Dangerous, stupid and highly illegal"
"Dangerous, stupid and highly illegal"
Right. Now what?
The Federal Aviation Administration has warned of a dangerous escalation in laser strikes on aircraft, with Wednesday night alone registering a record 20 incidents. "Nearly two dozen aircraft were hit by lasers last night," the FAA reported. "Shining a laser at an aircraft is a federal crime. It can harm the pilot and …
I wonder if this has anything to do with flightpaths being changed so that there is far loess variation on their approach and departures than there used to be? The path followed is more carefully controlled, and the upshot of that is that some people get far more aircraft passing overhead than they used to. It's hardly surprising that this might be pissing people off in some areas.
Not that I would ever condone this dangerous behaviour of course, but changes are always made in such a way that only ever considers the advantages from the PoV of the airlines, airports and air traffic control. The impact on the public on the other hand rarely seems to get taken seriously in any significant way. Just look at Heathrow, where they didn't even bother telling people about flight path trials, and where NATS lied to the public on the subject of departure routes from Heathrow.
Which came first? The airport or the real estate development?
Frankly, they should have passed a law or regulation that nothing other than airport support structures could be built within a few miles of an airport or at least in the takeoff and landing flight paths.
Second, yes, interfering with aircraft operations is the very definition of terrorism and always has been since the 1940s when it was then labeled as sabotage.
I'm 70 miles (100km) from a major metropolitan airport, their primary approach vector was consolidated about a year ago to a single path over the mountains, and the folks a couple miles south of me, who live in a very remote rural and quiet canyon, are quite annoyed at the non-stop stream of big jets , spaced 30 seconds apart all day and night that now fly directly over them. as this valley is up 1000' elevation from sea level, the planes are flying at 6000 or 7000' above sea level, they can be quite loud.
that all said, to the topic at hand.... green laser pointers. I'm an amateur astronomer, and use these at public events to point out the night sky features we're showing the public. There's a new generation of these lasers that are WAY brighter than advertised... I bought a pair of supposedly 5mW green lasers, that are easily 30-40 mW compared with my old 5mw lasers. the older ones used 2 AAA batteries, and were quite sensitive to cold and low voltage, they'd stop working if the batteries drop below 1.4V each (2.8V total). These new 'laser 303' lasers use 18650 LiIon rechargables. I measured the electrical power consumption of one at 1.2 watts, and at the typical efficiencies of the IR diodes, IR laser crystal, and frequency-doubler crystal these use, that comes to 30-40mW actual radiated power. frankly, for my star pointer use, I preferred the old 'actually' 4-5mW lasers, but their battery consumption was ridiculous.
I suspect this increasing stream of reports in the press will be followed by banning them entirely.
"I suspect this increasing stream of reports in the press will be followed by banning them entirely."
That's already happened in Australia. Several years ago the government banned all laser pointers over 1 mW, except for members of registered astronomy clubs. You have to prove membership in such a club to be able to import a >1 mW laser pointer, and there's a safety training course you have to complete to be qualified to use one.
Essentially the safety course warns about never pointing them at aircraft, always checking to see if there are any aircraft in the vicinity you're aiming at before operating the pointer, and being aware of high-altitude ice scattering the beam in ways that aren't always visible from the ground, etc.
They're classed as Category A firearms, which I thought was actually quite cool - I'd been waiting since I was a kid for the sci-fi moment when laser guns would be recognised officially as weapons!
But of course that means that if you are caught in possession of one without an astronomy-club exemption you get charged with possession of an illegal and unregistered firearm - which in this country is a serious and imprisonable offence.
Not as simple as that. Sometimes it was the airport, sometimes it was the city. Also, the area affected by the noises can be somewhat large. I once lived in an apartment that was in the flight path BWI used during one type of bad weather. I understand the particular climb and turn combination pilots have to make to execute the takeoff causes rather more noise than the standard one. Most of the time I didn't notice, but I did occasionally. I was a good 20 minute drive from the airport. So you're talking about prohibiting housing in more than 600 square miles just for a small arc covering the apartment complex I lived in.
I wonder if this has anything to do with flightpaths being changed so that there is far loess variation on their approach and departures than there used to be?
No, it's to do with high-powered lasers now being cheaply available online. Combine that with stupidity and poor education, and you get idiots who'll end up in court, crying "But I didn't think..."
it's to do with high-powered lasers now being cheaply available online.
