Police use ultrasonic device to make sure drivers stay 3 feet from cyclists

On 15/06/15 02:45, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 17:55:35 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:19:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/police-use-ultrasonic-device-to-make-sure-drivers-stay-3-feet-from-cyclists/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APlCVp6BW60
http://codaxus.com
Nice revenue enhancement. $200 per ticket and $1400 for the hardware.
7 tickets and it's break even. I'll probably need to install an
ultrasonic detector on the right side of my car (much like a radar
detector) so that I don't get caught. Let the arms race begin.

If it is ultra-sonic than why not an ultra-sonic device to send a
signal from the car. If they work like I think that they do they ping
a signal and measure the time it takes to get a return. If that is
correct than a "pinger" in the car should result in a much quicker
return and the device might even indicate negative distances :-)

"But Officer, how could I have been two feet to his right when I
passed him on the left?"

Ahem... Is that like an ultrasonic jammer? That wouldn't be very
sporting. The FCC regulates RF jammers, but has no jurisdiction over
ultrasonic jamming (yet). So much for my guilty conscience.

If it's the common 40 KHz range finder type of ultrasonic transducer,
it should be easy enough to capture the transmitted burst, and return
a delayed echo that makes it look like you're further away. Some
variable delay FM junk before the returned delayed echo should
convince the receiver that it doesn't have a solid reflection so that
it will only use the strong and stable delayed echo.

You're making assumptions about the receiver. It may receive the real
reflection and correctly realise the close pass before the second
delayed echo is received.

--
JS

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:23:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...Meter_some.jpg

Cute. I have the program:
http://www.tonnesoftware.com/meter2.html ($35)

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 08:39:44 +1000, James
wrote:

On 15/06/15 02:45, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 17:55:35 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:19:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/police-use-ultrasonic-device-to-make-sure-drivers-stay-3-feet-from-cyclists/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APlCVp6BW60
http://codaxus.com
Nice revenue enhancement. $200 per ticket and $1400 for the hardware.
7 tickets and it's break even. I'll probably need to install an
ultrasonic detector on the right side of my car (much like a radar
detector) so that I don't get caught. Let the arms race begin.

If it is ultra-sonic than why not an ultra-sonic device to send a
signal from the car. If they work like I think that they do they ping
a signal and measure the time it takes to get a return. If that is
correct than a "pinger" in the car should result in a much quicker
return and the device might even indicate negative distances :-)

"But Officer, how could I have been two feet to his right when I
passed him on the left?"

Ahem... Is that like an ultrasonic jammer? That wouldn't be very
sporting. The FCC regulates RF jammers, but has no jurisdiction over
ultrasonic jamming (yet). So much for my guilty conscience.

If it's the common 40 KHz range finder type of ultrasonic transducer,
it should be easy enough to capture the transmitted burst, and return
a delayed echo that makes it look like you're further away. Some
variable delay FM junk before the returned delayed echo should
convince the receiver that it doesn't have a solid reflection so that
it will only use the strong and stable delayed echo.

You're making assumptions about the receiver. It may receive the real
reflection and correctly realise the close pass before the second
delayed echo is received.

The incident waves from my jammer will be much stronger than the
reflected waves from my vehicle. All I need to do is produce a noisy
(random) FM modulated 40 Khz burst, just before I transmit the fake
reflected pulse. The noise will either overload the receiver front
end, or the FM noise will convince the receiver that it hasn't found a
suitably stable reflection. Try it with an ultrasonic tape measure.
As long as it's moving toward or away from the target, you won't get a
reading. Ultrasonic tape measures use Doppler to determine when NOT
to produce a reading. This is especially true of the proposed jammer,
where the car and bicycle are parallel and the Doppler shift is
minimal. If I feed the receiver some FM modulated noise, it won't
display anything. However, as soon as the FM noise stops, and I
transmit my fake reflection (phase locked to the incident pulse), the
receiver will think it's a nice stable and strong reflection, and
produce a valid reading. Actually, I just realized that the jammer
could be spewing the FM noise almost continuously, and only needs to
be interrupted when it's time to lock onto the incident pulse, and
when to provide a fake reflected pulse.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 6:58:32 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:23:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...Meter_some.jpg

Cute. I have the program:
http://www.tonnesoftware.com/meter2.html ($35)

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

DID YOU UNLOCK ?

