And they have a point, in my opinion. According to the distributor's website , the Mosquito should be installed at the entrances of shops on schoolyards (outside school hours) around building sites (at night) in parking lots and underground parking in train stations and pedestrian underpasses ("critical places and times") on playgrounds (at night or "outside normal visiting times") in commercial areas (when nobody's working) I think it's justifiable to say that in this scenario, the life quality and daily routine of sensitive persons could be affected.
At 98dba in 1m distance it could be a hazard if somebody exposes himself to an incorrectly positioned device for some time. Under normal circumstances the maximal volume is 86dba. That's fine I guess...
Here is an example of what I was talking about earlier: using the rules to support rather than oppose your objective...
"Am I right in thinking that this is an audio device ?"
"Yes it is."
"It emits audio..?"
"Yes that is correct."
"It emits audio at any time of day or night when it is triggered by movement from say...a dog or animal..?"
".....possibly"
"Answer yes or no. Let me rephrase the question. Is it possible that the device could be triggered at night-time by some means ?"
"...yes I suppose that is possible."
"So to summarise : the owner of this device is knowingly reponsible for making noise after the 10pm limit."
dave
As of now it's entirely legal to buy a Mosquito in the UK.
The maker claims to have taken legal advice on human rights, environmental noise legislation and nuisance laws before marketing the device and has published the content of advice received. On the question of environmental legislation the level of noise is below that deemed acceptable in the workplace and below guidelines issued by the WHO so there is a view that it's unlikely to breach environmental noise laws. Because the effect is temporary and the level fairly low there is also a view that it wouldn't amount to a nuisance or breach of human rights, at least if the device were installed in a public area. The grey area is the law of nuisance if the device were to be installed in a residential area.
Attempts to lobby the UK government to ban the thing have fallen on deaf ears as the Government has tackling anti social behaviour very high on it's agenda. Civil Liberties and Children interest groups are considering bringing a test case to get a court ruling which is probably the only way to get a definitive answer in the UK as to the legality of the device. It's likely that if a test case is brought, the device itself won't be illegal and attention will focus on how it's deployed.
Even the maker says the device should be licensed and issued with a code of practice. The maker also points out that he designed it for shopping areas, not residential areas. Arguments "for" say it's very effective at moving anti social groups of kids away from your property and is a last resort because the UK police can't or won't tackle the problem. Arguments against say it's a breach of civil rights, it is both discriminatory (it targets kids) and non discriminatory (it targets all kids, not just those behaving anti socially), it doesn't solve anti social behaviour but merely moves the problem on to an area not protected by the device.
Well you just have to weigh it up i suppose, are the noises teenagers make more annoying to us that the noise that this thingumyjig makes to them?
To be honest, if deployed sensibly, it would be a very useful device, however you can't always trust people to be sensible.
It certainly is an infringement of ones right to fraternise in a public place. Why should people, of whatever age, be prevented from standing in a public place ? Guilty until proven deaf ?
dave
So it's acceptable to ban teenagers from certain spaces because they are annoying? What you're actually doing is setting up areas in public that are prohibited for those under 20. It would be quite different if it worked the other way around.
Hi
We bought one of these as my youngest son was prone to getting bitten........it tolerated it for about 1/2 hour and then couldnt do with the noise it emitted, very annoying. Just got the good old mozzie nets over the windows now and that works a treat !
Yeah, I am going there now, to graze my cattle, hold a grill, play my banjo, kick a football and party like its 2201 (in the evening).
Don't worry about Brett, he reads the Daily Mail.
dave
You are only just not a teenager yourself mate. How would you feel if our physiology worked differently and instead of only annoying teenagers this hit anybody under 25. How would you feel if every time you went down to the local shop to buy milk or the paper you where assaulted with an unbearable whistling sound because you are in an "undesirable" age category?
It would actually be preferable to the tinny hipperty hop that I am subjected to broadcast from teenagers mobile phones.
A building site near us has deployed fences, they seem to be quite effective.
I still know plenty of people in their 30s and 40s who do some pretty stupid and irresponsible things. They just get better at not getting caught doing it.
I also know a hell of a lot more teenagers who never misbehave or just get up to a bit of mild mischief than those who do any real harm.
I have also know a certain group of expats in Zürich who are all over 20 and cause a lot more of a ruckus after a few beers than any teenagers I have seen. You know who you are.
Try and be a bit sensible rather than defaulting to contrary mate. You rarely get gangs of 50 year olds (or even 25 year olds as 5+ years of work has probably bored the 'irresponsible' nature out of you) prowling the local building yards for a bit of a giggle and wanton vandalism. I have no doubt you as well as Woodsie know far more 50 year olds than 16 year olds who are utterly mental and do this sort of thing, but that is irrelevant as overall statistics bare out that the 12-18 year old age group is far more likely to do these things that the 45-55 year olds.