They have been for some time now though surely?
If the availability hasn't really changed over recent years, but the behaviour has changed then perhaps something other than the tendency for not giving a shit about anybody else is to blame for the increase?
And just to re-iterate: I do not condone what these people do. Regardless of what excuses they come up with, their actions can never be justified.
I only mentioned the airport development since I've seen the extreme anger that the Heathrow trials last year caused when there were meetings between locals and Heathrow management. When you see it first hand it's not difficult to imagine that anger translating into this sort of behaviour regardless of how unreasonable - and illegal - such actions may be, especially since the changes trialled at Heathrow have already been put into practice in the US, presumably causing the same problems and the same levels of frustration.
Did you actually read my response? I have repeatedly said that I don't condone it.
People however have the habit of occasionally doing the unreasonable, sometimes with dire consequences. Ignoring that tendency serves no useful purpose that I can see.
No, it's to do with high-powered lasers now being cheaply available online. Combine that with stupidity and poor education, and you get idiots who'll end up in court, crying "But I didn't think..."
I would say it has even more to do with green lasers nowadays being sold as toys on the street in many holiday locations and brain dead parents buying said lasers for their even more stupid offspring.
The toy version usually has some kind of filter that turns the beam into a heart shape or something, but the filter can be easily removed to create a single point high power green laser pointer.
I'd recommend some high powered active point back system that precisely, instantly and permanently blinds whoever points such a converted toy on an aircraft.
which at it's heart is a different way of saying "availability of cheap lasers".
I'm inclined to think it's mostly this and some in anger, but we really shouldn't rule out terrorist probing.
All of which brings us back to the point raised by the very first poster: What are airlines going to do about it? Making it illegal obviously isn't working. Which means the airlines MUST take some sort of countermeasures to deal with it.
"some people get far more aircraft passing overhead than they used to."
It's bloody hard to lase an aircraft passing overhead. You need to be a long way away and able to shine it on the windows at the pointy end, which is why so many get painted when they're on finals (low and moving slowly)
This is more a stupid prat thing than a Victor Meldrew type response.
There's a tiny difference between downing an unmanned drone hovering 30-40 feet above your backyard, and lasing an aircraft carrying people and fuel just waiting to come crashing down in a neighborhood. And I'm not even crazy about the guy who downed the drone with a shotgun, which might be dangerous to others, even if he was using birdshot.
Enjoy the downvote and "Thank you, come again!"
I believe that he is making some reference to some of the recent articles about drones and prvacy
here is one of them
It appers that the KneeJerk crowd are strong in the force today Luke....
These are not the KneeJerk crowd you are looking for.
The other part of the KneeJerk crowd is blathering about our freedoms being under attack and how they are shocked, shocked!! and mourning, mourning!! about some blowback shock-and-awe in Paris and how they will let their inner Nazi out. Oh my.
Grumpy old farts don't bother me. Even if they miss the joke, their rants add a bit of colour to the proceedings.
What I can't stand are sufferers of special snowflake syndrome who feel the need to make pointless and narcissistic posts.
<whine> 'Here have a down vote'.</whine> Really? WTF gives a toss. If you feel strongly about something, speak up; otherwise don't waste everyone's time.
Make them fail to work if pointed upwards, at more than (say) 60 degrees.
Twats can still cause other harm with them, just as now, but accurately pointing them at an aircraft in flight would be a lot harder at a maximum angle like that.
Hmm. Scrap that idea, then - just read a little further and saw the high rise blocks/Glasgow airport comment. A low angle would probably still be a problem there. Reduce the strength of the laser as the angle increases, so at anything above horizontal, it's too weak to do any harm.
The US was looking into special fast-blackening glasses for their pilots back in the 90s when it was feared that high-powered lasers might be used against US warplanes to actually blind pilots for good (verboten by UN conventions, but hey) in case a shooting match breaks out with someone whose armed forces are a bit serious about that war business. What happened to that?
Well, sitting in a cockpit with what would be heavy sunglasses still would not make instrumental landing practical.
...to figure out how to limit the range the light can travel from a laser pointer. And then make the column of light fully visible, and a bit thicker, give them a nice big handle to hold it with, and maybe give it a nice wooshing sound as it scythes through the air.
