Assertion: "You have been found to be in breach of the speed limit at this location at this time."
Answer: "I did not authorise surveillance of myself or my vehicle at any time. You have no right to this information and it is not admissable."
Basically, there is no excuse for constant surveillance, on the "off chance" that a crime or offence may be committed. If there did exist such
an excuse, then all police stations, public offices, politicians' offices, etc, would have constant video feeds from every single room, accessible to anybody.
Roads are for public use, by private vehicles and individuals. The argument that they are 'infinitely' subject to inspection is simply incorrect. That false argument - really a Strawman argument - can be extended to include any location anywhere and any type of surveillance.
This is not 'an example' of 'law enforcement technology', nor is it 'typical'. It is completely illegal to apply wiretaps or even, in most states, to record a conversation unless one side or the other knows it is being recorded. This technology simply 'fell through the gaps' of accountability, and will eventually be reigned in. Currently, it is essentially entrapment.
Assertion: "If they save lives, they are Ok."
Answer: No, because they create a society that does not have the right to survive. Protection of citizens also means protection of their rights, and any shortfall is always unacceptable. Nor are they a compromise - they are simply a violation.
Assertion: "If they are signed, then surely they are Ok."
Answer: Unfortunately, no. Although this removes the entrapment problem, it still leaves the surveillance problem. In Britain the regime seriously wants to put permanent number plate scanning and tracking equipment on all major roads. This idea is so horrifying to many people that it may become a party destroying issue for Labor.
Assertion: "This will catch those who dangerously speed."
Answer: Actually, extremely over-fast drivers divide into two categories: Very skilled (rare), and Idiots (common). Idiots generally die in a crash before they are 30, or receive such a bad scare that they stop. Unfortunately for this Assertion, both groups are generally very good at detecting and avoiding speed traps. What speed cameras, specifically the entrapment based or 'greed' cameras, catch is generally ordinary public drivers who have managed to exceed the speed limit by around 5 km/hour. This is usually a result of concentrating on the road ahead and changing lanes and is almost never actually dangerous. This is purely a revenue collection activity on the part of the operators.
Assertion: "Even a small violation of the speed limit has the potential to kill."
Answer: No it doesn't. The recent government campaigns to suggest that 5 km/h over the limit is fatally dangerous, are based on flawed physics and ignore many factors. There is little or no evidence to support their claims, they can only get away with it by being anecdotal, which they are careful to do - the same principle washing-powder and vaccuum-cleaner ads work on. So long as they dont suggest that this WILL happen to YOU, it only "DID" happen to "THIS" (fictional) group of participants in "THIS" (fictional) scenario, they are on legally safe ground, but they are still essentially lying.
The purpose of these ad campaigs is, purely, to try and justify the entrapment ('greed cam') use of speed-cameras.
Assertion: "Why do you want to speed anyway ?"
Answer: Well some people might, but that is their own affair and not relevant here. The majority of us don't care so long as we are being sensible - 80 km/h on wide safe roads, 60 km/h on streets, 20-40 km/h in car parks or near playgrounds, 100 - 120 km/h on freeways. Yet it is possible in the blink of an eye to be caught by a greed-cam. Futhermore, this old chestnut about "Five minutes won't make any difference" is absolutely false. We have managed to create a world, ridiculous as it is, in which five minutes can make all the difference there is. Current work practices have to change, but until they do, people are forced to take that "five minutes" very seriously indeed, and may well speed (one could even say be forced to speed) to try and make it up.
Assertion: "The road toll has dropped since their introduction."
Answer: Actually, no it hasn't. The road toll has changed within normal statistical noise tolerances. There is no actual proof that use of these cams in entrapment mode has any effect on the road toll whatsoever. None. Most fatal crashes are caused by failures of concentration, unforseen circumstances, and stupidity. Speed is a factor only in few of them. The ALP in Victoria cunningly picked a time when there happened to be a record low toll to announce that their road policy (which included such things as an ongoing toll road policy set by the opposition before them, and creating an increasingly unusable public transport system) was working and that they had "changed driver culture" (with some interesting hitleresque hand gestures at the time). A short time later there occured the highest state road toll for the same time of year in a decade. Good timing and sleight of hand is what politics is all about.
Assertion: "They're real name is Safety Cameras and they are called that for a reason."
Answer: In fact, that name was only created in recent years after the public backlash began. They were initially called Speed Cameras by the government and the police and will continue to be practically, literally and commonly known by that name, which can thus well be argued to be their correct name. The term Greed Cam is a colloquialism that has become very common as the political regime's arguments, in favour of the Speed Camera's entrapment usage, have grown increasingly thin and hollow sounding.
