Pulled over by State Trooper! LEDs too bright?

old8tora

Banned
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
2,339
Reaction score
998
Location
Cali
Vehicle(s)
2016 JK Sport
I appreciate the respectful discussion, I find this stuff interesting and glad we can discuss appropriately.
I believe the safety industry is moving to more advanced technology than lighting with the sonar/radar and self driving vehicles.
Self-driving vehicles are complete B.S. How about a self-driving airplane ? How about a self-driving Tank ? How about an electric Tesla crashing into the back of a parked Fire Engine in Utah ? "Advanced technology" is a synonym for moron vehicle .



Advertisement



 
Last edited:

EsTxDr

Well-Known Member
First Name
Adam
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
123
Reaction score
101
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLU Rubicon
Vehicle Showcase
1
Self-driving vehicles are complete B.S. How about a self-driving airplane ? How about a self-driving Tank ? How about an electric Tesla crashing into the back of a parked Fire Engine in Utah ? "Advanced technology" means moron .
Regardless, they are here and that is where our auto industry is looking right now.
I'm not saying its a good thing, but its whats happening.
 

old8tora

Banned
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
2,339
Reaction score
998
Location
Cali
Vehicle(s)
2016 JK Sport
Regardless, they are here and that is where our auto industry is looking right now.
I'm not saying its a good thing, but its whats happening.
Good answer . Except what will you do when you are a driver in a self-driving Jeep , and some kid chases a ball into your lane ? Like the Uber self-driving car in Arizona when the pedestrian walked in front ? If you are not actually driving , the vehicle will be a total moron .
 
Last edited:

old8tora

Banned
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
2,339
Reaction score
998
Location
Cali
Vehicle(s)
2016 JK Sport
Those minor traffic offenses are how that initial contact is usually made.
No such thing as a minor traffic offense . All police ought to have a minimum of 2 officers in each police car , and probably another police car with another 2 officers for back-up , to watch while the first police car and first 2 officers make the initial stop , and to pull in front to block suspect in after the suspect is finally stopped . Then you can watch suspect more closely , because his vehicle is dangerous in itself .
 

NavyVet1959

Banned
First Name
OldFart
Joined
Apr 11, 2018
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
1,129
Location
Texas, ya'll
Vehicle(s)
XJ (sold), WJ (sold), Ram 1500 QC 4x4 (sold 2018.06.07), Wrangler JL Sport 2-door (ordered 2018.06.08)
Occupation
Retired engineer (NASA, aerospace, DoD); ex-Navy
Vehicle Showcase
1
Self-driving vehicles are complete B.S. How about a self-driving airplane ? How about a self-driving Tank ? How about an electric Tesla crashing into the back of a parked Fire Engine in Utah ? "Advanced technology" is a synonym for moron .
Actually, a "self-driving" aircraft is easier to implement than a self-driving car. The autopilot systems on commercial aircraft already make the pilot just a backup for the computer and in case of an emergency. With some CAT III approaches, you are pretty damn close to the runway and need very little visibility before the pilot has to make a decision on whether to abort the landing. There's a lot more to it than this, but here's some information if you are curious:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland

Hell, I seem to remember that we had a system that would allow us to land an aircraft on a carrier with a pilot that was completely disabled even back in "ancient times" when I was in the Navy.

The thing is, aircraft do not have to travel as close to each other as cars do. And, of course, they have RADAR and transponders. And, when all else fails, it's a case of "big sky, small plane" -- a philosophy that works pretty good until you get to places like airports where planes tend to be found in higher concentrations. :)
 

old8tora

Banned
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
2,339
Reaction score
998
Location
Cali
Vehicle(s)
2016 JK Sport
Actually, a "self-driving" aircraft is easier to implement than a self-driving car. The autopilot systems on commercial aircraft already make the pilot just a backup for the computer and in case of an emergency. With some CAT III approaches, you are pretty damn close to the runway and need very little visibility before the pilot has to make a decision on whether to abort the landing. There's a lot more to it than this, but here's some information if you are curious:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland

Hell, I seem to remember that we had a system that would allow us to land an aircraft on a carrier with a pilot that was completely disabled even back in "ancient times" when I was in the Navy.

The thing is, aircraft do not have to travel as close to each other as cars do. And, of course, they have RADAR and transponders. And, when all else fails, it's a case of "big sky, small plane" -- a philosophy that works pretty good until you get to places like airports where planes tend to be found in higher concentrations. :)
All true . But you always want a thinking human controller to be present , either in the cockpit or on the carrier . If a pilot was unfortunately completely disabled , you would need to balance the desire to land the uncontrolled aircraft , vs. the real danger to all of the sailors and crew should a fuel-laden and/or explosives-laden aircraft crash into the also fueled and armed parked aircraft on the carrier , a la Forrestal , etc.