<pedant>More of a 60Hz A/C hum I think.</pedant>
So how's this:
<geek>The handle contains a reel of a mono-filament wire of some kind (probably carbon), which ends in a disc. The disc and the handle are both charged to repel each other and thus hold the filament taut. The charge is transferred to the disc at the end via ionisation caused by a powerful laser beam; as a side of effect of the extreme voltages generated there is a St. Elmo's fire effect going at that makes the ionisation path visible, this acts to tell you where the mono-filament is. It's the mono-filament that does the cutting, not the laser, though the beam and the controlled lightning effect will cauterise - to some extent - wounds caused by the wire.</geek>
And there you have it: 3-weeks worth of undergraduate discussion (in 1977) on how to construct a working light-sabre.
Oh look at the men in the smart, white lab-coats...
"Time for boffins to come up with a defence against laser pointers..."
It's not THAT hard. I mean, it will cost money. And a lot more than they are willing to pay. But...
What lasers do we have today, commercially sold?
Each one of them working with an extremely narrow range of frequencies. Put some film inside the cockpit windows that blocks these specific wavelengths. There may be some change in the scenery colors, due to these missing colors, but I don't think it would be important.
Even the red ones. The red lights use a much larger spectrum than the laser pointers.
I worked on a system using two fairly powerful lasers to scan eyes (yeah, I know).
Obviously, we worked in a closed off space so others would be safe - the oscillating mirrors could throw light everywhere during development and one had to be careful, which is difficult for hours on end.
The safety mechanism? wearing glasses with a high-Q optical filter for the two frequencies involved, not unlike the film over the aircraft screen idea.
So, no retrofit, give pilots laser landing glasses with maybe two filters for red/green. Going forward, ensure that all manufacturers agree that commercial pointers etc. use almost the same frequencies to minimise the variance.
The glasses were almost perfectly clear I recall so it seems possible unless there are dozens of frequencies used at the moment, even so, maybe a wider filter would still be fine even at night (where I presume the most attacks occur?, after all, they want to see the dot on the aircraft not being actual terrorists a la ISIS?).
"Going forward, ensure that all manufacturers agree that commercial pointers etc. use almost the same frequencies to minimise the variance."
Nice idea, but I think at least part of the problem is that some overseas vendors are selling class 3 devices over the internet branded as "professional" laser pointers. Since they don't comply with your laws, or with plain common sense, they aren't likely to comply with a well-intentioned suggestion.
Nanomaterial film that notches out the two most common laser pointer wavelengths.
First marketing approach was sheets of film installed in the aircraft windows just like window tinting is installed in cars.
Mk II marketing approach is goggles or glasses.
Been around for about a year, roughly.
"First marketing approach was sheets of film installed in the aircraft windows just like window tinting is installed in cars."
The local oiks lase cars, cyclists and residential windows in addition to aircraft (their usual method of getting away is to duck into a pub when the helicopter shows up)
When they hit my lounge window about 30 degrees off axis the entire pane (1.2m square) went bright green and illuminated the room whilst preventing anything being seen outside. Apparently this is down to microcracking in the glass. Having experienced it I can see why it'd be hellishly distracting to a pilot even if he doesn't cop it directly in the eyeball. (I've caught that too, It hurt like hell and at least one other driver crashed into parked cars when he got struck).
I've been sorely tempted to liberate a cutting laser and use it to return the favour.
Remove the windows.
Why not? It'd allow for slightly reduced construction costs and simplified aerodynamics, and pilots don't actually need to see out of them - planes can already be flown almost entirely on instruments, and could be all the time with just a couple more cameras. It'd actually improve visibility.
Or you could rermove the pilots.
Take-off, cruise and landing are mostly automated anyway - or can be if need be.
It's either that or making it illegal to own any pointer with a power of more than <not many> W.
Does anyone really need a pointer that puts out more than 10mW? No, they don't.
...and the FBI has offered a $10,000 bounty to anyone who lets them know when a dangerous idiot is on the loose with lasers.
A small part of me wants to find some idiots, plant a seed, water it with beer, then turn them into the cops. I mean, it's a public service to get idiots jailed, right? The fact that I could get paid to do it would merely be an incidental benefit.
There was a Winchburgh man sent down for firing fireworks at aeroplanes landing at Edinburgh Airport. He wasn't a ned, he was a middle-aged home-owner pissed off by the flight path. Admittedly he was mad, but he was driven mad by the noise. Flight paths do tend to fly over poor populated areas rather than more sparsely populated rich areas, and the poor folk do get annoyed by that.
