just curious, radar

[msshearin]

the ole painted lines or fixed object,it's hard to beat a stop watch.

 

you got it!!!!!!!!

[Sailor]

They used to use aircraft here. The lines are still there but they have quit using the plane...too expensive. I know there must be scatter that is picked up by the detector because all three times it went off we were in heavy traffic and none of the patrol cars were in sight.

[Stache]

I prefer the simpler solution, mark one eyeball. Since I ride at or near the speed limit, I can detect the radar equipped patrol cars by eye as I ride past them. No tickets, either.

[joboo]

ROFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Guys I retired 2 years ago for the NCSHP and used one type of radar or another for 30 yrs to write 1000's of speeding citations no 10s of 1000's and one thing I will tell you for sure!!!!!!!!RADAR stands for radio detection and ranging its just a radio transmitter and receiver and will no hurt anyone. And the BIG truth.....if I stopped a vehicle for speeding with a warning in mind and there was a radar detector in the vehicle........INSTANT CITATION I figured the detector was his/her chance for a warning.......just saying ;)oh and don't forget about VASCAR......no signal......

 

I was trying to answer Sailor's question without too much detail, but the effects of RF radiation are real. RF stands for Radio Frequency as in transmissions from a radio transmitter, whether the frequency is in the microwave range or not. Like I said the first microwave ovens were called RADAR ranges. The WHO (World Health Organization) was asked for a report due to the increasing number of lawsuits from law enforcement agencies concerning the increase in testicular cancer of those using portable radar units. The WHO issued the following statements:

 

RF fields have been studied in animals, including primates. The earliest signs of an adverse health consequence, found in animals as the level of RF fields increased, include reduced endurance, aversion of the field and decreased ability to perform mental tasks. These studies also suggest adverse effects may occur in humans subjected to whole body or localized exposure to RF fields sufficient to increase tissue temperatures by greater than 1°C. Possible effects include the induction of eye cataracts, and various physiological and thermoregulatory responses as body temperature increases. These effects are well established and form the scientific basis for restricting occupational and public exposure to RF fields.

They indicated that the accepted level of exposure are also by a standard method of measurement:

Absorption of RF fields in tissues is measured as a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) within a given tissue mass. The unit of SAR is watts per kilogram (W/kg). SAR is the quantity used to measure the "dose" of RF fields between about 1 MHz and 10 GHz.

 

An SAR of at least 4 W/kg is needed to produce known adverse health effects in people exposed to RF fields in this frequency range.

 

Their conclusion was the the safety features built into portable radar units plus the fact that the power emissions are pulsed and low intensity posed no measurable health risks, however, the increase in reported cases should be a cause for further study.

 

To translate this into plain language, they found it was indeed a problem in laboratory subjects but that without the ability to measure active use in humans they relied on a measurement standard that said the device as designed should be safe.

 

I have a degree in Biomedical Engineering and one of the reasons I left the bioengineering field was issues like this. My company did medical legal consulting on devices that caused injuries as to whether the device was at fault or the operator. If we know a problem exists there is the burden of proof, however the rules prevent a definite conclusion in most cases. For example, we can't take a human, put a radar gun in their lap and see what happens, on the other hand we can't prove that it was the radar guns fault because there are no case studies with controls. Reminds me of a case I had where a technician working on portable x ray machines lost the ends of his fingers, they turned black and fell off. He sued the manufacturer because he said that it was a result of his "testing" to see if the beam was on by putting his fingers over the output tube. The result was he lost his case because the medical diagnosis was gangrene with an undetermined cause, the doubt was that it could have been caused by other things such as a cut from his tools and the environment in which he worked.

 

My suggestion to you mr retired NCSHP is not to laugh at other folks, it is possible they actually do know more about it than you. If you put that old X band gun in your lap, consider this your warning...make sure you get your annual checkups.