Might be an example of the overriding need to save many lives , thereby necessitating the abandonment of the self-flying disabled aircraft . Carrier explosions and fires are really horrible ; don't take a chance !
 

NavyVet1959

Banned
First Name
OldFart
Joined
Apr 11, 2018
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
1,129
Location
Texas, ya'll
Vehicle(s)
XJ (sold), WJ (sold), Ram 1500 QC 4x4 (sold 2018.06.07), Wrangler JL Sport 2-door (ordered 2018.06.08)
Occupation
Retired engineer (NASA, aerospace, DoD); ex-Navy
Vehicle Showcase
1
No such thing as a minor traffic offense . All police ought to have a minimum of 2 officers in each police car , and probably another police car with another 2 officers for back-up , to watch while the first police car and first 2 officers make the initial stop , and to pull in front to block suspect in after the suspect is finally stopped . Then you can watch suspect more closely , because his vehicle is dangerous in itself .
Unless the vehicle in front is turned the wrong way in traffic, it cannot watch the suspect more closely. From a tactical standpoint, you don't want to be pulling in front of the other vehicle, that's why the police pull behind you and walk up on you from behind. Now, if it started to become common for cars to have the gull-wing or rear-hinged (aka "suicide") doors, I have to wonder if some of the tactical advantage might be lost though.
 

old8tora

Banned
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
2,339
Reaction score
998
Location
Cali
Vehicle(s)
2016 JK Sport
Unless the vehicle in front is turned the wrong way in traffic, it cannot watch the suspect more closely. From a tactical standpoint, you don't want to be pulling in front of the other vehicle, that's why the police pull behind you and walk up on you from behind. Now, if it started to become common for cars to have the gull-wing or rear-hinged (aka "suicide") doors, I have to wonder if some of the tactical advantage might be lost though.
All true , but from the police lives point of view , never take any chance ! So many officers have been ambushed during "minor traffic offense" , I would treat any "minor" traffic stop as a major reason for caution !
 

NavyVet1959

Banned
First Name
OldFart
Joined
Apr 11, 2018
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
1,129
Location
Texas, ya'll
Vehicle(s)
XJ (sold), WJ (sold), Ram 1500 QC 4x4 (sold 2018.06.07), Wrangler JL Sport 2-door (ordered 2018.06.08)
Occupation
Retired engineer (NASA, aerospace, DoD); ex-Navy
Vehicle Showcase
1
All true . But you always want a thinking human controller to be present , either in the cockpit or on the carrier . If a pilot was unfortunately completely disabled , you would need to balance the desire to land the uncontrolled aircraft , vs. the real danger to all of the sailors and crew should a fuel-laden and/or explosives-laden aircraft crash into the also fueled and armed parked aircraft on the carrier , a la Forrestal , etc.

Might be an example of the overriding need to save many lives , thereby necessitating the abandonment of the self-flying disabled aircraft . Carrier explosions and fires are really horrible ; don't take a chance !
There's also a lot more ground (or ship) based infrastructure involved in automated aircraft landings than we have at our disposal for automated cars. You can't just go by GPS position even if you have the most accurate GPS available at the fastest refresh rate and it is 100% accurate since road changes occur on a daily basis either from major road construction projects or from smaller ones that are just closing off a lane due to them fixing a single pothole or their periodic cleaning of debris with the street sweeper machines. As such, it is the car itself that must have all the sensors and processors in order to be able to make the correct decision. Even with optical, IR, and RADAR based sensors, I would not want to trust my life on them. Sure, it would be "nice" to be able to get on a highway, turn on the autopilot, and catch a nap while on a long trip, but I just don't see it happening without a complete reworking of our road system to embed electronics in it to work with the electronics in the vehicles.
 

NavyVet1959

Banned
First Name
OldFart
Joined
Apr 11, 2018
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
1,129
Location
Texas, ya'll
Vehicle(s)
XJ (sold), WJ (sold), Ram 1500 QC 4x4 (sold 2018.06.07), Wrangler JL Sport 2-door (ordered 2018.06.08)
Occupation
Retired engineer (NASA, aerospace, DoD); ex-Navy
Vehicle Showcase
1
All true , but from the police lives point of view , never take any chance ! So many officers have been ambushed during "minor traffic offense" , I would treat any "minor" traffic stop as a major reason for caution !
Well, I suspect that an equal blame could be put on their departments for pushing for "revenue enhancement" duties.

