The old Mazda RX7, low, flat, used to have a very small RF signature - until
the headlights popped up. Sorry, but you can't paint them black.

Nana
"CJ" wrote in message
news:vSEKd.4195$G31.1948@okepread05...
I used to see radar absorbant material advertised at a store. If I remember
correctly it was just iron particles that were supposed to deflect radar
energy away from the sending unit. You'd mix it with your paint and spray
it on your car, that would count as "passive" method of avoiding detection.
Of course that kind of material, should it work, would only buy the driver
a second or so, since material like that only accounts for around a 10%
reduction in radar signature on an aerodynamic vehicle. The box you drive
to work every day probably wouldn't even benefit.

Just a thought.

"Brent P" wrote in message
...
In article , James C. Reeves wrote:
You missed the "...designed or intended to..." part. So your example of
a
black car without it's front tag is neither designed or intended to jam
laser signals. It's just a car with it's front tag missing (which
probably
is illegal all by itself)

The problem with intent, is that it is an interpetation initially made on
the spot by the officer. I am sure you'll be able to argue successfully
in court at a cost in dollars and time that some device or some object or
lack there of in/on your vehicle wasn't there with design or intent to
defeat a police taxation device.

Additionally, a radar detector does not jam or scramble radar signals
either...it only tells the occupant that there there. So that doesn't
apply.

Passive devices don't scramble or jam. A radar detector is a passive
device. It listens, it does not broadcast. (if designed correctly) It's
about how one interpets the legislation, which is the OP's point.