Here are some quick points that can help.
Be aware of likely placement locations
Generally Speed Cameras are found on wide, safe roads, for several reasons. The primary one is to maximize stolen revenue, as there will be much traffic on such roads. Another reason is there are only a few places that the devices can be set up to conduct successful attacks on the public:
They must have a straight section of road - it is completely illegal to set them up on curves.
The beam must exhaust into open air, not be facing a populous area such as a kindergarten.
The beam must not face any metal objects, such as metal fences, buildings or parked trucks.
The beam must be at exactly 20 degrees to the road direction, therefore anything that prevents this also prevents usage.
Be alert for suspicious vehicles
Because of the limitations on deployment of the devices, and because of the (quite justifiable) hate that the attackers engender in the public, attacker vehicles generally have certain easily recognisable characteristics, even from a distance:
They can only be in one of the places listed in the above section.
Usually they are a late model 4WD. Sometimes they are a late model station wagon and recently a white hatchback was spotted. Lists of identified number plates exist but they are currently almost useless in traffic. However there will almost certainly soon be electronic defence devices that can make use of this information.
They have tinted windows to hide the attacker's identity in case of retaliation and to try and obscure the device's presence on the dash board.
They have to park very close to the road, and so are usually on a nature strip or median strip. Look at both sides of the road. Occasionally they will park in a driveway. Note that often they are illegally parked, and you have the right to report this to the police or local shire traffic office.
The older vehicles employ an external flash unit, visible as a blue box either in front of or to the side of the vehicle, on the ground. The box has a half-shell projecting from the top. The newer vehicles have a flash unit clearly visible above the front bumper, as a horizontal black rectangle that has no other visible purpose. Unfortunately the newer cameras no longer require flash during the day, and increasingly the attackers are using infra-red flash to avoid detection themselves, although the latter does offer one form of defence (see below).
Be aware of fixed cams
Check all intersections as you approach them. In Victoria, this means looking for the infamous 'white boxes' on poles, placed either before or just beyond the intersection.
Slow down going under bridges, especially larger ones, on freeways. Often they have attack arrays set up on the far side of the bridge. You can easily verify this for future reference on that road by looking in the rearview some distance past the bridge.
Look for signage. As the election approaches the regime is becoming, reluctantly, somewhat more diligent in protecting your rights via signage. Generally you will see a sign that says greed cams are "used in this area". On a freeway this means that an upcoming major structure (not necessarily the nearest next one!), be it intersection or bridge, is rigged for attack; On a normal urban road, it usually means that the upcoming intersection is rigged for attack - in either case, slow down as you approach the structure/intersection and look around and in your rear view as you pass it. You can then remember it for future reference, update your own GPS if you have one, inform others about it, and inform GPS sites about it.
The current regime wishes to introduce 'time over distance' camera systems, wherein the attack actually begins at one set of cameras and ends at the next, after which the information about how long it took your car to cover this distance is processed, subjecting you to a legal attack via covert surveillance. There are only two ways to avoid these, assuming they get introduced: (1) Avoid the road where they are set up. As the regime is now in a forced state of disclosure about attack positioning, find out where these systems are set up and do not use those roads. (2) As you approach the second set of cams, slow down and pull over to the side of the road. Wait there for several minutes, then resume your journey. Of course you can feign a breakdown if you wish, that is a personal matter.
New notes regarding Time-Over-Distance cams on the Hume highway in Victoria
The worst has occured, as feared, and these cams are now not only instantaneous-attack but are also working in
surveillance mode. This is a shocking human rights development, but you can protect yourself:
The next time you come back to Melbourne via the Hume, you are safe until Broadford, the
attacks begin from there back to Melbourne city.
To avoid the attacks, instead turn off at Seymour, and take the Goulburn Valley
hwy (B340) then the Melba hwy (B300, turnoff is just past Yea) back to Melbourne from
there, thereby avoiding greedcams, traffic and lots of other trouble.
This brings you in via the Maroondah Hwy (ie. Burwood/Whitehorse) and gives you lots
of turning off options, better scenery, less traffic problems and less chance of having money stolen from you.
Invest in a GPS unit. These range in price widely, and also in capabilities. Beware of merchants who try to sell you an integrated 'service', virtually none of these can offer you anything that you cannot set up yourself if you have a good unit. For more information, consult the forums on RoadWatch.
Warn others
To warn those ahead of you:
2 quick flashes of your high beams are an accepted warning sign to other drivers ahead of you, in the oncoming lanes. This is accepted even across a divided road (if you have seen an attcker on the other side of the median strip and the oncoming traffic is heading towards it), but you need to be in the rightmost lane, ie. closest to the median strip. Flashing twice also works at night, or if your light controls support it you can quickly turn your lights off and on - be aware that deactivating your lights is an offence at night in Victoria so this is a personal matter for you - which is also an accepted way of informing another driver that their lights are not on.
