gjw (06/30/82)
Over the last few years Car & Driver have been doing some very comprehensive tests of radar detectors. Unfortunately I can't recall the dates of the issuses but they started their reports about four years ago. I will breifly recap some of the things they've said and some of my findings: Radar detectors fall into two categories, passive detectors (some RF engineers sometimes refer to them as video detectors) and superheterodyne types. The passive detectors generally cost less than half the price of the superhet types but the performance of the superhets is of course much superior. The police are allowed to use only two frequencies for their radar units; the X band frequency 10.525 GHz and K band 24.150 GHz +/- 50 MHz tolerance on each of the bands. These frequencies are assigned by the FCC specifically for police radar and commercial intrusion alarms. Don't pay attention to any balony a salesman may tell you about experimental bands. The superhet detectors are tuned to the above frequencies with a relative- ly narrow bandwidth of a couple of hundred MHz. The passive types have much wider bandwidths on the order of several GHz. These bandwidth differences generally make the superhets less prone to giving false alarms. The superhets have sensitivities that are about two orders of magnitude greater than the passive detectors. This translates into a much greater range of warning to contact with the radar source. However, this high sensitivity makes the superhets respond to distant supermarkets, stores, or warehouses with micro- wave burgler alarms. The passive units are set off by a larger number of sources such as nearby TV and radio stations and terrestial microwave communication links. I've had experience with both types of detectors. Four years ago I purchased a Fuzzbuster II which has since then been superceded by the model III. At the time it was a top rated passive unit and I've found its range barely adequate for medium size and larger cars. At the time I was driving a small fiberglass bodied sports car (Saab Sonett III) and its per formance was fine. Recently I purchased an ESCORT made by Cinncinati Micro- wave and this unit, by any standards, is first class. It's been a top rated unit by Car and Driver in their last two tests. The cost is $245 and it includes a very nice carrying case and handy visor clip. It is available only direct from the factory by mail order so you don't pay any middlemen. There are other superhet units available from electronic specialty stores discounted into the $230 - $250 price range from Whistler, Fox, Bel, and K40, but none of them approaches the features and quality of the ESCORT. There is a new unit out by Fuzzbuster called the SUPERHET. Although its quality doesn't seem as good as the ESCORT it has the same features; vari- able rate beep, volume control, automatic indicator light intensity adjust- ment, signal strength indicator and city/highway sensitivity switch. If its sensitivity is good it would be an excellent alternative to the ESCORT. I've seen it dicounted to the $180 price range. The range at which a police radar can clock you is a function of a car's radar profile. Larger cars generally have a greater profile and vice versa. If you drive a small car a passive detector's sensitivity may be adequate for you. All the above mentioned manufacturers,except Cincinn- ati Microwave also sell passive detectors. Most passive detectors can be found discounted to the $75 to $100 price range. The passive unit I would recommend would be either the model III or ELITE made by Fuzzbuster. Elec- trolert Inc. (the manufacturer of Fuzzbusters) is established and has a good reputation. I've had good experience with one of their earlier models as I mentioed before. A good price for the model III is around $80 and for the ELITE $100. Happy Motoring, Greg Wroclawski BTL Whippany
wagner (07/05/82)
Sorry to add a sour note to this discussion, but Fuzzbusters, etc, are illegal in Ontario. Not that that stops a lot of people, but it makes clip-on-visor-units a little awkward if smokey stops you. It would be interesting to hear about units that are a little less conspicuous and still effective. Incidentally, anyone know how detectors can be made illegal when listening to random radio isnt? This is a legal question, not a technical one, thanks. Michael Wagner, UofToronto Computing Services
jon (07/06/82)
I had an interesting thought about the legality of radar detectors: Although the clip-on units can be placed in the trunk upon entering a state where they are illegal, units which mount into the dashboard cannot. Therefore a ban on such units would be a restriction of interstate travel which is unconstitutional. A ban on *use* would still be possible, but difficult to enforce. Any comments?
jon (07/07/82)
There is an interesting legal point to radar detectors which I have never heard anyone else mention. Assuming states may ban use of radar detectors, and thus the presence of one clipped to your visor, can they do anything about one which is removed and placed in the trunk, or (semi-)permanently mounted in the dash? If so, they are restricting your interstate travel. Laws banning double-trailer trucks have already been struct down on similar arguments. Any comments?
davy (07/14/82)
#R:utcsstat:-23100:pur-ee:2900006:000:967 pur-ee!davy Jul 6 12:00:00 1982 With regard to the question about why radar detectors are illegal where as listening to random radio isn't. I believe this has something to do with the liscensing for radio itself. You supposedly cannot recieve these special bands (radar) without a liscense to do so, just as you can't transmit on them. Note that in the U.S. a ham radio liscense (Technician's and above, I think) will enable you to own a detector legally. Interestingly, this same law also prohibits you from owning police "scanners". I think this law is one of those that isn't very strongly enforced, and I believe there is legislation somewhere to try to get rid of it. Out on the East coast, there is a group who has given up trying to make detectors legal. Instead, they are trying to outlaw radar, on the grounds that it constitutes "illegal search and seizure" of your vehicle. Oh brother. --Dave Curry decvax!pur-ee!davy ucbvax!pur-ee!davy ihnss!pur-ee!davy harpo!pur-ee!davy
mickey (08/09/82)
I am seeking to replace my trusty (but aging) Whister RE-55XK radar detector with a newer superhet model. I have 'road-tested' the Whistler Q1000 and Q1000 remote, but found that they 'falsed' too often for my taste (lots of factories and banks use radar alarms). I would be interested in knowing which models people like (or don't like), and if I get enough information, I will post a followup on net.auto. PLEASE mail your replies to me..... Thanks. Mickey Levine cca!mickey
tb (08/13/82)
a Firstly, this is my first attempt to reply on the net, so if I screw up any (helpful) advice will be appriciated. I have a "micronta" (sp?) xk radar detector which suffers the same problems common with most cheap fuzz busters. Stray noise etc often gives me cause to hit the breaks, (covering one's own ar**)!
