Personally, I prefer to drive wrecklessly.
Me too, the less wrecks the better.
I doubt many local municipalities are going to be very open to the idea of decreasing their revenue stream.
I see I’ve been ticketed by the grammar police. How reckless of me.
In scenario B, though, I don’t see how the radar detector would help you any. Your detector lets you know that Patrolman Bumfutz is running a radar detector up ahead; you make sure that you’re not exceeding the speed limit. Unfortunately for you, Patrolman Bumfutz locks onto that speed demon in the sports car in the next lane over, but thinks he has locked on to you, so he pulls you over and gives you a ticket–what good does the radar detector do you in this case?
It, by allowing me to slow down and make adjustments to my position, allows me to avoid such “guilt by proximity” scenarios. If I didn’t have a detector, I would be happily chugging down the highway (in this case at the limit) oblivious to the upcoming danger. With the detector, I get over to the right lane, get 5 below, and then it is very doubtful he will perceive me as the offender. The usual case is when someone is passing a slower car while a faster one (SUV especially) comes up behind. You move over to the let speed demon past, but right before you do is when the LEO locks on to the SUV, but since you were in front and in the passing lane the LEO thinks you are the offender instead. If I knew he was there in the first place I can avoid that kind of situation and just stay tucked behind the slow guy instead while Senor Gonzo zips ahead and gets nailed.
This thread is a good example of how “blanket” moralistic statements often gang angley when you have to deal with the real world and the kind of complexities and ambiguities you won’t find in your little code of laws.
The basic speed law in California is a “reasonable” speed. Radar detectors allow me to prevent a dispute with the state over what is a reasonable speed. So, by reducing the likelihood of a legal dispute in the courts, I am conserving judicial resources.
Regardless, it’s still the better way to go. Otherwise it’s like people who “protest” high taxes by cheating on them.
True, but plenty of folks commit pre-meditated speeding every single day without a radar detector. I don’t think their poor planning makes them more moral than criminals who prepare more effectively.
That is the way it works very often. You don’t think all radar guns have exactly the same features, do you? I own a radar detector, do you? I also live less than an 1/8th mile from a police substation in a city of about 3/4 million. I see a LOT of radar, even when the cop is not in the friggin car Radar guns are left on all of the time, in fact, more often than not, they are on in my experience. I could use the thing as a Whataburger detector. I’d imagine most of them have multiple modes where they gun could be left on, or they could be instantly turned on by a momentary switch. There is at least one model that will tell the officer the speed of multiple vehicles in front of them while moving, these are understandably usually left on.
I was speaking from experience. It was not a theoretical usage of the device.
I was away all afternoon, so this is my first chance to respond to this.
No. That’s making apples into oranges. What I said was that being aware of my own behavior being watched is my own choice to make. (Bolding mine)
The question is not about the morality of the manufacturer (or in your instance the lookout on the corner), but about my own ethical position wanting to know if I’m being watched. IANAL but it seems to me that there’s a pretty wide gap which is logically spanned by whether or not a reasonable person would consider whether or not that person on the corner had any basis to think he was aiding a criminal enterprise. Even if you take the argument that radar detector manufacturers and users are using them to circumvent the law (again - not really a clear assumption to me, or having read this far - to some others), it’s a speeding ticket not a drug deal.
“often gang angley”? 
It helps if you are Scotch and a fan of Robbie Burns. It means “often go astray”, as in “The best laid schemes of mice and men gang aft agley.”
“Gang aft agley”, perhaps? Like the field mouse poem?