I am in no way defending the laser-pointers - I don't fly anymore but if I saw anyone doing that then I'd brick them. After all, if they did bring down a plane then it might land on me. Am I allowed to say I'd brick someone to a cop? Och, tonight you should be worrying about Daesh and right-wing retaliation, not silly buggers like me.
Most airports have been around a rather long time and they fly over areas populated by the poor because the noise lowers property values making it affordable to the poor and rich folks can afford to live elsewhere. Of course there are probably more flights now than there were but part of that is because airlines are consolidating their routes and many of the smaller airports, like the one I learned at, are actually being closed.
'It's WW2, we need a new airport - quick, let's find a prime bit of real estate densely populated with poor people'
Or possibly post-war, cities expanded to fill the gaps upto the airports, and businesses came along for the great transport links, then people came to work at those businesses, the less well paid off whom were prepared to live closer to work in exchange for engine noise and lower rents.
Hardly, one of the only landing strips capable of landing the space shuttle (outside of the US) was out in the sticks of York.
It's also visible from space and was used for Lancasters and b-17s. (and is also where my grand-uncle flew out from never to return, not surprising with 50% survival rate of his job)
They're fun toys but I'm extremely aware of how dangerous they can be, unlike some of my friends and their friends who have several times asked me to get them a green one next time I'm buying gadgets online because it's the brightest.
I do say yeah I'll get them one, but I never do and never will because generally they're morons when it comes to technology and things like this. I mean, if they can't figure out how to buy something from the internet that's as readily available as a laser pointer how can they comprehend just how dangerous they can be?
20 incedents in one night is nothing compared to what happened in Egypt a couple of years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjaW3QM2Nb8
One really odd thing I discovered about laser light, which I haven't found an answer to is this: My violet laser will easily charge up glow-in-the-dark materials, it's very cool how quickly it does that, but if I shine my red or more noticably my green laser pointer at an already charged up glow-in-the-dark material it will go dark where I shine the laser, it actively reduces the glow.
There has to be a scientific explanation for what happens when you do that, but to me that's just weird with a capital weird.
For the glow-in-the-dark question, the violet laser will have higher-energy photons and so will be kicking whatever it is needs to be kicked into an excited energy level. The other lasers will then either give whatever it is enough of a kick that it falls back rapidly or, perhaps, kick it into some yet other excited energy level where it is much more nearly stable, so appears dark.
I haven't seen a laser pointer used in public for years and I travel a lot of miles.
I understand the UK health department has them listed whereby over a certain power they are not allowed to or recommended not to be sold.
Contrary to this, I'm woken up and disturbed regularly by cars and motorcycles with extremely loud modified exhausts. A practice that has become more and more fashionable and now reaching out to middle age men driving exotic cars, paying up to £5,000 for a system designed to audibly show off the power of their vehicle contrary to type approval standards and MOT rules.
So I've bee wondering. Next time I'm sleep deprived by one of these selfish motoring enthusiasts forcing their noise into my apartment and head, how would they and the Police react if I forced laser light into their vehicles and eyes?
I'm guessing the car and motorcycle modification industry being worth £millions more than the laser pen industry, would see me prosecuted and the car driver ticked off with a little warning, with the MOT testers continuing to making a good living out of the fraud.
I'm woken up and disturbed regularly by cars and motorcycles with extremely loud modified exhausts
Most of those exhaust modders are idiots. All you have to suggest is that they will be better able to enjoy the sound if they duct it into the interior, and Darwin will take care of the rest.
Yes. How do you make more power? Rev higher. Only at a track day would a modified exhaust have any real use. On my current (25 year old) car I had the noisier muffler replaced with a quiet one as soon as the exhaust needed work. I can't use anything near the max power my car can make on public roads, and scores of current cars have much more power than mine.
Contrary to this, I'm woken up and disturbed regularly by cars and motorcycles with extremely loud modified exhausts. A practice that has become more and more fashionable and now reaching out to middle age men driving exotic cars
The loudest car near me left the factory that way - TVR Cerbera. Its so loud that I can't even hear my car when I'm sat in it if the owner pulls up next to me, and my car is fairly loud. Some cars are just loud, and no matter how they're used will be audible in a road side building.
Now, I completely agree when we're talking about badly modified shopping trolleys, fart canning their way between McDonalds, while looking like the spare carriage off the Ninkey-Nonk. Or idiots that hold the gear up to the red line in residential areas.