jfh (10/20/82)
I was interested to note the recent discussion of radar detectors in this newsgroup. I am curious as to how persons using these devices justify doing so. I know that trees have been clocked at 35 MPH, and so forth, but protection against radar errors is clearly NOT the primary intention of most of the respondents to the recent request for information. Obviously, most persons with radar detectors are using them to avoid getting caught breaking the law. I know that this will probably produce a lot of flames about the 55 MPH speed limit. However, it seems to me that if enough people don't like it or have some rational reason for repealing it, it should be possible to do so. Meanwhile, it is the law (I guess my personal feeling is that the system works better when bad laws are done away with, rather than merely ignored). Probably should be afraid to sign my name, Fran Heidlage duke!phs!jfh
jdd (10/20/82)
The majority of drivers drive faster than 55. Drivers are voting with their right foot. The law is a joke but so are lots. Cheers, John DeTreville
CSvax:cak (10/21/82)
Yes, I use my radar detector because I want to get there faster, not necessarily because I am afraid of being clocked at 70 when I'm going 55. I got tired of paying for speeding tickets. I feel that the double-nickel is a bad law, imposed out of perceived necessity during the oil embargo of '73, and kept on through various subterfuge. The most notable of these is the explanation that since the law was put on the books, highway traffic fatalities have decreased; but most people fail to mention that highway traffic has also decreased, since gas is so much more expensive. If someone has a workable petition to repeal the speed limit, I'll be glad to sign it; but the bureaucrats in Washington won't let such a thing go very far. A few states (Utah? Wyoming?) have threatened to raise the state speed limit back to 70, and the Feds have threatened to cut off financial aid for road repairs. So the states naturally back down. What else can they do? I find driving at 55 very boring; I often find my attention wandering. I feel safer driving at a speed that requires me to pay attention, rather than one that lulls me into a sense of false security. Speeding along, Chris Kent, Purdue CS
dwv (12/03/82)
Here in lovely Illinois, the state police will give you a ticket for having a radar detector on the dash *if* they think you were speeding before your detector got them. I think the ticket is for having your view obstructed (nevermind the radar gun mounter on the bears dashboard which is 3x the size of the radar detector) by somthing on the dash. Dave (yes I drive 55) Vollman BTL IH
prgclb (12/03/82)
I'm sure you radar detector fans have seen the ads for a Gul unit that is concealable -- it has only a small panel with a red and green light that you can inconspicuously tuck away on your dash. The detector itself goes behind the grille somewhere. Philosophical (legal, moral, whatever) question: If a cop stops you, can he legally search your car for a concealed detector? And if he finds one, can he arrest you? It's somewhat like the questions raised when drug-crazed hippies are stopped for speeding, and then coincidentally found to have a joint tucked away in the glove compartment. I'm a 55'er and don't use a detector, so I'm not asking for answers -- just wanted to raise the point here. Happy crawling or speeding, whatever you do. Carl Blesch
rwhw@hound.UUCP (05/26/83)
The following is a typical response from a person that buys a radar detector. ******************************************************************************* >From **RJE** Thu May 26 11:43 EDT 1983 >From **RJE** Thu May 26 11:43 EDT 1983 forwarded by **RJE** >From bdot Thu May 26 11:42 EDT 1983 remote from hogpd FROM: j.a.barrett TO: hound!rwhw DATE: 26 May 1983 11:30 EDT SUBJECT: re: You can't tell me that you obey all speed limits can you? I obey speed limits where it would be unsafe if I didn't, but some of these 25 MPH zones should be upgraded to 40 or so. I have been driving for 8 years and have 1 ticket, even with my sports car. And YES, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I have been pulled over for absolutely NO REASON. When I asked the cop why he pulled me over, he can't give me a reason. I'm young and am driving a fancy sports car, therefore, 1) I must be drunk or drugged, or 2) I'm speeding even though his radar says I'm not. I've given a few cops a lot of shit for pulling me over with no reason (Hazlet and Middletown, especially) and this is probably the only time you can give shit to a cop and get away with it. A radar detector lets me know where the cops are to avoid being hassled. Face it, being pulled over is more a hassle and inconvenience than a hassle. With a radar detector, I can act like an angel (i.e. drive way under the speed limit) and give them absolutely no reason to pull me over. Am I a law breaker? NO, definitely not! Tell the asshole cops that!! ******************************************************************************* The above speaks for itself. I will however respond to the opening remark. I have received only one ticket in 32 years of driving. I deserved the ticket. The offense was disregarding a stop sign (known as a "California rolling stop"). I have never been caught speeding. I also don't believe that breaking laws will change them. As for the remainder of the above, all Traffic Enforcement officers have heard the same story many, many times. I think the answer to the last comment in the above is obvious. Signed Better Than Most
dave@rocksvax.UUCP (05/27/83)
Relay-Version:version B 2.10 5/3/83; site harpo.UUCP
Message-ID:<416@rocksvax.UUCP>
Date:Fri, 27-May-83 00:52:19 EDT
I don't own one, but I would buy one just to have one as a gadget. It is
nice to know you are being watched. As for the cruise control option, I think
that is a bogus way to go, I forgot to de-accel through one place, and got
my one and only ticket, was doing 56 in 45 zone, sigh, that is not the answer,
I am afraid, you should have both.
Besides all the other points, its fun to play electronic counter measures,
keeps the state of the art moving forward. I think the ideal detector
should tell you the other guys speed. Wouldn't you like to know how fast
the RX-7 that buzzed by you was going??
Dave Sewhuk Xerox Corp
Arpa: Sewhuk.HENR@PARC-MAXC
uucp: {amd70,rochester,allegra}!rocksvaxdwl@hou5e.UUCP (05/27/83)
Relay-Version:version B 2.10 5/3/83; site harpo.UUCP Message-ID:<514@hou5e.UUCP> Date:Fri, 27-May-83 11:14:55 EDT Most of the justifications I've seen for Radar Detectors seem to be, in so many words, "I use it to break the law because I do not agree with the law." In a democracy, if we disagree with a law, we vote against those who support it. In anarchy, we do whatever we can get away with, including producing and using tools to help us get away with what we want. One such tool is a gun. Another is a radar detector. -Dave Levenson -ABI, Holmdel
jjm@hou5e.UUCP (05/27/83)
OK, how many radar detector owners are willing to admit to the statement: "I own a radar detector because I go faster than 55 mph." I am not questioning why, or when, or how fast over 55 you go, or anything like that. I'm not asking if you have a sports car or not. I'm not asking if you support the philosophy of the Great American Outlaw (anything's legal if you don't get caught). I just want to know, how many netlanders are willing to admit PUBLICALLY that they own a radar detector to avoid being caught when they go over 55 mph. If there's a significant number, maybe we should consider lobbying to reform our speed limit laws. Jim McParland ABI-HO (I might buy one because I've been caught before and If I decide to break the law again, I don't want to be caught) hou5e!jjm
pn@amd70.UUCP (05/28/83)
Relay-Version:version B 2.10 5/3/83; site mhuxt.UUCP Posting-Version:version B 2.10 5/3/83; site amd70.UUCP Message-ID:<2402@amd70.UUCP> Date:Sat, 28-May-83 14:39:45 EDT Organization:AMD, Santa Clara, CA I don't own a radar detector and I go faster than 55 MPH very often. I hear the California Highway Patrol isn't allowed to own radar guns, and besides, they seem pretty reasonable; if everyone is doing 60 MPH, they won't bother anyone. They seem to think their job is to keep the roads safe for the public. What a concept.
hlh@sdcrdcf.UUCP (05/31/83)
In response to Mr. Levenson's thoughts on the similarity of guns and radar detectors I would like to ask him what he thinks the death rate due to suicide by radar detector is. I feel fairly confident in saying that there are probably more violent crimes committed with guns than with radar detectors. (Everyone, please reply to the net, this is getting interesting finding out how people stand on the right to bear radar detectors). A MAN with two (2) radar detectors, no guns and I even eat quiche, (sometimes) Henry Hall (ucbvax!ucla-vax!sdcrdcf!hlh) (decvax!trw-unix!sdcrdcf!hlh) (sdccsu3!sdcrdcf!hlh) (allegra!sdcrdcf!hlh) (cbosgd!sdcrdcf!hlh)
martin@auvax.UUCP (06/01/83)
I live in Alberta (Canada) where most of the roads are long, flat and very straight. (Edmonton to Calgary is 150 miles with about four corners). What I need is a Radar Detector that will effectively keep me out of trouble. The unit must be well hidden as Detectors are illegal in Alberta and get confiscated as well as the owner getting fined. I'm driving a SUPRA which tends to go faster than the 100 to 110 KM limit. Anyone have any suggestions. Remember, the unit has to be available in Canada somewhere. DBM
trb@floyd.UUCP (06/02/83)
If radar detectors are outlawed, only outlaws will have radar detectors. Radar detectors don't kill people, people kill people. I'm a card carryin' member of the National Radar Association. Radar detesters? I detect 'em! Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491
joe@cvl.UUCP (06/03/83)
"I'm driving a SUPRA which tends to go faster than the 100 to 110 KM limit." Cars don't speed, people do!
kent@decwrl.UUCP (Chris Kent) (06/04/83)
I own a radar detector because I go over 55mph. I decided I would rather invest money in some electronics than in the Great State of Indiana. Chris Kent, Purdue CS (temporarily in California)
davew@shark.UUCP (Dave Williams) (09/16/83)
I hate to revive an old subject, but did we ever get a consensus on what the best unit for the money is? I need a unit for my wife's car as she travels some distance to work everyday and needs the help such a unit would provide. No flames please! Dave Williams Tektronix, Inc. ECS
crc@clyde.UUCP (C. R. Colbert) (09/20/83)
The best unit is still the ESCORT, made by Cincinnati Microwave. (800) 543-1608, in Ohio (800) 582-2696. The only detectors the come close to it cost about $100 more. /crc
bees@drux3.UUCP (09/22/83)
I beg to differ...
