for themselves and other adults. Bottom line, having/raising kids is a HUGE responsibility, and it should be treated as such...a HUGE responsibility.

Re:for a group who makes so much fun of psychology

[Free the Cowards]

I got pulled over once half tanked, but, was close to home and the cop let me drive home warning I'd go to jail if he saw me out again that night, man, you'd not see THAT happen again these days

And well you shouldn't! You endangered everybody you encountered on the road that night. In my opinion, the cop was irresponsible to let you go. If getting pulled over for DWI vas a virtual guarantee of a visit to jail (assuming that you actually fail the test, of course) then maybe fewer people would be so casual about operating complicated and deadly machinery while under the influence of mind-numbing drugs.

Re:for a group who makes so much fun of psychology

[cayenne8]

"As for the .08 number being arbitrary, this is true, but I think that the problem is more that there will be people who are impaired below this number than that there are people who won't be impaired above it. A lot of heavy drinkers end up becoming pretty good at hiding inebriation, but that only applies to looking sober; your car doesn't care whether you're hiding it or not."

There are plenty of people that can drive a car perfectly well at .08 BAC. It is an arbitrary number. Impairment should be based on physical ability. If you are not weaving, or having any problems driving...if you get pulled over even with an open beer in the car, you should be good to go. Driving impaired does not mean necessarily that you have had some alcohol. There are people out there driving sleepy or on cell phones that are more impared than someone who has had 2-3 beers....

.1 was probably closer to fair if you have to base it on an arbitrary BAC number, but, really if you're driving ok, you shouldn't get pulled over.

That time I described as a teen...I told the officer what the deal was, that I'd been to a party, had a few drinks, but, realized I'd not eaten...that I was heading home with a load of Taco Bell. He let us go saying to go straight home (I was only a few blocks away)...and we went home, ate and crashed there. No harm, no record...obviously if he knew I was impared beyond driving, etc...he'd have taken me in, but, he used good judgement to see that I wasn't impaired beyond safely driving home. Nowdays...with all the financial incentives...they go after you if they can even pin one beer on you...they are often on 'fishing' expeditions just to make headlines and make $. It isn't all about safety.

That's why, if I'm even close to the 'legal' limit...and I'm pulled over, I really don't say a thing other than hand them my license and reg. If they want to make me do field sobriety tests...I refuse, those do nothing but gather evidence for them. I just will put my hands out for the cuffs, and go with them...refusing any test. Worst you'll get in many states is a suspended license, and you can always get hardship license that will allow you to drive to/from work. It may be a PITA, but, at least it doesn't go on your record as a DWI and ruin your credit and insurance....

With the limits so low, and them trying to get anyone they can, I see nothing wrong with trying to avoid the system, or at the very least NOT helping them gather evidence against me. Get a good lawyer, and you can get out of this usually.

Re:for a group who makes so much fun of psychology

[joeytmann]

I do agree with you that .08 for some means drunk and .08 for others means not so drunk they can't function. But unfortuantely you need to have that arbitrary number or there would be a lot of cops having to make judgement calls about who is too drunk to drive and who isn't. There would be a ton more court cases asking for dismissal with the defense of "I wasn't THAT drunk."

Re:for a group who makes so much fun of psychology

[Free the Cowards]

You claim that many people can drive just fine at .08 BAC, do you have any cites or evidence for this? I ask simply because I don't believe it. I know that there are many people who think that they can drive just fine at .08 BAC (or some other level), but this is mainly because moderate amounts of alcohol tend to mess with your perception in such a way that you feel like you're doing the same as before, when in fact your reactions and judgement are significantly degraded. People who believe that they experience no impairment after "just a couple of beers" are, from what I've seen, just plain wrong about it.

Your rant against the police is very strange to me. You're taking charge of a large, dangerous machine, one which is dangerous not only to yourself but to anyone who comes near you. You owe it to yourself and to society to be in good mental condition when you do this.

I don't drink and drive, period. If I'm driving somewhere within the next couple of hours I do not drink. If I want to have a beer with dinner, I make sure that I can stay in the area for a while afterwards, or I go someplace within walking distance, or I have somebody else drive. I tried driving with "just one beer" a couple of times. I felt fine, with no effect on my driving. Thinking about it afterwards I realized that my reactions were significantly slower, and my judgement was much worse. So I never did it again.

I consider the legal limit to be quite a bit higher than it should be. I'm a pilot, and the FAA has very strict limits on alcohol. The BAC limit is .04, which is basically any detectable alcohol in the blood. In addition to this limit, they have a strict limit (hard to enforce, of course) that you may not drink any alcohol in the eight hours before you take the controls of an aircraft. This is vastly more strict than any automobile laws I'm aware of. But guess what, I've never heard any pilot complain about the rules.

The trick to avoiding police action is quite simple: if you drink, do not drive. They won't be able to convict you of anything if there isn't any alcohol in your blood. And you shouldn't have any alcohol in your blood while operating a car, no matter what the law allows.

I agree that the law should be based on a much broader definition of impairment, rather than being so specific to alcohol. But I think the standard of impairment should be much lower than it is as well.

Re:for a group who makes so much fun of psychology

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

extremely over-protective parents = just as bad as extremely under-protective parents.

Re:for a group who makes so much fun of psychology

[MagdJTK]

Most people can drive perfectly well over the limit. That is until they have to break suddenly to avoid an accident. Then their impared reactions kill people.