Think about insurance quotes for drivers, expensive at 18, cheap at 50 because of the assumed levels of responsibility of the two age groups.
I fail to see why this new "Mosquito" device is the focus of so much criticism. When it comes to damaging theirs ears, teenagers have long taken matters into their own hands. They do so willingly and extensively in their own ways:
So anybody disagreeing with you on this is being contrary and not even a little bit sensible.
When insurance companies start dictating my personal freedoms, that is a world I will opt out of. Actually, they already do that too much.
No, sorry, you are right. Now that I think about it, not only should teenagers be targeted in certain areas with the Mosquito rather than proper management be the community and police, all people under the age of 30 should be banned from driving. From insurance company statistics youths are obviously not responsible enough to be trusted in control of pretty much anything.
According to it’s inventor, the Mosquito wasn’t designed to be used indicriminately or to create kid free zones by stopping law abiding under 25s meeting up and socialising in public areas. Nor was it designed to be installed and used arbitrarily by misanthropical over 50’s who have a grudge against annoying young ‘uns. What’s more, there’s no evidence, in the UK at least, that it’s being habitually abused in either of those ways, at least from what I can see from the public record. It was designed as a last resort to stop peoples’ lives being made hell by systematic anti-social intimidation by gangs of youths who congregate in “hotspots”. According to the manufacturer only 4000 have been sold worldwide, many of those to police forces.
That being said, given the civil liberties issues involved and the potential for indiscriminate usage, something like this should not be left at the discretion of the private citizen and it’s safety and legality should not be left open to question. It should be independantly reviewed by competent authorities for public safety, licensed at the discretion of the police, magistrates or local authorities in known hotspots of threatening, anti social behaviour and activation of the device subject to regulation. It’s the authorities' job to deter crime and their job to interfere with personal freedoms in the course of protecting the community. This is no more than the manufacturer of the Mosquito is lobbying for and I doubt most genuine users of the device would complain about a licensing system.
Whatever your views on the Mosquito device itself, as regards the point about targetting youths, what’s beyond question is that in the UK, teenage gangs, teenage anti social behaviour and youth knife crime is a very real problem, it’s out of control and it’s getting worse. People who have tried to confront the gangs have been stabbed or kicked to death. In Britain’s major towns and cities, there is a small proportion (but nevertheless significant number) of out of control kids who have no fear of the police, who have no respect for the law, who carry knives and are fully prepared to use them. Of course the vast majority of teenagers don’t behave like this and there are adults who behave just as badly, but teenage gangs are a significant part of the problem. In some areas teenage knife ownership is so bad that many schools are using or are considering using metal detectors to scan pupils for knives. The Mosquito in and of itself can't solve the problem but if it can help control it and if the device can be properly regulated, then I think it deserves a hearing!
This has been very controversial when implemented in the UK. There are calls for its use to be regulated. Some stores have started to remove them for fear of legal action.
Another variation has been to broadcast classical music. This apparently deters teenagers from hanging around just as effectively. Any other suitable alternatives that you can come up with?
Rod
The usefulness of the device is a part of the discussion, too.
If the Mosquito, on public ground, is activated simply by timeswitch, you have the problems mentioned above.
If the Mosquito is activated via remote control by a person who observes malicious damage or a fight, it would be better to call the police.
If the Mosquito affects private ground only, the proprietor can call the police if trespassers come. But a timeswitch operated Mosquito wouldn't unintentionally affect somebody, at least.
Could it be that the police is understaffed or -trained in these areas?
It's a complicated issue. More police resources would help obviously, but only probably at the margins since you now have a group of youths that have no fear of the police or magistrates courts. They intimidate their communities to such an extent that when a crime is committed the police face a wall of silence. The police and the government admit that the problem is out of control which explains perhaps why some police forces resort to an impersonal devices like a Mosquito - it's more effective and a lot easier than confrontation. In truth it's a vicious circle because it does nothing to solve the root cause. The more these groups are alienated, the bigger the gang culture and violence problem becomes. The root causes can't be addressed overnight. Deprivation, family breakdown, drugs, alcohol, weak discipline at school, lack of parental control are all factors. For those who turn to gangs, the gang effectively replaces the family. The problem won't disappear by putting more police on the streets. That will do nothing to address the social and economic factors.
If anyone is interested to test your hearing (and/or download a ringtone) you can do so here:
http://www.freemosquitoringtones.org/
PS- I'm in my late 30's and was able to hear up to only 15khz