In fairly recent tests, the only detector that is equal (more or less)
to the Escort, is the Whistler Spectrum. You are right in that this
detector lists for $350, which is $105 more than the Escort. Most
outlets around here will knock a bit off the price, though.
But... fairly new to the market is the Cobra! According to tests
I have seen, it is at least as good as the current Escort. It only
cost me $206 in Boulder, CO. The unit looks like an Escort that
has been turned upside down. All the lights and switches are
bassakwards. My guess is that either the Cobra is an OEM version
of the Escort, or a copy.
There are some differences between the Cobra and the Escort. The Cobra
doesn't have two separate tones for X and K detection (I could care
less), but it has an extra LED that gets lit when the detector is
receiving something, but it's filtering circuit is discarding it. This
only happens in city mode, to let you know that the detector "suspects"
radar. The flashing yellow light is the same. I like the meter better,
because Cobra left the numbers off and it is easier to read. I also
like Cobra's ON/VOLUME switch better, because it has a flat edged
surface unlike the Escort's round knob. This makes it easier to adjust
in the dark. The Cobra mount is similar in function to the Escort but
is more versatile. The Cobra manual is not as nice as the Escort, and
it does not come with a demo record or a plastic case. But, who needs
them for an extra $40?
All in all, I like the Cobra better than the Escort, and I haven't
used the Whistler Spectrum. For the money, the Cobra is the cheapest,
and I won't have to mail it back to Ohio for service.
Ray Davis AT&T Information Systems Labs @ Denver (303)538-3991
{ihnp4|hogpc}!druxy!beesseifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (09/23/83)
Having seperate tones for X and K band is useful. The new Escorts don't go off when a Radio Smack detector goes by, but store motion detectors will still set them off sometimes. These are always X band. If the Escort detects K band, I *know* its radar, not a false alarm. If the X band alert goes off, it might be radar, but it might be a store alarm. The new model is much improved over the old ones. When the new one detects a store, it usually only gives a couple of blips when the old one went full scale, thus easier on the ol' brake pads when driving in unfamilar areas. Hopefully the next generation will be able to ignore stores altogether. BTW, has anyone come up with any countermeasures for VASCAR, or the 'sitting on the on-ramp with a stopwatch' technique? Dave Seifert BMWCCA, Windy City Chapter ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert
louisp@tekcad.UUCP (09/24/83)
#R:shark:-150200:tekcad:13200016:000:1088
tekcad!louisp Sep 23 09:56:00 1983
I think you got had a bit on your Cobra! I am looking at an ad for it
right now for $139.95 (Fordham Electronics). If you want to compare the
Cobra to the Escort, you better compare it to the pre- STOP circuitry
model. The Cobra has no ability to detect spurious signals from cheap
dectectors AND suppress the alarm. After all you dont want to have your
dectector go off every time a cheap radiating model goes by. As for the
different X and K band sounds, they are very usefull when one takes into
consideration the vast differences in Radar range and how that relates to
your reaction. The Cobra is a very good dectector for $140 but it is not
the equal of a late model Escort. (The Cobra is a Korean copy by the way).
Depending on how you "use" your dectector, the added performance may or
may not be worth it to you. Personally, I use it to its full potential
regularly. ( Boy I hope this dosen't bring the infamous BTM out of the
woods again!!)
Louis Pengue
uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!louisp
CSnet: louisp@tek
ARPAnet:louisp.tek@rand-relaybees@drux3.UUCP (09/25/83)
I think the detector you see for $140 must be a previous Cobra model.
The model in my article is the Cobra RD-4000. It was developed after
the S/T/O/P circuitry was added to the Escort, and does indeed have
similar (same?) circuitry. My Cobra does indeed detect spurious
signals from cheap detectors AND suppress the alarm.
I will agree with you about the usefulness of having different X and K
beeps. In practice, this is more a matter of preference. When I'm
cruising with triple digits, I don't care whether it is X or K, or
whether the officer in question is 1/4 mile or 4 miles away... I'm
going to slow down immediately!
My Cobra was made in Japan not in Korea.
Ray Davis AT&T Information Systems Labs @ Denver (303)538-3991
{ihnp4|hogpc}!druxy!beesdxp@pyuxhh.UUCP (D Peak) (09/26/83)
I just drove back from Indiana and noticed a disturbing developement on the Pennaylvania Turnpike.It looks like most of the state troopers are now using hand held guns for instantaneous checks on motorists, they are usually parked behind bridges. | || | | || | | || | | || | | || | | || | S | || V | ================================= Overpass ---------------------------- ================================ | || | | || V | | || | | || V | | || | | || | S=State Trooper | || | V=Potential Victim | || | G=Good Guys(Us with radar detector) | || | | || | | || G | | || | Q. Does any of the current radar detectors give enough of a warning on these short bursts(from the radar gun) ???????? Obviously if there is not enough traffic in front of you to keep the officer busy you're going to get nailed. DavePeak(BTL,SouthPlainfield)
jsf007@trsvax.UUCP (09/29/83)
#R:shark:-150200:trsvax:55200016:000:745 trsvax!jsf007 Sep 27 08:08:00 1983 A few months ago, Car and Driver ran another one of their comparative tests, this one including the infamous Cobra (latest) model. They, too, made the obvious comment, "...Escort copy". Glancing through the letters column a few months later, I noticed a letter from the President of Dynascan (makers of Cobra), who said very strongly that the Cobra model was not an Escort copy. It was designed by their overseas design firm (read Taiwan) to be a "...typical high value per dollar Cobra product..." (maybe not an exact quote, but close). We all know what market they were aiming at... Steve Fintel ...trsvax!jsf007 P.S. This doesn't mean it's a lousy product. Quite the contrary (Car and Drivers opinion ranked it quite high).
ricks@tekcad.UUCP (10/04/83)
#R:shark:-150200:tekcad:13200017:000:468
tekcad!louisp Oct 3 17:25:00 1983
Sorry Ray about saying the Cobra was a Korean copy of the Escort.
I went back and looked and sure enough it is made in Japan. I also
mean nothing offensive about it being a copy of the Escort, but you gotta
admit it sure looks like it. I was refering to the RD-4000 though, it
is available thru Fordham electronics for $139.95.
Louis Pengue
uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!louisp
CSnet: louisp@tek
ARPAnet:louisp.tek@rand-relayashwin@uicsl.UUCP (05/23/84)
#N:uicsl:2800015:000:554
uicsl!ashwin May 22 22:58:00 1984
<>
There were some requests recently for information on radar detectors. Did
anyone actually get any useful information? I think a lot of us out here
would be interested in the results of the research, so would people please
post the material they've collected on this, summarized or unsummarized? (If
you don't want to post it to the net, please mail it to me at
...uiucdcs!uicsl!ashwin since I am very interested in finding out more about
these wonderful inventions.)
Thanx.
...uiucdcs!uicsl!ashwinfish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell) (05/23/84)
(oo)
Somewhere in the endless ad pages of last month's "Radio-Electronics,"
I saw a device advertised that not only detected radar, but jammed it.
Apparently, the device has a transmitter inside that puts out a
signal greater in strength than the echo, and at a frequency corresponding
to a selected fraction of the actual vehicle speed. The ad contained a
disclaimer stating that it was not to be used against police radar (ha ha)
and that it wasn't FCC approved. Anybody have any experience with this
gadget? Seems like the kind of thing that would get you in BIG trouble
if the staties found out what you were doing.