Those, to me, are two very different issues, but I say that as a middle aged man, with a faintly loud car. I'm not really sure what you want me to do about it though.... The car can't be made quiet.
I am against the death penalty for all the obvious reasons, but if your country actually has it then laser strikes on planes would be a good candidate because it actually would act as a deterrent.
You would only have to publicly execute 3 or 4 people and and this horribly dangerous behaviour would stop.
You would only have to publicly execute 3 or 4 people and and this horribly dangerous behaviour would stop.
it hasnt exactly worked for the other crimes which carry the death sentence, though has it?
Using a sweeping generalisation, most people who are dicking around like this are likely to struggle with difficult concepts like "repercussions".................
Assuming you've got the right person.
There are lots of cases that deserve the death penalty. There are rather less times when the evidence is clear enough, or the judge and jury can be impartial enough, to hand down such a penalty that can't be undone. And he who is without sin, etc.
You're thinking of summery executions. Death penalty almost always involves a lot of trials and appeals, almost always costing more than keeping someone in prison for life.
So either you have a system where people are getting killed for things they didn't do, or finding very expensive ways for the state to kill it's own citizens.
But it's a pretty typical narrow minded little englander attitude, written by someone not near enough to the bottom or top of society to actually appreciate how the law does (or doesn't) work, and especially on how it's enforced.
I'm sure you'll be voting for whoever is offering to reduce our freedoms in the name of fighting $Enemy, who hate us because of our freedoms, and nothing to do with killing and theft.
If 250k and/or 20 years doesn't stop it, threat of death won't either.
After all the homicide rate is lower in our non-death penalty Europe than most, if-not-all death penalty countries, and yes, I am aware that that is not necessarily why.
But I seriously doubt if the death penalty would reduce the murder rate, I have known a few murderers and they all were not cognisant of the penalty because most were not in a stable frame of mind at the time and a small number knew the risks but were motivated by stronger urges, usually money and they don't expect to be caught, otherwise, what would be the point?
Lasing an aircraft is easy to do and easy to get away with. We have high penalties for 'easy' crimes that are hard to stop but none-the-less very unwanted for a reason, we have nothing else. But, you have to publicise it heavily or it just means that stupid saps get massive penalties (with some publicity of course).
The obvious one I know is the insane penalties available for pointing a camera at a screen in a cinema (10 years in prison and huge fines in the UK). Obviously reserved for the worst of the worst but still.
And speeding?, easy to do, rarely causes the possible outcome (Hello sir, in a hurry?, better to get there alive don't you think?), small fine and points, only persistent offenders and very, very fast drivers get anything like an actual punishment - them and the ones that actually cause an accident.
And speeding?, easy to do, rarely causes the possible outcome (Hello sir, in a hurry?, better to get there alive don't you think?), small fine and points, only persistent offenders and very, very fast drivers get anything like an actual punishment
Speeding fines are just another tax on motoring, and a means by which to make it unpleasant such that the already unpleasant public transport looks less like a descent into hell and more like a possible option.
I speed. There, I said it. I speed where I feel it is safe to do so, and I drive under the posted limit where I feel that it is an unsafe speed to achieve. A tin disc at the side of the road, with a number put there by a civil servant who's probably never seen the road has literally no bearing on the road surface, the weather, the traffic level, number of cyclists & pedestrians etc etc. There's more to safe driving than a speed limit.
Almost 25 years with no points or awareness courses, so I must be doing something right. In that time I think I had two at fault accidents, both in my youth, which were caused by driving too close rather than too fast. After which, I learned to drive properly rather than driving like the teenage boy I was.
I would be possibly more interesting if it was possible to mandate blindness for a few weeks by whatever reversible means. If they survive that they will come out of it with a new appreciation of what it means to be able to see, if they don't, well, that too solves the issue.
Heavy offenders would have to wear the offending item up their rear end for the duration. If they bought a big laser with sharp protrusions, tough.
... launcher mounted above the flight deck loaded with laser homing guided missile. Perhaps with a ground proximity fuse (say 50m) that triggers a parachute and ignites a flare to light up the perps so the police can spot them. Or the payload could be a blob of that anti-theft marker dye that paints the perp.
What about making every laser pointer oscillate with an invisible, unique pattern so that it can be recorded and traced back to the source.
Strong market in untraceable pointers and hacking the code but both better than the current untraceable system.