To warn those behind you:
Check your mirrors quickly to make sure that there is no vehicle close behind you (or if there is to decide if you want to frighten them or not by braking), then brake suddenly - be careful in the wet and do not overstrain your car! The sudden flash of brake lights and accompanying slowdown is an accepted warning sign to drivers behind you, especially if other vehicles follow suit. Many drivers now follow these schemes, helping to protect the privacy and money of drivers.
Plan routes to avoid attacks where possible
Look up locations of attackers and be aware when in those areas. If possible, plan your routes to avoid those areas. Some street directory services and publications are now actively listing risk zones so that drivers can plan to avoid attacks, and it is likely that these services will become more commonplace as public retaliation increases.
Some stealth technology may be available
For example it is possible to protect against visible-light flash units by making the number plate reflect light in a 'collated' manner. This throws so much light back into the attacker's lens that the image of the plate is hopelessly washed out, beyond even digital restoration. Despite government counter-propaganda regarding this, there do exist coatings which can create this effect, but you will need to carefully check them out yourself as there are many fakes. It is also possible to make a transparent cover for the plate which is infra-red opaque, rendering infra-red flash useless. Other technologies may exist, and more will become available as time goes by. Possibly the regime will try and violate public rights by further abuses of legislative privelege, and try to treat these technologies as though they are in some way 'obscuring' the number plate.
Distribute information to others
Naturally, do your best to make other drivers aware of the moral and technical issues involved in these forms of revenue collection, and how best to deal with them.
Illegal parking, particularly if the vehicle projects any distance at all into the road, or if it is parked in a driveway. Some dispensations have been given to the operators regarding parking, but they are often found in breach of local laws. This is a local council or police matter.
Violating placement rules, see above. This is a police matter.
Setting up on a major road, without wearing their reflective safety vests. This is a Victorian Workcover Authority violation and attracts a heavy penalty. Report this directly to the VWA.
They are probably illegal in your state
Look up the law that applies to where you live. Ridiculous though this is, on several levels, you need to be aware of what precautions you may need to take! No state government has ever succeeded in outlawing ownership of these devices, but usage has often been subject to legal-attacks. However, the manufacturers of this defence equipment are fully aware of these abuses of legislative privelege and consquently a lot of the newer designs incorporate stealth features and are physically difficult or impossible to find on the vehicle.
There are many sharks out there, research the model before you buy
Beware of elaborate claims, only some models support all the available features of these devices. Guys Of Lidar is a great site to help you with this.
You can pay anything you want, but full protection is expensive
Some of these devices are expensive, you can pay anything up to AU$1500 for the best ones! However, you have to weigh up what you are most after. The site you are reading expresses the opinion that being able to defeat petty bureaucrats in their thirst for immorally obtained public money, sparing oneself the humiliation of being exploited when doing something in the privacy of your own car and on public roads, and avoiding the demerit system some states employ, is all worth the price.
Older radar detectors can be detected, newer ones are safe
Older radar detectors could be detected by Radar Detector Detectors (RDDs for short), though these intrusion devices are rarely employed. The newer radar detectors can defend themselves against RDDs very effectively. Look for this feature, otherwise only use a detector when absolutely necessary.
Speed Cameras and Radar Guns can only be detected by bounce
Radar can only be detected if its actually coming towards the detector, funnily enough. This means in traffic it can only be detected if it is aimed towards you or bouncing off the cars in front of you (or other objects, which is a controversial issue in itself regarding placement, see www.policespeedcameras.info Speed Camera Information). This means that if there is no other traffic, the defence device is unlikely to detect a Speed Camera attack unless the attacker is ahead on the road, or you have just driven past it in which case it is too late (though there are Radar Jammer devices as well, which cause the attacker's device to give an error). Generally in traffic there is more than enough reflection of signal to give the driver good warning.
There is no such thing as a Lidar Detector, only Lidar Jammers
Lidar (laser detection) works so fast that there is no point merely detecting it - you will be done before you can slow down. However, it turns out that jamming Lidar is almost trivially easy, and just appears as a plausible error to the attacker operating it. Jammers generally work for just long enough, whilst warning the driver, that it is possible to slow down before detection resumes, however some models of jammer have been shown to jam the signal until turned off! Beware, there are many Lidar detectors that claim to jam but actually don't at all, and if they don't jam they are useless. Again, see Guys Of Lidar for the best advice on this subject.