--
Bob Fishell
ihnp4!ihu1g!fishcem@intelca.UUCP (Chuck McManis) (05/24/84)
I recently got a set of schematics for a radar detector/jammer. The box not only detects radar but "fools" the other radar into believing you are going slower than you really are. For instance, it can be set 55, to always make the other radar read 55 regardless of your speed or to xx% say 75% and you are going 75 the other radar will "clock" you doing 57.25. Now for the question, is this interfereing with justice and the collection of evidence ? Why does a civil authority have the right to operate radar equipment and I don't ? Actually I havent built this gizmo since it is fairly expensive (like $1500) Wonder what the legal implications are, is there any case law on this that we know of? --Chuck
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (05/25/84)
[] They can get you under FCC regulations for broadcasting a signal without a license. The radar units are licensed under the FCC. If you could obtain a license to send out the jamming signals, then there would be other implications such as you mentioned. BTW, $1500 to build? Wow, that would pay speeding fines for the next 20 years. Doesn't sound cost effective to me. T C. Wheeler
davidk@dartvax.UUCP (David C. Kovar) (05/26/84)
The price of the radar jammer would easily cover speeding tickets for
the next 20 years, but if you collect $1500 worth of speeding tickets
you're not going to have a license. Plus, it'd be "educational" to
build and operate. At least 'til the FCC caught up with you.
--
David C. Kovar
USNET: {linus|decvax|cornell|astrovax}!dartvax!davidk
ARPA: davidk%dartmouth@csnet-relay
CSNET: davidk@dartmouth
"The difficult we did yesterday, the impossible we are doing now."mikey@trsvax.UUCP (05/28/84)
#R:uicsl:2800015:trsvax:55200060:000:3442 trsvax!mikey May 28 11:18:00 1984 Even if you built your jammer on X-band and tried to operate it as a "Legal" radar system, for say, anticolision in fog, you still can't jam because pulse mode is illegal, for EVERYBODY, on X-band and the FCC has a catchall about deliberate interference. On K-band there is no pulse restrictions. As for jamming, police are getting smarter with exposure. I had a friend in PA that had Radio Shack Minimus 7 speakers on his rear deck with those square suction cups that RS used to sell holding them to the rear window. He got pulled over by a state trooper and the cop demanded that he play them. The square suction cups looked incredibly like waveguides from the outside of the car. As for jammer adds in magazines, most of them are ripoffs. You can get more information from old Car and Drivers (around summer of 79 I think) They even published plans for a single band jammer that you could build for about 200 dollars. The problem is that they can be detected. I saw a handgun that had a switch on it to detect jammers. If the cop suspected that he was being jammed, he just flipped the switch and if the display still read a speed, that means it was being put there artificially. The switch just turned off the transmitter and reset the display. There are ways around this, and there are designs for undetectable jammers, but you won't find them in magazines. The last thing these people want is a lot of jammers on the road and the cops getting wise to how they work. Let the *SSHOLES with converted microwave units frying their own brains as they drive get caught and keep the police uninterested in those that know how to do it right. As for legality of building your own radar, get a HAM ticket. I haven't looked at the microwave region of the band in a long time, but I think at least one of the bands police use is SHARED with ham radio. As for the legality of jamming the police, its a BIG BADDIE. Interfering with police in the performance of their duties. Unlicensed transmitter, illegal operation of a transmitter, deliberate interference with another legitimate signal, and the list goes on. There are even a few catchalls that could lead to really serious penalities, like confiscation of your vehicle as an illegal transmitter site etc. If you don't know how to do it right, you stand a bad chance of getting nailed, especially with el-cheapo jammers. Finally, a jammer is not a license to blast by a cop. The only thing a good jammer will do is give you that critical 3-5 seconds to haul your speed down when you run into officer friendly. Personally, I don't have a jammer. One of the problems is protecting everybody in the field, not just yourself. i.e. you're buzzing by a car at 125 mph on your bike. The car is doing 65-70. About 150 yards back is a truck doing 76 mph. You get the ticket for 76. The truck just came into the field of radar as you pass the car and the cops radar jumps from 64 to 76. (The statement from the cop) What can you do? The radar was obviously in error. Sorry officer, I wont take a ticket for anything less than 115. I could protect myself from this, but with the wide field of the beam necessary and enough power to protect me AND a truck, I didn't want the hassle, I just have a detector on the car and my bike is naked. However!!! Things may change with the next ticket!!! mikey at trsvax 55, it's not just a good idea, it S*CKS!
review@drutx.UUCP (Millham) (05/30/84)
<> Has anyone had any experience with a K40 radar detector? I just bought one, the main reason is that it comes with a guarantee that for one year you WON'T get a radar speeding ticket, or else THEY WILL PAY FOR THE TICKET! The dealer that I bought it from ran a test last weekend between the K40, an Escort, and several other top brands, and the K40 alarmed first every time, and never gave a false alarm. The price is a bit high ($330), but it would only take 4 tickets at > 70 mph to pay for itself. Does anyone out there have one and made a ticket claim? How were they about paying? Thanx Brian Millham AT & T Information Systems Denver, Co. ...!drutx!review
David Smallberg <das@ucla-cs.ARPA> <das> (08/14/84)
...
I read somewhere a few years ago about a fellow who installed a radar jammer
in his car as part of a microwave oven! Whenever a cop stopped him and
tried to nail him for having a radar jammer, the guy acted puzzled, then said,
"Oh, maybe it's coming from my microwave oven." The policeman would, of
course, be intrigued, and when the driver offered him a half a hot sandwich,
all thought of a ticket vanished.
-- David Smallberg, das@ucla-cs.ARPA, {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!dasloverso@sunybcs.UUCP (John Robert LoVerso) (08/21/84)
Sometime soon I'm interested in buying a radar detector.
My Honda Civic and I do lots of traveling every now and then,
so I rather not get another ticket. What I'm asking is for
people who own detectors to let me know how they work/like them.
I'm especially interested in the Escort and the Superfox Vixen II.
The later I can get (on sale) for ~$120 (if I remember correctly),
while the Escort run $245 - and I've been told (by personel of
various stores) that the Vixen II is better. Any help will be
greatly appreciated. Please send mail - don't post! I'll summarize
(if warrented). Thanks,
John
--
John Robert LoVerso @ SUNY Buffalo (716-636-3004)
loverso@buffalo.CSNET -or- ..!{watmath|rocksanne}!sunybcs!loversowetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (08/22/84)
As I have noted before, the cheapest radar detector around is any CB radio that works reasonably well. Just keep it on Channel 19 and listen to the traffic. You will hear about any radar being used long before a detector can pick it up. You will also be warned about any patrol cars that are not using radar, but just lying in wait over the hill. The CB band has changed quite a bit from its heyday a few years ago. It is a lot easier to listen to now with most of the wierdos gone. Besides, it also provides traffic information and directions when you need them. About 15% of the cars on the Garden State Parkway here in New Jersey have CBs and the number is growing again. Most of the new people are just interested in traffic and speed traps and rarely say anything. T. C. Wheeler
dw@rocksvax.UUCP (Don Wegeng) (08/26/84)
I have to disagree with T.C. Wheeler about using A CB radio as a subsitute
for a Radar Detector. I do a reasonable amount of highway driving, and
usually listen to channel 19 on my CB while I drive. I also use an Escort
radar detector during these trips.
My experience with using both devices simultaneously is that the CB is
not a good subsitiue for a radar detector. While I will not dispute that
one gets more advance warning with the CB, the information is often
incorrect. Police often move around quite a bit while trying to catch
us speeders, and often times the reports on the CB are out of date
by the time that I get to the area. The only way to deal with this is
to slow down several miles before the reported position of the policeman,
and then hope that there are no others in the same area (this usually
is not reported accurately).
Another problem occures at night, when there are fewer vehicles on
the road. I have found that the CB is pretty useless on the New
York State Thruway after 1 AM. The same seems to be true in PA
and Ohio, but since I don't drive in states so often I may be wrong.
One should also be aware that most truck drivers have radar detectors,
and therefore do not need to discuss the exact position of speed traps
anymore. They now seem to be more interested in the general location
of the traps so that they will be prepared when the detector goes off.
