Radar Detectors

[Funky_Catskills]

I experimented with Waze (in concert with my radar detector) on a long trip from FL to NJ back in January.

I think most folks already realize this, but the results were that Waze was completely and wholly insufficient to use in lieu of a radar detector. Better suited for things like traffic accidents & info, but even then, I find the green, yellow, red GOOG traffic lines to be sufficient.

I find waze to be helpful while also using the radar detector...

 

[Funky_Catskills]

ALthough I used it in NJ going to visit my Mom and you may be right about NJ it wasnt as useful as it seems to be on 87 and 84.....

 

[steamboat1]

Never use computers when driving. Been driving over 40 years. You guys are nuts. Good luck when the satelites go down. Anyone know how to read a road map anymore?

 

[Hawkshot99]

Never use computers when driving. Been driving over 40 years. You guys are nuts. Good luck when the satelites go down. Anyone know how to read a road map anymore?

I know how to. I also know that there are far easier, and more accurate/current methods than a paper map.

 

[steamboat1]

I know how to. I also know that there are far easier, and more accurate/current methods than a paper map.

Says the guy driving up the railroad tracks

 

[BenedictGomez]

I know how to. I also know that there are far easier, and more accurate/current methods than a paper map.

Yup. Not sure about any logic that somehow sees GPS & paper maps as mutually exclusive capabilities.

 

[Hawkshot99]

Says the guy driving up the railroad tracks

Huh?

 

[MadMadWorld]

I experimented with Waze (in concert with my radar detector) on a long trip from FL to NJ back in January.

I think most folks already realize this, but the results were that Waze was completely and wholly insufficient to use in lieu of a radar detector. Better suited for things like traffic accidents & info, but even then, I find the green, yellow, red GOOG traffic lines to be sufficient.

Radar detectors are useless against LIDAR which is used more and more frequently these days. Waze in conjunction with a radar detector might be helpful though.

 

[Domeskier]

The internet tells me that some state troopers are required to be able to estimate a car's speed within 3 miles per hour as part of their training. I assume this is mostly a way to help trainees decide which cars to point the radar at, but are there any states in the NE where a visual estimate would hold up in court?

 

[BenedictGomez]

Radar detectors are useless against LIDAR which is used more and more frequently these days.

I keep hearing people say this, and actually I feel like I've heard people say this for over 10 years now (maybe even longer), and despite the repetition, in my considerable experience with detection, it never seems to be true.

Most police don't even have it, and of the ones that do sometimes claim it's a P.I.T.A. to use so they don't bother (not to mention, it cant be used during any sort of inclement weather, even light fog).


EDIT: I'd also argue that it's not entirely "useless" against LIDAR even when in use, so long as you're not the first victim in the given area.

 

[Hawkshot99]

The internet tells me that some state troopers are required to be able to estimate a car's speed within 3 miles per hour as part of their training. I assume this is mostly a way to help trainees decide which cars to point the radar at, but are there any states in the NE where a visual estimate would hold up in court?

If the officer has gone and been "calibrated" then yes. Basicaly them taking a bunch of training and testing. The gun would be used just to back up what they have gauged you at.

 

[Domeskier]

If the officer has gone and been "calibrated" then yes. Basicaly them taking a bunch of training and testing. The gun would be used just to back up what they have gauged you at.

Interesting. I assume it takes an officer longer to estimate a car's speed visually than it does using radar or laser so if you spot them soon enough you can perhaps take "evasive" measures....

 

[MadMadWorld]

The internet tells me that some state troopers are required to be able to estimate a car's speed within 3 miles per hour as part of their training. I assume this is mostly a way to help trainees decide which cars to point the radar at, but are there any states in the NE where a visual estimate would hold up in court?

There is no hard line number. The officer must visually identify the vehicle, and the generally accepted practice is to estimate the speed limit. If the reading is way off from their estimate they are not supposed to pull the car over because this generally means that the radar needs to be recalibrated or it got the reading from another vehicle. Most officers will not bother to pull you over if they only get a visual estimate because if someone contests it they will have it thrown out or at the very least have it significantly reduced. If you are an asshole to the officer, he will definitely stick it to your ass with other violations like failure to keep right, lane change, or seat belt so be nice!

I keep hearing people say this, and actually I feel like I've heard people say this for over 10 years now (maybe even longer), and despite the repetition, in my considerable experience with detection, it never seems to be true.

Most police don't even have it, and of the ones that do sometimes claim it's a P.I.T.A. to use so they don't bother (not to mention, it cant be used during any sort of inclement weather, even light fog).