[msshearin]

I was trying to answer Sailor's question without too much detail, but the effects of RF radiation are real. RF stands for Radio Frequency as in transmissions from a radio transmitter, whether the frequency is in the microwave range or not. Like I said the first microwave ovens were called RADAR ranges. The WHO (World Health Organization) was asked for a report due to the increasing number of lawsuits from law enforcement agencies concerning the increase in testicular cancer of those using portable radar units. The WHO issued the following statements:

 

RF fields have been studied in animals, including primates. The earliest signs of an adverse health consequence, found in animals as the level of RF fields increased, include reduced endurance, aversion of the field and decreased ability to perform mental tasks. These studies also suggest adverse effects may occur in humans subjected to whole body or localized exposure to RF fields sufficient to increase tissue temperatures by greater than 1°C. Possible effects include the induction of eye cataracts, and various physiological and thermoregulatory responses as body temperature increases. These effects are well established and form the scientific basis for restricting occupational and public exposure to RF fields.

They indicated that the accepted level of exposure are also by a standard method of measurement:

Absorption of RF fields in tissues is measured as a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) within a given tissue mass. The unit of SAR is watts per kilogram (W/kg). SAR is the quantity used to measure the "dose" of RF fields between about 1 MHz and 10 GHz.

 

An SAR of at least 4 W/kg is needed to produce known adverse health effects in people exposed to RF fields in this frequency range.

 

Their conclusion was the the safety features built into portable radar units plus the fact that the power emissions are pulsed and low intensity posed no measurable health risks, however, the increase in reported cases should be a cause for further study.

 

To translate this into plain language, they found it was indeed a problem in laboratory subjects but that without the ability to measure active use in humans they relied on a measurement standard that said the device as designed should be safe.

 

I have a degree in Biomedical Engineering and one of the reasons I left the bioengineering field was issues like this. My company did medical legal consulting on devices that caused injuries as to whether the device was at fault or the operator. If we know a problem exists there is the burden of proof, however the rules prevent a definite conclusion in most cases. For example, we can't take a human, put a radar gun in their lap and see what happens, on the other hand we can't prove that it was the radar guns fault because there are no case studies with controls. Reminds me of a case I had where a technician working on portable x ray machines lost the ends of his fingers, they turned black and fell off. He sued the manufacturer because he said that it was a result of his "testing" to see if the beam was on by putting his fingers over the output tube. The result was he lost his case because the medical diagnosis was gangrene with an undetermined cause, the doubt was that it could have been caused by other things such as a cut from his tools and the environment in which he worked.

 

My suggestion to you mr retired NCSHP is not to laugh at other folks, it is possible they actually do know more about it than you. If you put that old X band gun in your lap, consider this your warning...make sure you get your annual checkups.

 

we never used the hand held radars sir we used the kr11 and k55 and golden eagle dash mounted units sir,that face to the front and one mounted to the rear deck facing out the windshields..........and in ref to the original question the beam is so dispersed by the time it gets past the hood or trunk of the patrol car THERE IS NO DANGER of a motorist being effected by it!

Edited June 12, 2012 by msshearin

[Sailor]

What a wealth of information available here. It is great. And now for you LEO's one I bet you haven't heard before. A blond just got pulled over in a radar trap just outside Vancouver. She was doing 115Kph in a 50KPH zone. She accused the officer of targeting blonds. Claimed he would not have pulled her over if she were brunette. Because she was going over twice the speed limit she not only got a fine but had her car impounded for 7 days. True story.

[Sailor]

I have noticed that the electronic roadside display which shows your speed are accurate when I am in a vehicle but are wildly inaccurate when I am on my bike. So how accurate are the police radars when it comes to bikes? Any study been done on that?

[msshearin]

going that fast how could he have even told what color her hair was????

[msshearin]

I have noticed that the electronic roadside display which shows your speed are accurate when I am in a vehicle but are wildly inaccurate when I am on my bike. So how accurate are the police radars when it comes to bikes? Any study been done on that?

 

the radar transmits the beam,it bounces off of a car,truck,motorcycle etc and is reflected back to the antenna.The larger the object the more of the beam is reflected back.So a 18 wheeler can be detected a lot further away than a motorcycle for instance. But the accuracy would be the same. On a bike or in a corvette you just have to be a lot closer to be clocked.....Also if you are on a bike and an 18 wheeler is 1/4 mile behind you it will more than likely clock the truck.....

[dacheedah]

While I was at the Police School of Staff and Command, at Northwestern, I had to write a staff study on police traffic radar. It came up when several Indiana Troopers developed some cancers and one of our people, who often rested his gun on his left arm while running it developed skin cancer right where he rested the gun. The end result is that it has strong potential for the end user ( officer ) and virtually none to the public. It looses it's strength very quickly, one half is lost between the antenna and the front of your squad. Just like an xray limited exposure now and then won't hurt you but an xray tech with constant exposure is at an increased risk.