My overall conclusion, having used a CB for eight years and an Escort
for one year is that a CB is probably better than nothing, but the
radar detector is much better.
--
/Don
arpa: Wegeng.Henr@Xerox.ARPA
uucp: {allegra,princeton,rochester,amd,sunybcs}!rocksvax!dwrafaeld@teklabs.UUCP (Rafael De Arce) (08/09/85)
I don't own a radar dector nor do I have a need for one. I usually drive at the speed limit except when driving long distances. (ei. Oregon to California) It doesn't bother me that others own radar dectors. Who knows... maybe I'll buy one someday. It doesn't bother me that the police use radar to catch speeders. What does bother me is the legislature trying to regulate the use of Radar Dectors. It looks to me as though the police want to assert their authority beyond their bounds. Certainly the manufactures of radar detectors, users of detectors and the gener- al public couldn't care less about the damn contraptions in so far as initia- ting laws againts the devices. So who else is their but the police? The F.C.C. has stated on many occasions that recieving RF is free for the taking. It is the responsibility of the transmitor to secure their signal. That puts the burden on the police to figure out a better way to catch speed- ers using radar. That would require re-engineering their devices and that spells money. It's cheaper to take them out of use (by law)! The state legislature has no jurisdiction in this area. This is a federal matter. Who knows... maybe NJ will try to pass a law forbiding people of their state from watching or listening to programs originating from outside the state (or within). Big Brother is on the move. Cost over-runs and delays. -1994-
gritz@homxa.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) (08/14/85)
>From: lorien@mhuxn.UUCP (CONWAY) >and I have one question for all you oh-so-distressed people who believe you've >been wronged because the law prevents you from driving as fast as you want >anytime you want. What's your hurry? > >In addition, for all you folks who seriously believe it's an invasion of privacy >to track your speed, let me add that the world is not out to get YOU. Quite >the contrary, did you ever stop and think that it might be possible that the >enforcement of radar and the outlawing of detectors is maintained for the >*protection* of others from your maniacal behavior on the roads? I (the original poster) don't speed either. Unless you are driving hundreds of miles increasing your speed from 55 to 65 or 70 doesn't save you enough time to make it worth the trouble (I have a cruies crtl too). MY POINT IS that I object to the govt. outlawing a device that simply alerts you to the fact that some cop somewhere is checking your speed. If you are speeding, this device may save you a ticket. If not, which is always my case, I feel like I have been pulled over and given the hairy eyeball. And I DIDN'T EVEN BREAK THE LAW!! (I don't use a radar detector, I just occasionly notice some cop sitting there soaking every car on the road with microwaves.) Cops should catch speeders, its the law. But they should go after and use radar, IR, stopwatches, whatever on cars that look like they are going FAST! NOT ME! I do the speed limit, or 5 under! And if I decide that I want a radar detector so I can tell when the police are "searching" my car for its speed then I want to be able to exercise my right to do that in ALL states (Conn. and Va. included). Russ Sharples homxa!gritz
frye@cuuxa.UUCP (frye) (08/17/85)
In responce to CONWAY's posting, I know people get splattered all over the place in auto accidents. Reducing the speed limit did not reduce the number of accidents, watchin' for ol' Smokey did. That would have worked if more bears had been out inforcing the 70 mile per hour limit. I think a lot of people know the reason the speed limit was lowered. The clowns just did it to be pricks. The cars running the roads at the time did not save gas running at 55 instead of 70. They were designed to run good in a specified torque band (spectrum of engine rpm) and that produced a speed of about 65-70 mph. That's just the way that old road iron was built in those days. Now we have to suffer with little shitbox cars that we have to put on instead of get in. They may do better at 55 but older cars don't. I think to save lives, maybe there ought to be a real drivers' test in- stead of the jokes people go through to get a liscence. Teach them to drive and not how to submit to government bullshit. As far as using a radar detector to detect speed traps, if you don't have one of those you can get a CB radio. Most of the drivers out there will tell you where Smokey is collectin' them green stamps. As far as taking my time goes, if I had the time I coulda walked from point a to point b. I got in the damned car to drive it, not to watch it rust away in 55 mph traffic. I coulda left it sit and rust in the apartment parking lot, I didn't have to park it on the highway to rust. All this crap is just the polititians' trying to protect me from myself. It makes me very angry. You keep protecting people and they become dependant on it. They forget how to protect themselves. I don't see how anyone can call that good. Whew, I feel better. Not flaming you personally CONWAY. I just do not like polititians. We let people run this country who have no idea what us real people gotta put up with. They keep trying to take the constitution and its bill of rights apart and eventually they'll make it. The right to unrestricted travel is infringe a lot now-a-days. That ammendment didn't include or exclude motor vehicles. I must take it that the folks who wrote it purposely left out the means by which a person could get the job done. I conclude, accordingly, that it is my right to operate a motor or steam or wind (whatever) powered vehicle. Of course, if someone kills someone with anything, be it car, gun, jugheaded horse, a half of a paving brick, just lock his ass up and either get rid of him or keep him locked up. That is, unless it was a justified killing. On the lighter side, has anyone heard of anyone (lately that is) running over anybody with an ol' broomtailed hay burner? Damn, Frye again! Who does he think he is? Anyhow?
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (08/27/85)
Oh, FOO! "The towns are out to get your money and that's why they use radar." Horse Puckey!!! My town does not have a radar unit, but they borrow one now and again. I wish we had one so we could put the clamps on the idiots who constantly use my street for a test track for their BMWs. The speed limit is 35, but there are enough twanks using it over 50 mph to populate every race track from here to Georgia. There are something over 57 kids who live within 100 yards of this street in a 1/4 mile stretch. Odds are, one of them is going to get hit by one of these feather brains. Our town does not need the money. We need our kids. And, I suspect that that is a valid reason for most towns to aquire a radar detector. The out to make money theory is just a bunch of hogwash dredged up by all of you twits who think owning a car is license to speed wherever and whenever you want. Wait till you have the patter of little feet running around the house and see how soon you start noticing the speed of cars past your front lawn. T. C. Wheeler
john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred) (08/29/85)
In article <211@pyuxii.UUCP> tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) writes: >Oh, FOO! "The towns are out to get your money and that's why >they use radar." Horse Puckey!!! My town does not have a radar >unit, but they borrow one now and again. I wish we had one so >we could put the clamps on the idiots who constantly use my >street for a test track for their BMWs. The speed limit is >35, but there are enough twanks using it over 50 mph to >populate every race track from here to Georgia. There are >something over 57 kids who live within 100 yards of this >street in a 1/4 mile stretch. Odds are, one of them is >going to get hit by one of these feather brains. Our town >does not need the money. We need our kids. And, I suspect >that that is a valid reason for most towns to aquire a radar >detector. The out to make money theory is just a bunch of >hogwash dredged up by all of you twits who think owning a >car is license to speed wherever and whenever you want. >Wait till you have the patter of little feet running around >the house and see how soon you start noticing the speed of >cars past your front lawn. >T. C. Wheeler Sure, if you have a residential street with kids, enforce that speed limit. What I object to is any small town's police force spending >50% of their time setting up speed traps on the interstate. That is done, clearly, to generate dollars, and not "to protect and serve." -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john
res@ihlpl.UUCP (Rich Strebendt @ AT&T Information Systems - Indian Hill West; formerly) (08/30/85)
