Comments on: Opinion, please: radar detector ban

By: T.W. Bonsac

T.W. Bonsac — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:34:53 +0000

I have used one for years, and in spite of the uninformed critics, they work wonderful. My Valentine One has saved me a lot of money. What was it Chief Justice John Marshall said? “when a law is unconstitutional, the citizens should go about their business as though it doesn’t exist” and, “A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law” I’ve viewed my radar detector as a protection against an unlawful money hungry beast of a Virginia State Government. Speed laws are for revenue and no other reason. Same sad argument about “red light camera’s”. VDOT’s own study* has shown they create accidents, not prevent them. This is simply a fight to keep the states hands out of my pocketbook. The Radar detector law is unconstitutional, state has no juridiction over radio waves. Virginia needs to grow up! I always liked Marshall’s quote on this:
“The more corrupt the state, the more laws.” If he could only see the Virginia Code now!!!

VDOT red light camera study:
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:8od3hisSJ70J:www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-vdot.pdf+vdot+red+light+camera+study&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

By: Wally Erb

Wally Erb — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 23:55:43 +0000

Currently, some radar detectors have the Safe Warning Systems (SWS)capability. SWS will warn drivers of “Emergency Vehicle in Transit” and “Stationary Emergency Vehicle Ahead”. Any Driver Warning System or radar detector up to one mile away will receive this warning. This warning could save a life, particularly for an emergency vehicle positioned over a rise or around a blind corner. It should also lead to quicker access to an emergency at the reduced risk to the driving public by warning drivers up to one mile away of an approaching emergency vehicle. Denying this safety aspect by banning the detectors is adverse to prudent legislation.

By: Billy

Billy — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 06:49:10 +0000

Radar Detectors are nothing but very simple radio receivers. The FCC rules (Part 15) clearly state that jurisdiction of the Airwaves is the sole purview of the Federal Government. There are many reasons for this, interstate commerce issues being but one. Hence, a state has no jurisdiction over the regulating the airwaves and can not enact or enforce law such law.

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 07:18:45 +0000

Dump it.

By: Terry

Terry — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 04:29:41 +0000

Speed limits are outdated anyway and serve as nothing more than a source of income for the state.

By: James Young

James Young — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:58:29 +0000

I agree with SV. I believe it to be a First Amendment issue: if government can bar you from receiving those radio signals, why couldn’t it bar you from receiving signals from, say, (P)MSNBC?

By: Wally Erb

Wally Erb — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:11:15 +0000

Radar Detectors and Road Statistics – A case for Radar Detectors http://tinyurl.com/yjkbx2k

By: Steve Vaughan

Steve Vaughan — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:06:02 +0000

I agree with MB that it’s essentially meaningless. Still, it’s a rights of the individual vs. rights of the state question, so I come down on the side of the individual. Drop it.

By: MB

MB — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:13:56 +0000

Drop it. It’s a silly bit of nothing. Also, radar detectors are about as useless as the bill, so it’s a wash, no?