One thing that I did notice when I was in the UK and Ireland driving around for a month was how different the police were there vs here in the US. The police do not seem to have the "us vs them" attitude that seems all to prevalent here in the US. I also did not see them on the highways in revenue enhancement mode. Maybe things will change as the concentration of criminal immigrants increases in some areas, but at that time, it seemed that the officers truly believed that they were there to *help* the people, not try to find some reason to harass / repress them. I think this is probably a carryover from the idea of "police by consent" by Sir Robert Peel back in the early 1800s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

Just check out this incident:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/worl...runk-australian-after-putting-him-to-bed.html

I suspect that this would have had an entirely different outcome here in the US and the guy would have been sleeping it off in jail instead.
 

old8tora

Banned
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
2,339
Reaction score
998
Location
Cali
Vehicle(s)
2016 JK Sport
There's also a lot more ground (or ship) based infrastructure involved in automated aircraft landings than we have at our disposal for automated cars. You can't just go by GPS position even if you have the most accurate GPS available at the fastest refresh rate and it is 100% accurate since road changes occur on a daily basis either from major road construction projects or from smaller ones that are just closing off a lane due to them fixing a single pothole or their periodic cleaning of debris with the street sweeper machines. As such, it is the car itself that must have all the sensors and processors in order to be able to make the correct decision. Even with optical, IR, and RADAR based sensors, I would not want to trust my life on them. Sure, it would be "nice" to be able to get on a highway, turn on the autopilot, and catch a nap while on a long trip, but I just don't see it happening without a complete reworking of our road system to embed electronics in it to work with the electronics in the vehicles.
All true . When the golfer's plane went off course in uncontrolled cruise , possibly the pilot and pax were disabled by depressurization and/or oxygen deprivation . It would probably have been foolhardy to try to automatically land the plane because of the risk to innocent others on the ground .
 
Last edited:

old8tora

Banned
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
2,339
Reaction score
998
Location
Cali
Vehicle(s)
2016 JK Sport
Well, I suspect that an equal blame could be put on their departments for pushing for "revenue enhancement" duties.

One thing that I did notice when I was in the UK and Ireland driving around for a month was how different the police were there vs here in the US. The police do not seem to have the "us vs them" attitude that seems all to prevalent here in the US. I also did not see them on the highways in revenue enhancement mode. Maybe things will change as the concentration of criminal immigrants increases in some areas, but at that time, it seemed that the officers truly believed that they were there to *help* the people, not try to find some reason to harass / repress them. I think this is probably a carryover from the idea of "police by consent" by Sir Robert Peel back in the early 1800s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

Just check out this incident:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/worl...runk-australian-after-putting-him-to-bed.html

I suspect that this would have had an entirely different outcome here in the US and the guy would have been sleeping it off in jail instead.
All true . As far as "revenue enhancement" is concerned , the local councils in UK are far more successful in speed trapping using cameras on roads .

China has taken surveillance further , with facial recognition cameras , and police wearing facial recognition goggles , connected to computers .
 
Last edited:

EsTxDr

Well-Known Member
First Name
Adam
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
123
Reaction score
101
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLU Rubicon
Vehicle Showcase
1
Good answer . Except what will you do when you are a driver in a self-driving Jeep , and some kid chases a ball into your lane ? Like the Uber self-driving car in Arizona when the pedestrian walked in front ? If you are not actually driving , the vehicle will be a total moron .
I wont do anything because if I can help it I wont be driving a self driving car. I'm not supporting self driving technology, as I stated previously. But like it or not its coming. My point was that advanced technology is where the focus is rather than European lighting regulations. I'm not sure why you think I support self driving vehicles.
 

Shots

Well-Known Member
First Name
Winchell
Joined
Jul 6, 2018
Messages
1,475
Reaction score
1,609
Location
N.E.Ohio
Vehicle(s)
Wrangler Sahara (JLU), Renegade Limited (BU)
Apparently, you think that it is perfectly acceptable for an officer to enforce a law that is in violation of the Constitutional rights of the citizens, just because some idiotic leftist legislators wrote it up. EVERY law that attempts to restrict the ownership or bearing of firearms is blatantly unconstitutional in that they violate the SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED clause of the 2nd Amendment.....
As I mentioned before, whether or not I, you or anyone else agrees with the concealed carry law, it remains that it was a law. The Oklahoma officer was enforcing the laws which he was expected to enforce. Police do not make the laws, or even necessarily agree with them, they simply enforce them.
For example, Ohio is known for strict seat belt enforcement. Ask many officers and they'll tell you they think it shouldn't be illegal, since the person is only jeopardizing their own life. Others will argue that if it's not illegal to drive a motorcycle without a helmet it shouldn't be illegal to drive without a seat belt. Yet, those same officers will write seat belt tickets, because it's their job to do so. They don't have to agree with all the laws they enforce.
So whether I, you, or anyone else agrees with the concealed carry law is irrelevant when it comes to the facts of that case.

