In that specific context I would assume it's that they don't want you using a radar scanner because its purpose is to enable you to circumvent speeding laws by finding where cops are, and possibly...
In that specific context I would assume it's that they don't want you using a radar scanner because its purpose is to enable you to circumvent speeding laws by finding where cops are, and possibly alerting others to their presence, or diverting to an area without cops to continue speeding. The justification is weak at best, but "the law is the law." It's not the radar, it's everything else.
Where "perception" doesn't interact with other laws or actions, such as speeding, or organizations, like law enforcement trying to speed, radio reception is not an issue. I can get a shortwave receiver for $20 on Amazon and listen to whatever broadcast I want, whether it's Joe the Licensed HAM Operator two streets over, or the recording of Comrade Yuri reading off numbers to activate a sleeper cell in Venezuela.
Any major law and regulation about radio stuff, AFAIK from when I've looked into it out of curiosity, is mostly about transmission to ensure the waves are clear for licensed operators (Broadcasters, military, emergency services, licensed amateurs, etc), and so we know who is doing what, where, and when but we don't really have laws about what you can pick up, except again for these interactions with other activities.
I guess we can think of airwaves as something of an electromagnetic commons: You have a right to be there, but regulations are in place to ensure you don't burn it down or put cones across it to stop others from crossing. When you want to hold an obstructing event, like send a HAM broadcast or a concert in the park, you need a permit, but to listen to the broadcast or attend the show, you just need to listen.
EDIT: This is US-centric, at least legally, but most minimally functioning liberal democracies are similar AFAIK. "Rights" come in when your country wants to block, say, BBC World Service over shortwave. I would contend a right to stand in the EM common exists, and would be violated by this law. Similarly for the radar scanner law, the reception shouldn't be an issue, as long as you aren't jamming the guns.
I agree that the anti-radar laws are weak, if only because they run contrary to the original idea of just not getting people to speed. Speeders gonna speed. If a radar detector slows them down for...
I agree that the anti-radar laws are weak, if only because they run contrary to the original idea of just not getting people to speed. Speeders gonna speed. If a radar detector slows them down for a few seconds, that better than nothing. But that doesn't make any extra money for the state so...
Did you know dropping your speed from 75mph to 65 mph increases your fuel efficiency by 5-7 mpg? That can easily save you $300 a year. A 100 mile trip will take 12 min more. You (and everyone around you) will be safer. Is the marginal benefit of being 1-2 minutes faster on a short drive worth risking the lives of everyone you know?
In that specific context I would assume it's that they don't want you using a radar scanner because its purpose is to enable you to circumvent speeding laws by finding where cops are, and possibly alerting others to their presence, or diverting to an area without cops to continue speeding. The justification is weak at best, but "the law is the law." It's not the radar, it's everything else.
Where "perception" doesn't interact with other laws or actions, such as speeding, or organizations, like law enforcement trying to speed, radio reception is not an issue. I can get a shortwave receiver for $20 on Amazon and listen to whatever broadcast I want, whether it's Joe the Licensed HAM Operator two streets over, or the recording of Comrade Yuri reading off numbers to activate a sleeper cell in Venezuela.
Any major law and regulation about radio stuff, AFAIK from when I've looked into it out of curiosity, is mostly about transmission to ensure the waves are clear for licensed operators (Broadcasters, military, emergency services, licensed amateurs, etc), and so we know who is doing what, where, and when but we don't really have laws about what you can pick up, except again for these interactions with other activities.
I guess we can think of airwaves as something of an electromagnetic commons: You have a right to be there, but regulations are in place to ensure you don't burn it down or put cones across it to stop others from crossing. When you want to hold an obstructing event, like send a HAM broadcast or a concert in the park, you need a permit, but to listen to the broadcast or attend the show, you just need to listen.
EDIT: This is US-centric, at least legally, but most minimally functioning liberal democracies are similar AFAIK. "Rights" come in when your country wants to block, say, BBC World Service over shortwave. I would contend a right to stand in the EM common exists, and would be violated by this law. Similarly for the radar scanner law, the reception shouldn't be an issue, as long as you aren't jamming the guns.
I agree that the anti-radar laws are weak, if only because they run contrary to the original idea of just not getting people to speed. Speeders gonna speed. If a radar detector slows them down for a few seconds, that better than nothing. But that doesn't make any extra money for the state so...
Did you know dropping your speed from 75mph to 65 mph increases your fuel efficiency by 5-7 mpg? That can easily save you $300 a year. A 100 mile trip will take 12 min more. You (and everyone around you) will be safer. Is the marginal benefit of being 1-2 minutes faster on a short drive worth risking the lives of everyone you know?
Don't speed.
You might first ask yourself, “what is a right?” And “where do rights come from?”