 

It does not always grab the larger vehicle and some of these stories are based on old radar technology. In the old days if I had a bike at 55 driving with a car down the road at 65 , depending on the gun you were using you could move the gun you could see reflected speeds, ie gun would show 65, 65, 55, 65. Adjusting the aiming point slightly would confirm who and what speed, it would also be obvious that this car is gaining. Todays Radar units are better designed and some have features to increase the power (range ) or decrease it, filter out noise and discriminate much better.

 

I agree with my brother LEO Msshearin and our training is to use the gun to validate the speed. If you sit with an officer he / she should be able to give you a close estimate of speed and it is something we did with rookies in training. Tell me the speed and then use the radar, you should be in the habit of testing the radar with a tuning fork before and after each stop and note it on your sheet and any citations. If I wasn't positive I would not stop a violator and I was usually 15 and over on citations, because I hated court. Our Judges would not accept a citation for under 10 over and didn't like them at 10 and be careful if you testify that you can tell the speed a car was going X mph, you may be putting on a live court demonstration if the judge allows it and if you do you better be on your A game ( Happened to me ).

 

In this day and age where our every movement is tracked, if you run a GPS and can access the track, you can use it as a defense in court. I will remind you that if the speed limit is 30 and you are asked by a prosecutor how fast you were going and you admit to driving 32, 35 ... you are guilty of speeding. Drive reasonably and be strait with the LEO's and you will serve yourself well. . .

[Dano]

Of course, if you're riding your 1st gen with all the plastic on there, you are SAFE from being nailed with an old style point type radar gun! I know, I've been shot at by a side-of-the-road motorcycle cop less than 35' away from me, he shot at me from head-on to my sides as I passed by, I was doing 50 in a 35 zone, but he just started shaking his head when I rode by him!!!! (Of course, he was on a Hardley, no way to catch me!!)

 

My best story on having a 1st gen..... too many angles for a good return to the radar gun

 

2nd gens have that metal shield across the front, doesn't help ya anymore......

[msshearin]

while i was at the police school of staff and command, at northwestern, i had to write a staff study on police traffic radar. It came up when several indiana troopers developed some cancers and one of our people, who often rested his gun on his left arm while running it developed skin cancer right where he rested the gun. The end result is that it has strong potential for the end user ( officer ) and virtually none to the public. It looses it's strength very quickly, one half is lost between the antenna and the front of your squad. Just like an xray limited exposure now and then won't hurt you but an xray tech with constant exposure is at an increased risk.

 

It does not always grab the larger vehicle and some of these stories are based on old radar technology. In the old days if i had a bike at 55 driving with a car down the road at 65 , depending on the gun you were using you could move the gun you could see reflected speeds, ie gun would show 65, 65, 55, 65. Adjusting the aiming point slightly would confirm who and what speed, it would also be obvious that this car is gaining. Todays radar units are better designed and some have features to increase the power (range ) or decrease it, filter out noise and discriminate much better.

 

I agree with my brother leo msshearin and our training is to use the gun to validate the speed. If you sit with an officer he / she should be able to give you a close estimate of speed and it is something we did with rookies in training. Tell me the speed and then use the radar, you should be in the habit of testing the radar with a tuning fork before and after each stop and note it on your sheet and any citations. If i wasn't positive i would not stop a violator and i was usually 15 and over on citations, because i hated court. Our judges would not accept a citation for under 10 over and didn't like them at 10 and be careful if you testify that you can tell the speed a car was going x mph, you may be putting on a live court demonstration if the judge allows it and if you do you better be on your a game ( happened to me ).

 

In this day and age where our every movement is tracked, if you run a gps and can access the track, you can use it as a defense in court. I will remind you that if the speed limit is 30 and you are asked by a prosecutor how fast you were going and you admit to driving 32, 35 ... You are guilty of speeding. Drive reasonably and be strait with the leo's and you will serve yourself well. . .

 

very well said sir!!!!!!

[msshearin]

Of course, if you're riding your 1st gen with all the plastic on there, you are SAFE from being nailed with an old style point type radar gun! I know, I've been shot at by a side-of-the-road motorcycle cop less than 35' away from me, he shot at me from head-on to my sides as I passed by, I was doing 50 in a 35 zone, but he just started shaking his head when I rode by him!!!! (Of course, he was on a Hardley, no way to catch me!!)

