If you can't prove it's secure, it must be treated as if it were not secure.
Emphasis mine. Just because you treat something as if it was non-secure, does not make it non-secure.
Non-provably secure != Provably non-secure.
What do you suggest, telling both parties to scrap their candidates and start anew?
A thin coating would protect it until an impact occurred.
Sticky adhesive under a thin layer of something which would give way when a sizable impact occurs, allowing the pedestrian to stick to the adhesive.
While I realise some customers in the USA may have only one choice of ISP
That assumption is why you don't understand. It's not some, it's most. Here's an excerpt from a report from the US Department of Commerce:
[...] only 37 percent of the population had a choice of two or more providers at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater;only 9 percent had three or more choices.
Another article says basically the same thing, coming from the FCC.
And even when customers DO have a choice, I wonder how often one of them would offer 'Unlimited' when its competitor doesn't.
The jammer will probably not see it as a big light exciting its detectors, put occasional small points crossing 1 or 2 sensors at a time. How it will react to this is an unknown to me, but I'll surely it will be more optimized for long range (to predict laser speed traps) and might (correctly) assume this to be useless noise.
Maybe. I don't know how steady a police officer can hold a laser speedfinder, so the detectors might be programmed to respond to any beam, regardless of duration, just to be safe (but annoying to their users if LiDARs do in fact trigger it).
Damn informative comment. Virtual +1
MATH AND ALCOHOL DON'T MIX! Please, don't drink and derive. Mathematicians Against Drunk Deriving