> Oh, FOO! "The towns are out to get your money and that's why > they use radar." Horse Puckey!!! My town does not have a radar > unit, but they borrow one now and again. I wish we had one so > we could put the clamps on the idiots who constantly use my > street for a test track for their BMWs. The speed limit is > 35, but there are enough twanks using it over 50 mph to > populate every race track from here to Georgia. > ... The out to make money theory is just a bunch of > hogwash dredged up by all of you twits who think owning a > car is license to speed wherever and whenever you want. WELL SAID !!! I am fed up to my <pick your favorite anatomical feature> with the jerks who get all bent out of shape because the cops use radar and don't "play fair". Driving a car is NOT a contest between the cops and the drivers to see how tricky each can be in evading/catching the other. The recent postings by people BRAGGING of how long they have been driving in excess of the posted without being ticketed (thanks to their use of a radar detector) have made me wish that I could somehow pass the license numbers of these characters along to their local constabulary with the plea: PLEASE NAIL THESE JACKASSES BEFORE THEY SUCCEED IN KILLING SOMEONE. I feel very strongly that possession of a radar detector by a motorist should be a felony. At minimum, subject to confiscation of the vehicle and a few months in the local lockup. The police do NOT pick up motorists who are driving reasonably, even if they are a little over the posted. I do a fair amount of expressway and Interstate driving and tend to hold my speed at 60-65mph. I have never been ticketed for that level of exceeding the limit. I have noticed that the cops DO go after the jerk doing 20mph or more over the limit, or weaving in and out of traffic to get to the off-ramp 75 nanoseconds earlier than otherwise. Yes, there are some cops in this world who are inept or on the take or otherwise less than exemplary. To use this minority of cops as an excuse for anti-social behavior on the part of an immature motorist is revolting to any person who has grown up. Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4!iwsl6!res
john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred) (09/02/85)
In article <315@ihlpl.UUCP> res@ihlpl.UUCP (Rich Strebendt @ AT&T Information Systems - Indian Hill West; formerly) writes: > >WELL SAID !!! > >I am fed up to my <pick your favorite anatomical feature> with the >jerks who get all bent out of shape because the cops use radar and >don't "play fair". Driving a car is NOT a contest between the cops and >the drivers to see how tricky each can be in evading/catching the >other. The recent postings by people BRAGGING of how long they have >been driving in excess of the posted without being ticketed (thanks to >their use of a radar detector) have made me wish that I could >somehow pass the license numbers of these characters along to their >local constabulary with the plea: PLEASE NAIL THESE JACKASSES BEFORE >THEY SUCCEED IN KILLING SOMEONE. I feel very strongly that possession >of a radar detector by a motorist should be a felony. At minimum, >subject to confiscation of the vehicle and a few months in the local >lockup. oh, come on. A Flordia judge threw out many speeding citations a few years back due to radar unreliability. Ever heard of the cases of radar saying that a road sign was going 80 mph?? It happens!! And most police officers don't know enough about proper interpretation of the radar readings. I will never drive without a detector again. I want to be *way* below the limit when I encounter a speed trap. I don't know if this is bragging, but I usually drive about 75 on the open freeway. The interstates are designed with 80 mph in mind: the 55 limit is just a bureaucratic crock. To quote Car and Driver: "Speed doesn't kill. Sudden decelleration does." > >The police do NOT pick up motorists who are driving reasonably, even if >they are a little over the posted. I do a fair amount of expressway >and Interstate driving and tend to hold my speed at 60-65mph. I have >never been ticketed for that level of exceeding the limit. I have >noticed that the cops DO go after the jerk doing 20mph or more over the >limit, or weaving in and out of traffic to get to the off-ramp 75 >nanoseconds earlier than otherwise. Yes, there are some cops in this >world who are inept or on the take or otherwise less than exemplary. >To use this minority of cops as an excuse for anti-social behavior on >the part of an immature motorist is revolting to any person who has >grown up. > > Rich Strebendt > ...!ihnp4!iwsl6!res Call me a felon, if you must: I don't agree. -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (09/04/85)
John Allred has posted another example of why folks are concerned about the "meism" attitude that seems to prevail when twanks get behind the wheel. He seems to think that speeding is his god given right. He admits to doing 75 mph on the freeway. Now given that the posted speed is 55, and most drivers probably do 60 -65, here is a jerk doing 75. Now, if he is doing 75, he has to be weaving in and out of traffic. Does that sound like a reasonable driver? Not to me it doesn't. Then there is the other guy (forgot the name) who admits to doing at LEAST 10 mph faster on local streets. This is a real bonifide ass. It's guys like him that have caused a tremendous increase in the incidence of hit-and-run in, at least, the northeast. I live on a street that is posted as 35 mph. And, as I have said before, there are 55+ school age kids living along this street for 1/4 mile. The law of averages says that there will be a bad accident on this street. The accident will be bad enough at 35, but we have a constant stream of meism types barreling their BMWS, Hondas, and Volvos down the street at speeds exceeding 50 mph. I for one do not want my kids to become hood ornaments for some feather brained idiot who thinks that speeding regulations do not pertain to him/her. I don't give a rat's ass what you do on the freeway, my kids don't play on the median. But, since you folks admit that freeway driving causes you to speed on local streets, then you should be locked up for aggravated stupidity. T. C. Wheeler
jimn@cornell.UUCP (Jim Nesheim) (09/05/85)
In article <224@pyuxii.UUCP> tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) writes: [ lots of high blood-pressure spewing ] > It's guys like him that have caused a tremendous >increase in the incidence of hit-and-run in, at least, the >northeast. [ lots more ] >I don't give a rat's ass what you do on the freeway, my kids >don't play on the median. But, since you folks admit that >freeway driving causes you to speed on local streets, then >you should be locked up for aggravated stupidity. >T. C. Wheeler Look, T.C., I can understand you being concerned about your kids welfare, and I'm not going to argue about whether or not I should speed, but I resent the fact that you are associating speeders with hit-and-run. People who hit-and-run are sick sick sick, and should be locked up, but DON'T generalize like that. I admit that I speed, although not like some people, but does that make me a hit-and-run driver? Cool down a little bit before you write your articles. JMN I'd rather be skiing :-)
john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred) (09/06/85)
In article <224@pyuxii.UUCP> tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) writes: > >He admits to doing 75 mph >on the freeway. Now given that the posted speed is 55, and >most drivers probably do 60 -65, here is a jerk doing 75. >Now, if he is doing 75, he has to be weaving in and out of >traffic. Does that sound like a reasonable driver? Not >to me it doesn't. Hey you. Wheeler. Read my entire posting. I said I do 75 in the middle of nowhere, not in traffic. Basically, one is a fool to overtake anyone at greater than a 10-15 mph speed difference. In traffic, i usually go with the flow. As I have stated before, I think 55 is a bureaucratic crock. >Then there is the other guy (forgot the name) who admits to >It's guys like him that have caused a tremendous >increase in the incidence of hit-and-run in, at least, the >northeast. >T. C. Wheeler Wheeler, give me a break. Speeding causes hit-and-runs ???!?!?!? Maybe you should take a valium or two before your next posting? -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john
dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (09/09/85)
> The police do NOT pick up motorists who are driving reasonably, even if > they are a little over the posted. I do a fair amount of expressway > and Interstate driving and tend to hold my speed at 60-65mph. I have > never been ticketed for that level of exceeding the limit. I have > noticed that the cops DO go after the jerk doing 20mph or more over the > limit, or weaving in and out of traffic to get to the off-ramp 75 > nanoseconds earlier than otherwise. Yes, there are some cops in this > world who are inept or on the take or otherwise less than exemplary. > To use this minority of cops as an excuse for anti-social behavior on > the part of an immature motorist is revolting to any person who has > grown up. > Spare me the know it all attitude. Neither you nor I knows all the traffic cops in the country, their motivations, and the policies and pressures put on them by their workplace. Certainly, a good many of the violations which officers issue are good and desirable as they keep people from thinking they can get away with blatantly dangerous behavior. However, it is certainly NOT true to say that the police never give tickets to people who are driving reasonably. I know of tickets issued to people at 4mph above the limit in a 35 zone and 7mph in a 55 and I certainly don't consider either of these 'reasonable'. Personally, I got a ticket for 35 in a 25 at the bottom of a rather large hill and let me tell you 35 is not exactly zipping. From my experiences I would say that police use very little discretion as far as evaluation of safety but rather pick speeds on departmental policy or how good a mood they are on any particular day. Personally I think it is more likely that the tickets given out to people who are genuinely driving unsafely are in the minority rather than the reverse. David Albrecht