On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 8:31:10 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 6:58:32 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:23:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...Meter_some.jpg

Cute. I have the program:
http://www.tonnesoftware.com/meter2.html ($35)

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

DID YOU UNLOCK ?

my E250 has a light setting for pointers red, blackout numeration.: anti Vaugelia.

I cannah 'get used' to that, paranoia.

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 09:45:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 17:55:35 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:19:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/police-use-ultrasonic-device-to-make-sure-drivers-stay-3-feet-from-cyclists/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APlCVp6BW60
http://codaxus.com
Nice revenue enhancement. $200 per ticket and $1400 for the hardware.
7 tickets and it's break even. I'll probably need to install an
ultrasonic detector on the right side of my car (much like a radar
detector) so that I don't get caught. Let the arms race begin.

If it is ultra-sonic than why not an ultra-sonic device to send a
signal from the car. If they work like I think that they do they ping
a signal and measure the time it takes to get a return. If that is
correct than a "pinger" in the car should result in a much quicker
return and the device might even indicate negative distances :-)

"But Officer, how could I have been two feet to his right when I
passed him on the left?"

Ahem... Is that like an ultrasonic jammer? That wouldn't be very
sporting. The FCC regulates RF jammers, but has no jurisdiction over
ultrasonic jamming (yet). So much for my guilty conscience.

It is a device to measure water depths :-)
It pings a signal and measures the time required to "hear" the return
echo. sometimes referred to as an "echo sounder" :-)



If it's the common 40 KHz range finder type of ultrasonic transducer,
it should be easy enough to capture the transmitted burst, and return
a delayed echo that makes it look like you're further away. Some
variable delay FM junk before the returned delayed echo should
convince the receiver that it doesn't have a solid reflection so that
it will only use the strong and stable delayed echo.

Never mind capturing the signal, just transmit a constant series of
"pings".

Incidentally, I think some of the article is wishful thinking. Unless
the side mirror was exactly perpendicular to the beam, the return is
going to be at an angle and lost. That gives the device a very narrow
time window where it can get an accurate and stable reading. I just
tried it on my Subaru mirror with an ultrasonic rangefinder. At 3 ft,
I have to really fight to get it to give me a good reading from the
mirror. Most of the time, it wants to display the distance to the
fender or door.

Ah, but the guy is now a "Star"... on youtube :-)

And... if the Zed pedal guys can collect $500,000 for a piece of
aluminum what can one get from a real, live, electronic device :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 11:16:33 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 17:46:11 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
:On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 17:55:35 +0700, John B.
:wrote:

:On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:19:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
:wrote:

:Incidentally, I think some of the article is wishful thinking. Unless
:the side mirror was exactly perpendicular to the beam, the return is
:going to be at an angle and lost. That gives the device a very narrow
:time window where it can get an accurate and stable reading. I just
:tried it on my Subaru mirror with an ultrasonic rangefinder. At 3 ft,
:I have to really fight to get it to give me a good reading from the
:mirror. Most of the time, it wants to display the distance to the
:fender or door.

Which is fine. If it sasy the fender is 3 ft away, the mirror was
closer.

The side mirror housing was 3 ft away. The fender was about 3.5 ft
away. However, I see your point. The device could just measure the
fender or door distance, subtract the approximately 6 inches for most
passenger cars, and trigger at 3.5 ft. That won't work with cars,
buses, trucks, campers, cement mixers, garbage trucks, ambulances, etc
but it's a start.

The authorities could hang an additional camera pointing downward on
the overhead light poles. It's easy enough to accurately measure the
distance with an overhead camera. Requiring cyclists and automobiles
to have machine readable bar codes on helmets and roof tops should
identify the participants. Locating the cameras at known choke points
should help maximize the generated revenue.

However, the police cyclist could have hung a spring loaded antenna
from their left handlebar that is 3ft long. If it hits anything, it
takes a photo and they get a ticket. You could probably attach one to
your bicycle and issue fake warnings or threats. This sounds like
fun.