Added bonus: You could use your laser pointer as a key to open optical locks, buy the lock, do set pass code, shine your laser, repeat as required.
Handy at the office, car and home. Just off to check the patent office...
Ever opened up a laser pointer? It consists of exactly four components: Diode, resistor, button, battery. A modulation chip would increase the cost greatly. People wouldn't go looking for an untrackable laser: They'd just buy the dodgy one because it's on eBay for £5 and the legit ones are £7.
I have to he honest here and think that, to a degree, we have brought this upon ourselves.
We've used technology to create certain types of devices and this has brought work for people and profits to be made. Which is fine.
But somehow, we've let the genie out of the bottle with the expectation that people will use these devices with good intent, and yet, here we find ourselves a day after Paris, with conversations about how said devices are being used to harm others.
Maybe, just maybe there needs to be restrictions put on the production (and/or sale) of such items which might then lead to a reduction in deaths (or injuries) to other humans? And maybe we should all be accountable for these problems, by not creating a "demand" for them in the first place?
Don't give me this kind of whiny shit.
We have brought this on ourselves, and it's only gonna get worse. Painted ourselves into the corner of mendacity. And now it's getting dark.
Stop thinking of clever hacks and regulations and countermeasures, trying to make the laser safe or cooperative in any way. Any idiot can get ~150mW of blindness out of the diode in a DVD burner, after some trash digging. Consider that some sober people are stupid enough to decide to get totally smashed at which point they're drunk enough to decide to drive home. If that hasn't stopped, whatever gets people to stop aiming lasers at air traffic will likely seem like overkill.
You don't have to be terribly smart to use one of the thousand LM317-based constant current supply schematics up on the internet, some of which are just colored lines MSPainted over a photo of the 3 components involved (not counting a button and a battery). And you don't have to be sober to push the button. The hardest part may be getting the lens aligned, unless you just buy the diode holder/heatsink with spring-loaded screw cover for the lens in front, like more of the YT videos will tell you to do. And sometimes the DVD burner sled takes care of that for you-- it's only a matter of guessing where to nibble with diagonal cutters in order to leave the useful lens in place but open up a straight path for the beam.
IMO the only thing you can do is go back to the original problem-- how do you get people to stop being stupid and doing stupid things? But even that is a layer above the ultimate problem: how do you get people to stop believing things that aren't true, such as:
* this is going to be cool as hell
* there's nothing wrong with X
* whatever, nobody's going to catch me
* this politician/party/organization has my interests in mind
* my interests/concerns/needs are the most valid and should be pressed into the model for society with the exclusion of others
* my assumptions are/were valid
* everyone makes the same assumptions as me
* well, everyone should make the same assumptions as me
* while everyone tries to reckon unobservable reality from observable reality, the correctness of my interpretation should be obvious to all
I have a 15mW Astro Pointer (pulsed green) - and I can tell you it can paint a beam on a mountain over a couple of km away. Only used in rural areas showing kids constellations and as such it's a great educational tool instead of wiggling your arm vaguely at the sky and saying see that star up there - it's the next one over. Never use in an urban environment but a lot of kids fun to be had attaching one of the many crazy beam scatter heads available that split the beam into a hundred or so patterns for disco lights while camping.
As an educational tool it's great - and at the same time you educate the kids to use it responsibly - in the same way we were taught to use potentially dangerous things like axes at Scouts. Personally I'd rather be dodging a kid with a laser pen than a kid with an axe but nutters will be nutters.
Don't blame the technology blame the education (in general) of irresponsible morons
The same argument is used against guns. "Lets ban guns" Let's ban Lasers" Let's ban everything"
No, we should be more reasoned and ban stupidity. If you are too stupid to use tools properly then you have proved you should be banned from participating in Humanity.
It's not the tool, it is the user that is the problem.
but it's perfectly fine for so-called car and motorcycle enthusiasts to bombard our lives with their modified and excessive noisy exhausts. (the latest fashion, pop and bang noises on the overrun)
Note that the Health department has already warned on the sale of laser pointers over a certain power, presumably making the seller liable incase of injury, yet the noise making industry is sponsored by certain MPs who constituents include the makers of loud pipes. Illegal and an MOT failure, yet fine to sell in the UK according to the health dept and trading standards.
btw, havnt seen a laser pointer in public use for approx 10 years, yet get woken up 3-4 times per night by Harley riders and ricers.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019