 

My best story on having a 1st gen..... too many angles for a good return to the radar gun

 

2nd gens have that metal shield across the front, doesn't help ya anymore......

 

plastic reflects radar just like metal sir.....its a solid surface......just saying

[Dano]

plastic reflects radar just like metal sir.....its a solid surface......just saying

 

If you haven't noticed on a 1st gen MK1, there are hardly ANY straight vertical surfaces on which to correctly reflect the signal wave from a radar gun. (unless you can get a shot returned from the headlight)

 

My dad was an auxiliary Ohio State Highway Patrol officer since '69 till 95, he schooled me on this

[etcswjoe]

Ok i was going to keep quite but the ET in me has to say something I know trouble maker. Fiberglass and plastic is pretty much transparent to RF that is why they make radomes out of it, however most paints are metalic based and that is what the RF energy bounces off of on your vehicle plus the metal behind it. When we have a radome painted you have to use a special epoxy based paint so the RF energy will go through.

[Flyinfool]

I just need to get some of the radar absorbing paint the the military uses to hide from radar.........

[msshearin]

I clocked a 10 speed bicycle once dude.....24 miles per hour.....beam bounced off of the rider and front of bike. The only thing I couldn't get a return signal on was a B1 bomber that did a fly over at Charlotte Motor Speedway one year......NOTHING....always wondered of there radar warning system lit up...

[msshearin]

If you haven't noticed on a 1st gen MK1, there are hardly ANY straight vertical surfaces on which to correctly reflect the signal wave from a radar gun. (unless you can get a shot returned from the headlight)

 

My dad was an auxiliary Ohio State Highway Patrol officer since '69 till 95, he schooled me on this

 

rider,headlight,mirrors,front of front tire helmet,crash guards etc etc

[msshearin]

corvettes early Nissan z car and the old TR7 and 8s are hard to clock though.....the shape.

[dacheedah]

It really doesn't take that much signal to return to give a reading, more wishful thinking. Can't tell you how many crotch rockets I clocked at a distance and the profile don't get much smaller than that.

The really funny thing is that the parent company makes a new radar, next their subsidiary makes a really good radar detector that will detect it. New and improved will always be there to take your cash. Only option is slow down and enjoy life or take the risk and accept the consequences. Sometimes it's fun to beat the man out of a few miles per hour. Just ride safe

[msshearin]

AMEN to riding safe sir.....

[Flyinfool]

Police radar can pick up a model airplane that is mostly balsa wood and plywood, covered with plastic film, and not much metal at all, doing 170 mph. A model airplane coming right at you has very little frontal area and NO flat surfaces facing the radar. Local LEOs occasionally stop at our flying field and join in the fun.

Radar can also pick up a baseball coming in at around 100mph, just watch a game on TV. But then I do not know if they add something to the ball to help the gun pick it up.

 

I clocked a 10 speed bicycle once dude.....24 miles per hour.....beam bounced off of the rider and front of bike. The only thing I couldn't get a return signal on was a B1 bomber that did a fly over at Charlotte Motor Speedway one year......NOTHING....always wondered of there radar warning system lit up...

 

Obviously not, or they would/could have neutralized the threat...........

[msshearin]

Police radar can pick up a model airplane that is mostly balsa wood and plywood, covered with plastic film, and not much metal at all, doing 170 mph. A model airplane coming right at you has very little frontal area and NO flat surfaces facing the radar. Local LEOs occasionally stop at our flying field and join in the fun.

Radar can also pick up a baseball coming in at around 100mph, just watch a game on TV. But then I do not know if they add something to the ball to help the gun pick it up.

 

 

 

Obviously not, or they would/could have neutralized the threat...........

 

lol I know right........

[Pam]

Radar Units used in sporting events usually have a very low frequency somewhere in the 10525 htz range, the newere modes are to fast and have a much higher frequency

[Sailor]

On the ships I was on the radar will not show a human or fiberglass, or wood. All it shows is the engine. It can be tuned down to pick up a beer can but not a kayak with someone in it. That is why we call them speed bumps. It will pick up the water on a kayak blade or on plastic or wood.