That said. I'm a member of the NRA, have my fair share of guns, and I oppose all these stupid knee jerk reactions for regulation every time there is a shooting. So to address your assumption, no I don't think there should be a bunch of gun regulations, but if a law is passed, yes, I think the officer should enforce it.

.....As far as I'm concerned, McVeigh's main problem was choosing a target with unacceptable collateral damages. But, if you look at it objectively, it's not that different than when we bombed places in Iraq, Afghanistan, or ISIS controlled areas where non-combatants were killed because they were near the combatants......
Has the government killed innocent people? Absolutely, there are tons of examples, especially going further back into history. War is violent and unfair. It doesn't make either side right. However the idea of "they did it, so it's okay for me to do it too" is stupid. That's like saying "their gang killed our guys, now our gang is going to kill some of theirs in retaliation". They're both wrong, and nobody learns anything from it. It's gang violence.
His problem wasn't choosing a target with unacceptable collateral damage, his problem was stooping to the level which he felt the government had stooped and killed innocent people. Even if he had blown up a building filled completely with government employees, how many of them had any actual involvement in the incident which he was retaliating for? Very few, if any. They were all innocent people, they just happened to be employed by government. Why should should Specialist Jones, die for something Agent Smith did last year, when Spc Jones had no involvement or influence on what Agent Smith did?
I'm all for standing up for something, but taking it out on someone simply because they work for the same employer or in the same trade is stupid and immature. It's like a child lashing out throwing a tantrum.


....."Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty." -- John Basil Barnhill, but often attributed to Thomas Jefferson
Right on. A well armed society is a polite society. Not just in regards to one another, but in regards to government too. The point behind "a well armed militia" was not to protect the people from each other, but to protect the people from the government. That stands true today, and we are a very well armed nation.

No such thing as a minor traffic offense . All police ought to have a minimum of 2 officers in each police car , and probably another police car with another 2 officers for back-up , to watch while the first police car and first 2 officers make the initial stop , and to pull in front to block suspect in after the suspect is finally stopped . Then you can watch suspect more closely , because his vehicle is dangerous in itself .
All true , but from the police lives point of view , never take any chance ! So many officers have been ambushed during "minor traffic offense" , I would treat any "minor" traffic stop as a major reason for caution !
Ha ha. I get the point, but people complain enough about police. Can you imagine the complaints about wasting tax payer's money if two cars drove around together, with 4 officers to stop someone doing something like 10 over the limit?
That said. There are minor traffic offenses. For example 10 mph over the limit, a headlight out, or other offenses that don't really hurt anyone but still have the potential to be dangerous. Major offenses are things like OVI/DUI, reckless operation, or other offenses that have a high probability of hurting someone. I think what you mean is, there is no such thing as a routine traffic stop.
Traffic stops are dangerous and officers need to be hyper-vigilant even on minor offenses. I think most officers would like to have a back-up unit nearby, but it's not fiscally practical in a lot of places. Some departments do run 2 officers per car, but it's not too common around here. You are correct though, that it's very dangerous and even a minor offense does require extreme caution.
Case in point the example a gave a few pages back. Had the Oklahoma officer approached the car, McVeigh likely would have shot him and drove away. What's one more body, he just blew up an entire building full of people. The officer used caution for a license plate violation, which turned into so much more. So yes, you are correct, it is dangerous and officers need to take every tactical advantage they can.

.....One thing that I did notice when I was in the UK and Ireland driving around for a month was how different the police were there vs here in the US. The police do not seem to have the "us vs them" attitude that seems all to prevalent here in the US......
What's funny is that "us vs them" mentality is perpetuated by the "news" and social media. How many actual police officers have you spoken with who are anti people, vs how may people you've talked to who are anti police? I see posts, and hear news reports all the time saying how people hate police, allege police are racist, abusive, sexist, etc. I've yet to see a post or news reports where an officer is saying they hate people and they're out to harass as many people as they can?
It's not the police with the "us vs them" mentality. It's the media selling that story to the people (some of who buy into it). Actually talk to some cops and ask them why they became a cop, or what their favorite part about their job is. Most will tell you they do it to help people, to make their community better, and their favorite part of the job is when they can help someone who can't help themselves.

To quote Rodney King, "can we all get along".

I want the LED lights! I would just angle them down more. Let's not blind people! That would be the Jeep way!
Yup. Aim the LED's down a hair, and wave as you go by the other Jeeps.
 

                           
























































Top