jrm@cbuxc.UUCP (John Miller) (09/12/85)
> In article <211@pyuxii.UUCP> tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) writes: > >Oh, FOO! "The towns are out to get your money and that's why > >they use radar." Horse Puckey!!! My town does not have a radar > >unit, but they borrow one now and again. I wish we had one so > >we could put the clamps on the idiots who constantly use my > >street for a test track for their BMWs. The speed limit is > >35, but there are enough twanks using it over 50 mph to > >populate every race track from here to Georgia. There are > >something over 57 kids who live within 100 yards of this > >street in a 1/4 mile stretch. Odds are, one of them is > >going to get hit by one of these feather brains. Our town > >does not need the money. We need our kids. And, I suspect > >that that is a valid reason for most towns to aquire a radar > >detector. The out to make money theory is just a bunch of > >hogwash dredged up by all of you twits who think owning a > >car is license to speed wherever and whenever you want. > >Wait till you have the patter of little feet running around > >the house and see how soon you start noticing the speed of > >cars past your front lawn. > >T. C. Wheeler > > Sure, if you have a residential street with kids, enforce that speed limit. > > What I object to is any small town's police force spending >50% of their > time setting up speed traps on the interstate. That is done, clearly, to > generate dollars, and not "to protect and serve." > -- > John Allred > General Computer Company > uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john The incident that lead me to the store to buy a detector was a nice quiet drive down a country road near a small town (4 or 5 miles from the town) when upon rounding a corner there he was. I looked at the speedometer and noticed I was doing 50 mph. For the conditions (rural, sunny, dry, well-paved road ) the speed seemed reasonable. I did not recall seeing any speed signs. My next action was to keep watch in the rear-view mirror to see if he was pursuing - he was. I was nailed for 50 in a 35. Now I ask you, was he protecting the innocent villagers from a insane feather brain speeding driver. Where were the people this guy was protecting? (answer - 4 miles away) I felt like asking the cop if he enjoyed his job and if he felt he was really making a difference. I did ask him if radar detectors were legal in this state (he responded to the affirmative). The fine cost me 10$, 28$ went to overhead for a total of 38$. (The fine is really not such a bad deal - it's the overhead that gets you. I drove to radio shack and bought their best detector. Now I know when they are LURKING around the next corner. By the way, over the past 10 years I have probably managed to get 5 speeding tickets. In ALL of the incidents I was not driving excessively for the conditions. ALL of the incidents were radar traps. And I do mean traps! You might say that the frequency of the incidents do not justify the cost of the device. Well, strictly speaking that is correct, but the peace of mind the device offers is worth twice the price. P.S. I am VERY carefull when children are around.
loucl@homxa.UUCP (L.CHANLIZAROO) (09/13/85)
> I drove to radio shack and bought their best detector. Now I know
Best and Radio Shack are two orthogonal terms. Thank you
for the contribution to the pollution of the air waves.
:-)
--
louis chanterryl@tekcrl.UUCP () (09/15/85)
> > The police do NOT pick up motorists who are driving reasonably, even if > > they are a little over the posted. > > ...... > Spare me the know it all attitude. Neither you nor I knows all the traffic > cops in the country, their motivations, and the policies and pressures > put on them by their workplace. > .... > From my experiences I would say that police use very little discretion > as far as evaluation of safety but rather pick speeds on > departmental policy or how good a mood they are on > any particular day. BINGO!!!! Speaking from personal experience (my older brother is a member of the LAPD), he told me that when he was assigned to a particular area to patrol, in the morning his partner and he would park at a certain spot and catch all of the harried businessmen late for work/lunch/meetings/whatever speeding even just A FEW miles over the speed limit. I'm not trying to justify his actions, just letting you know that there really is no set method for determining if you're going to get ticketed for speeding.
mikey@trsvax (09/15/85)
> Best and Radio Shack are two orthogonal terms. Thank you > for the contribution to the pollution of the air waves. > :-) > -- > louis chan What's the matter louis, they won't let you have 2 free battery cards??? mikey at trsvax
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (10/30/85)
I know that the subject of radar detectors has been discussed in this
group in the past. If anyone has saved the articles that have recommendations
or reviews (I am NOT interested in the legal or moral issues), I would
appreciate it if they would mail me a copy. If anyone wants to send their
own recommendations, that would of course also be welcome. I am mainly
interested in finding a decent unit for the least money.
TIA.
Scott McEwan
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan
"Comment, Spock?"
"Very bad poetry, sir."geo@necis.UUCP (George Aguiar ext. 224) (11/04/85)
Having resently acquired a radar detector I have the following questions. 1. Is it true that the police can tell you are using a radar detector or is this just hype that they would like you to believe?? It seems to me that the way a radar detector works is like a radio, it has an antenna and tuner however, instead of playing music it plays warnings. Given this, I don't see how they could tell. 2. Is there a way to insure that your radar detector is working?? I've had mine less than 2 weeks now and it still hasn't gone off, except for power on diagnostics. Can you use a garage opener? I think garage openers usually work on the X band. 3. Is the Spectrum remote a good one???
john@gcc-milo.ARPA (John Allred) (11/08/85)
In article <130@necis.UUCP> geo@necis.UUCP (George Aguiar ext. 224) writes: > >Having resently acquired a radar detector I have the following questions. > >1. Is it true that the police can tell you are using a radar detector or >is this just hype that they would like you to believe?? In the sense that the detector radiates something that gives you away, no. However, in states where radar detectors are illegal,a cop will drive up behind a suspect car, turn his radar on, and see if any lights in the target car turn on with the radar. If they do, you're busted. Please people, no flames on whether radar detectors can be banned by states! I think we thrashed that subject to death awhile back. >2. Is there a way to insure that your radar detector is working?? Best way I know of is to find an airport. The radars usually cause my Passport to alert. -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john
zeek@pyramid.UUCP (Jim Zeek) (11/10/85)
In article <386@gcc-milo.ARPA> john@gcc-milo.UUCP (John Allred) writes: >In article <130@necis.UUCP> geo@necis.UUCP (George Aguiar ext. 224) writes: >> >>Having resently acquired a radar detector I have the following questions. >> >>1. Is it true that the police can tell you are using a radar detector or >>is this just hype that they would like you to believe?? > >In the sense that the detector radiates something that gives you away, no. >However, in states where radar detectors are illegal,a cop will drive up behind >a suspect car, turn his radar on, and see if any lights in the target car turn >on with the radar. If they do, you're busted. > A radar detector is a transmitter as well as a reciever, just like your FM radio. It generates a signal of the same frequency internally and compares it to the incomming signal from o'll smokey. A radio does the same thing. That is why cheap radar detecters like radio shack models set off other models. If someone has a sensitive reciever they can detect your detector. Jim Zeek @ Pyramid Technology (pyramid!zeek)
neal@weitek.UUCP (Neal Bedard) (11/12/85)
In article <130@necis.UUCP>, geo@necis.UUCP (George Aguiar ext. 224) writes: > > 1. Is it true that the police can tell you are using a radar detector or > is this just hype that they would like you to believe?? It seems to me > that the way a radar detector works is like a radio, it has an antenna and > tuner however, instead of playing music it plays warnings. Given this, I > don't see how they could tell. All radar detectors emit some microwave radiation (some emit more than others, in some cases enough to set off other nearby radar detectors - to combat this pollution, my Passport and others use signal processing.) However, the police tactic is to irradiate a car from behind and observe if any lights light up: if so, they've hit pay dirt. My unit has a switch to defeat the lights (led meter and yellow warning) to foil this tactic. > 2. Is there a way to insure that your radar detector is working?? I've > had mine less than 2 weeks now and it still hasn't gone off, except for > power on diagnostics. Can you use a garage opener? I think garage openers > usually work on the X band. Hmmm, microwave door openers and burglar alarms set mine off regularly (the damn thing's downright chatty sometimes.) If you pass thru a developed area, you probably should've encountered at least an X band radar source by now. Garage door openers use a `remote control' frequency in the reigon of Citizens Band (around 27 MHz) so I don't think they'd set off your detector. > 3. Is the Spectrum remote a good one??? Does it have a signal strength meter? Different X/K warning noises? If not, then it's practically useless in a metropolitan area (where microwave sources abound) no matter how sensitive it is. In any event, I can only vouch for what I have. -Neal -- 55. It's a law we can do away with. UUCP: {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!neal
