Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by For Truth
I've asked this before and never gotten a really clear answer myself. I also don't have the spare 2-300 dollars one costs to test the theory but
wouldn't lasers work to burn out the photo sensors? I mean this isn't magic to make the cameras work and if one just stops to think about what has
to work right, from the camera operator's side of the fence here, it seems having the lens hit with a destructive level laser would do the trick to
whiteout the display?
The one I'd think of would be along the lines of the Spyder 3 which is rated as literally dangerous in
power to burn and cut through light stuff.
Now Lasers have no realistic range in a sense we'd care for still being in line of sight to a little mounted camera......but the camera has a very
real limit in mega-pixels and such for how far IT can see and make any sense of what is in the view.
Just all concepts for an enterprising person to consider for how it all works together as an idea... Never something I'd do or condone of course.
Those cameras are very expensive, I'm sure!
I believe I can answer your question about the lasers, anyway - basically the answer is yes, any high-powered class 4 (which is anything over a watt)
has the ability to at least temporarily blind or even destroy the CCD in a camera. I have heard of that happening to a few laser enthusiasts who have
sought to photograph their lasers in action and they end up ruining their cameras with an errant direct hit. But there are some things to consider -
the laser source (especially considering most high powered lasers in use today by hobbyists are diode lasers, which have a poor beam divergence,
meaning the beam flares out and gets wide like a flashlight beam and its power density vastly decreases with distance) needs to be fairly close to the
camera, like within maybe 20 feet, for there to be enough power density to do the job. A DPSS laser (diode pumped solid state, the type most green
lasers are, but they are also much more costly when you get into the higher powers) has a much finer beam and could do the job from further away, the
as noted the cost is beyond what the average person would want to pay, especially just to kill a camera.
In addition, you would want to be standing still when lasering a camera, not riding in a car, as you may need a couple of seconds to get the effects
That said, with regards to the OP, I am also a Maryland resident, but I live out in the 'burbs where thankfully this sort of blight hasn't yet
appeared. In fact, some of the small towns here in Carroll county have managed to defeat attempts (legally, not by taking out existing cameras) to
bring speed cameras to town. Supposedly the law here in Maryland states that only school zones and construction sites are allowed to use them;
however, a lot of the problem seems to lie in how they are used within these zones. I have been following the flap about the cameras (in Baltimore
City, at least) and I've seen many letters to the news paper where people complain that they have been busted by the cameras near schools at 3 am!
Come on - I can sort of see having one active during school operation - but at 3 am?!? That's just a rip off IMO. What public schools are they
expecting to be in operation at that time of the night? In addition, a week or so ago I was driving along the Baltimore Beltway at around 9 pm, and
it was raining - and guess what - there's this construction "speed zone" warning with flashing lights and a radar set up (I don't think there were
any cameras, at least nothing that I noticed or none that were working) that was showing the speed of the traffic that was passing by it in the slow
lane. IMO that's ridiculous - 9 pm on a weekend, in the rain - there wasn't a soul out there doing any kind of work anywhere but they still had all
the stuff turned on! Again, if they're going to do it, at least only turn the stuff on when the work site is active! Again, I don't know if they
were enforcing that site with a camera or actual police, but either way, if no one's working there none of it should be operational. It was a moot
point that night anyway as most people were creeping along at around 40mph (the limit there is 55) due to the rain.
But I do think that speed cameras should go the way of the dinosaurs - get rid of 'em!
I also think that another tack that might possibly work (in addition to killing the cameras and the cameras that watch them) is if there are any
businesses in the areas where the cameras are set up, these businesses should be notified by communities that they will be boycotted until the cameras
are gone. Businesses can be pretty helpful (perhaps more so than the individual) at putting pressure on gov't officials to get things done.