Even better, the bike shops could sell a device consisting of 3 foot
"whiskers" connected to a paint ball gun. Touch the "whisker" and
BANG! you get indelible evidence that they were too close.

(See Officer, just look for the car with the vomit yellow mark on the
door.)
--
cheers,

John B.

https://www.google.com/#q=radar+car+...ensor&tbm=shop

On 15/06/15 09:25, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 08:39:44 +1000, James
wrote:

On 15/06/15 02:45, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 17:55:35 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 21:19:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/police-use-ultrasonic-device-to-make-sure-drivers-stay-3-feet-from-cyclists/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APlCVp6BW60
http://codaxus.com
Nice revenue enhancement. $200 per ticket and $1400 for the hardware.
7 tickets and it's break even. I'll probably need to install an
ultrasonic detector on the right side of my car (much like a radar
detector) so that I don't get caught. Let the arms race begin.

If it is ultra-sonic than why not an ultra-sonic device to send a
signal from the car. If they work like I think that they do they ping
a signal and measure the time it takes to get a return. If that is
correct than a "pinger" in the car should result in a much quicker
return and the device might even indicate negative distances :-)

"But Officer, how could I have been two feet to his right when I
passed him on the left?"

Ahem... Is that like an ultrasonic jammer? That wouldn't be very
sporting. The FCC regulates RF jammers, but has no jurisdiction over
ultrasonic jamming (yet). So much for my guilty conscience.

If it's the common 40 KHz range finder type of ultrasonic transducer,
it should be easy enough to capture the transmitted burst, and return
a delayed echo that makes it look like you're further away. Some
variable delay FM junk before the returned delayed echo should
convince the receiver that it doesn't have a solid reflection so that
it will only use the strong and stable delayed echo.

You're making assumptions about the receiver. It may receive the real
reflection and correctly realise the close pass before the second
delayed echo is received.

The incident waves from my jammer will be much stronger than the
reflected waves from my vehicle. All I need to do is produce a noisy
(random) FM modulated 40 Khz burst, just before I transmit the fake
reflected pulse. The noise will either overload the receiver front
end, or the FM noise will convince the receiver that it hasn't found a
suitably stable reflection. Try it with an ultrasonic tape measure.
As long as it's moving toward or away from the target, you won't get a
reading. Ultrasonic tape measures use Doppler to determine when NOT
to produce a reading. This is especially true of the proposed jammer,
where the car and bicycle are parallel and the Doppler shift is
minimal. If I feed the receiver some FM modulated noise, it won't
display anything. However, as soon as the FM noise stops, and I
transmit my fake reflection (phase locked to the incident pulse), the
receiver will think it's a nice stable and strong reflection, and
produce a valid reading. Actually, I just realized that the jammer
could be spewing the FM noise almost continuously, and only needs to
be interrupted when it's time to lock onto the incident pulse, and
when to provide a fake reflected pulse.



Way to complicated. Just continue to spew out high intensity noise in
the appropriate band.

--
JS

On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 11:59:33 +1000, James
wrote:

Way to complicated. Just continue to spew out high intensity noise in
the appropriate band.

I've learned a few lessons from the not so gentle art of jamming and
spoofing. It is much better to give the victim a number that they can
almost believe, than to give them nothing. No reading will make the
bicycle police suspicious. They will look around to see what's wrong.
They will ask embarrassing questions. They will notice the rats nest
of wires hanging out my car window. They might even impound my car on
the suspicion that I might be a terrorist. These are highly
undesirable police actions, which are best avoided by giving them a
believable number, which hopefully will inspire them to continue
riding in pursuit of additonal revenue enhancement.

Actually, it's not very complexicated. While a brute force ultrasonic
jammer will certainly function, once I decide to add an intelligent
controller (i.e. microprocessor or PIC controller) to the device, such
complexities are just software. The FM modulation, phase locking,
frequency measurement, pulse timing and duration measurement, power
management, range based AGC (automatic gain control), and other useful
goodies are possible.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558