ben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder) (11/12/85)
>>2. Is there a way to insure that your radar detector is working?? > >Best way I know of is to find an airport. The radars usually cause my Passport >to alert. Aircraft radar is not on the police band, and should not trigger your detector. The two bands that the FCC licences for police radar are also available for what are called 'Field disturbance sensors'. These are most frequently used in automatic door openers and burglar alarms. I suspect there is a field disturbance sensor near the airport that is causing false readings. My favorite place to test my Passport is the local Pathmark. From the highway, the signal is strong enough to light just one l.e.d. If I pull into the lot the signal increases, at the door all eight l.e.d.s are lit and the unit emits a solid tone. Ben Broder ..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben ..ihnp4!princeton!moncol!ben
mikey@techsup (11/21/85)
> A radar detector is a transmitter as well as a reciever, just like your > FM radio. It generates a signal of the same frequency internally and > compares it to the incomming signal from o'll smokey. A radio does the same > thing. That is why cheap radar detecters like radio shack models set off > other models. If someone has a sensitive reciever they can detect your > detector. Don't blame Radio Shack, blame any of the single conversion units. Radio Shack doesn't even sell a single conversion unit anymore. All the units that are superhet are either dual or tripple conversion. The el-cheapo unit is a simple diode detector. Dual and tripple conversion have the advantage of the oscillators not being in the band your trying to detect, hence that won't trigger other 'good' detectors as you drive down the highway. Also, the detectors sweep the band from one end to the other without loosing much sensitivity. The diode detectors also radiate, but not as bad as some of the first superhets. The worst offender of the transmitter detectors was the autotronics, which was sold by Radio Shack as well as a host of other sources, but it was also one of the more sensitive units to come along until the Cincinatti microwave stuff kicked everybody in the can and opened up a whole new market. Don't blame the shack, they just sell what people want. mikey at bbimg N1DVJ
btl@mtunf.UUCP (Bernie Lee) (11/21/85)
> >>2. Is there a way to insure that your radar detector is working?? > > > >Best way I know of is to find an airport. The radars usually cause my Passport > >to alert. > > Aircraft radar is not on the police band, and should not trigger your > detector. The two bands that the FCC licences for police radar are > also available for what are called 'Field disturbance sensors'. These > are most frequently used in automatic door openers and burglar alarms. > I suspect there is a field disturbance sensor near the airport that > is causing false readings. > > My favorite place to test my Passport is the local Pathmark. From the > highway, the signal is strong enough to light just one l.e.d. If I > pull into the lot the signal increases, at the door all eight l.e.d.s > are lit and the unit emits a solid tone. > > Ben Broder > ..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben > ..ihnp4!princeton!moncol!ben *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** I have a question concerning the comment on airport radar frequency. Can you please explain to me why my ESCORT (pre-STOP) goes off every time I go by Newark airport on the NJ TPK. I would like to get rid of that problem, since sooner or later the troopers are going to learn that it is the best place to hide. Also, on your comment concerning the pathmark checking routine, PASSPORT suppose to have the STOP circuitry that prevents frequency pollution. Isn't it?
ben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder) (11/21/85)
>I have a question concerning the comment on airport radar frequency. >Can you please explain to me why my ESCORT (pre-STOP) goes off >every time I go by Newark airport on the NJ TPK. I would like to >get rid of that problem, since sooner or later the troopers >are going to learn that it is the best place to hide. > >Also, on your comment concerning the pathmark checking routine, >PASSPORT suppose to have the STOP circuitry that prevents >frequency pollution. Isn't it? I suspect that your Escort is set off by the large number of security alarms and door openers at the airport. There is no way you can prevent this-- both motion sensors and police radar share the X band. About the STOP circuit: This is a filter to screen out pollution from other radar detectors. It was introduced when Escort owners started to complain that Radio Shack detectors were causing their units to false. Cincinnati Microwave discovered that these radar detectors put out a different looking signal than police radar. So the STOP circuit was developed. The door opener at the Pathmark emits a simple X band frequency- it looks like police radar, not like a polluting detector. Ben Broder ..ihnp4!princeton!moncol!ben ..vax135!petsd!moncol!ben
alvitar@madhat.UUCP (11/25/85)
Note: I have never designed a speed detector, radar detector, or radar jammer; therefore, this information is obviously second hand and may not be correct. [ In <633@mtung.UUCP> Jonathan Clark writes: ] > I'll ask it again: Is the transmission from a radar gun modulated > in any way so that the gun can distinguish the signal it sent out > from the signal coming back in IN THE SAME BAND? > [...examples of extraneous noise...] Some police radars use a heterodyne technique to compute speed based on the doppler shift in the received signal. The transmit signal (Tx) is mixed (beat) with the received signal (Rx) resulting in signal components which are the sum (Tx+Rx) and difference (Tx-Rx) of the original frequencies. Filters are used to reject all but the Tx-Rx component, which is fed into a frequency counter. Speed is supposedly proportional to the resulting count. This technique improves the accuracy of the gun, but does not necessarily help reject other signal sources. Most other sources will differ enough from the transmitted frequency that the value from the frequency counter will be noticeably bogus. Again, filtering may be used to reject wide differences but I suspect that a second interfering police radar could be close enough to generate an incorrect yet reasonable reading (not to mention an unfair citation). -- Live: Phil Harbison, DataVision Mail: 3409 Grassfort Dr., Huntsville, AL 35805 Uucp: {ihnp4,clyde,sdcsvax}!akgua!madhat!alvitar Quot: "186,000 miles/second isn't just a good idea, its the law!" [OMNI]
4342bob@homxb.UUCP (R.DEMARCO) (12/16/85)
I know this subject has come up many times before, but at the time I had no use for a radar detector. Well, now I do. I remember that everyone agreed that the best radar detectors are the Escort and the Passport. They are also over $200 each. Are there any that are nearly as good or at least good enough that are a little less expensive ( <= $100)?? Bob DeMarco ...homxb!4342bob
marc@haddock.UUCP (12/19/85)
Some friends of mine and I got together with and compared side by side on our own dashes the 3 different radar detectors; the passport by Escort, the Whistler spectrum remote, and the BEL micro-eye vector. It was our opinions after traveling through 4 states (ME,MA,NH,NY) across a 2 week period having encountered 9 positive radar traps ranging from the interstate highways to small NH town roads, that the BEL product was the prefered. The reasoning behinding this is as follows: 1) The BEL product had far better discrimination against false alarms while not delaying in the event of a real police radar. 2) The BEL product had much better warning against the X-band signal (which is pretty well outdated now). 3) The BEL product had the same warning against the K-band signals that we encountered (no instant-on) as the Whistler, but was better then the Escort. The things that we decided that we didn't like about the BEL product was as follows: 1) No capability to turn off the lights during operation (handy for while traveling through CN where they strongly frown on detectors). 2) Hiding the box was not as easy as the remote version of the Whistler unit. 3) Custom wiring was not easy (try to figure a way to plug in 3 detectors all at once into 1 lighter socket...). Both the Whistler and the Escort were easily attached to the fuse box. Good luck deciding and please let us know your decision and why when you finally make one. -- Marc, WB1GRH