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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[s4ltyd0g]

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

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.

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?

[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?

[pintpusher]

dude, take calculus.

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?

[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.)

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.

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!!

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.

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: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.

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: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: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.

-

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.

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....

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

[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

[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.