EDIT: I'd also argue that it's not entirely "useless" against LIDAR even when in use, so long as you're not the first victim in the given area.

I don't even know where to begin none if what you said is even remotely true. In Massachusetts, each of our barracks has at least 2-3. They are all handheld units because LIDAR can not be used from a moving vehicle since the beam needs to be aimed at the target.

Your statement about not being able to use LIDAR in bad weather is inaccurate. Radar loses its accuracy with precipitation but the units these days have come a long way and can really be used in most conditions. LIDAR works in any environment....at night, in the rain, underwater. Oceanographers and Navy do some amazing things with the technology.

And a radar detector is useless vs LIDAR for a number of reasons but you have to understand what causes the radar detector to emit a sound when a officer is using radar in the area. Even if you had something to detect a LIDAR it's a waste of money because a LIDAR gun is only in use when the officer points the gun at the vehicle and squeezes the trigger. If you can react and slow your vehicle down at the speed of light I'm impressed. The Waze app would be more useful in this scenario.

The problem with LIDAR is that although it works just fine through the windshield of a cruiser, it is easier to get a reading from outside. Because of that it usually requires 2 officers to coordinate. If you do get a LIDAR ticket, don't bother fighting it. These things are extremely accurate and I've never heard of one being thrown out.

 

[Domeskier]

If you are an asshole to the officer, he will definitely stick it to your ass with other violations like failure to keep right, lane change, or seat belt so be nice!

Uh-oh - I am barely able to suppress my belligerent and confrontational nature when conforming to the heightened standards of decency applicable to anonymous internet interactions. How bad can jail be, really?

 

[MadMadWorld]

Uh-oh - I am barely able to suppress my belligerent and confrontational nature when conforming to the heightened standards of decency applicable to anonymous internet interactions. How bad can jail be, really?

I'm sure it's not that bad. But if you get pulled over by a statie in MA don't mention you know MadMadWorld. You might get the Freddie Gray treatment

 

[Domeskier]

I'm sure it's not that bad. But if you get pulled over by a statie in MA don't mention you know MadMadWorld. You might get the Freddie Gray treatment

That's the guy from Queen right? If the treatment comes with a pair of super tight cutoff jean shorts, next year's spring skiing outfit is going to be divine!

 

[x10003q]

The internet tells me that some state troopers are required to be able to estimate a car's speed within 3 miles per hour as part of their training. I assume this is mostly a way to help trainees decide which cars to point the radar at, but are there any states in the NE where a visual estimate would hold up in court?

This is a joke. There is no way to tell how fast a car is going by your eye. You might be able to tell that a car is slower or faster than the posted limit if you were familiar with the location and perpendicular to the traffic, but no way you can tell the speed. Guessing will not hold up in traffic court.

 

[x10003q]

There is no hard line number. The officer must visually identify the vehicle, and the generally accepted practice is to estimate the speed limit. If the reading is way off from their estimate they are not supposed to pull the car over because this generally means that the radar needs to be recalibrated or it got the reading from another vehicle. Most officers will not bother to pull you over if they only get a visual estimate because if someone contests it they will have it thrown out or at the very least have it significantly reduced. If you are an asshole to the officer, he will definitely stick it to your ass with other violations like failure to keep right, lane change, or seat belt so be nice!.

This is nonsense. If you are aiming a lidar unit you can not also be estimating speed. It is also almost impossible to estimate the speed of a car at the shallow angle (as close to straight on) you need to make sure the lidar is accurate due to cosine error.

I don't even know where to begin none if what you said is even remotely true. In Massachusetts, each of our barracks has at least 2-3. They are all handheld units because LIDAR can not be used from a moving vehicle since the beam needs to be aimed at the target.

Your statement about not being able to use LIDAR in bad weather is inaccurate. Radar loses its accuracy with precipitation but the units these days have come a long way and can really be used in most conditions. LIDAR works in any environment....at night, in the rain, underwater. Oceanographers and Navy do some amazing things with the technology. .

Weather does affect the lidar units. Some have a precipitation setting that shuts off the unit at closer than 250 ft. The next time I am driving underwater I will keep my detector on.

And a radar detector is useless vs LIDAR for a number of reasons but you have to understand what causes the radar detector to emit a sound when a officer is using radar in the area. Even if you had something to detect a LIDAR it's a waste of money because a LIDAR gun is only in use when the officer points the gun at the vehicle and squeezes the trigger. If you can react and slow your vehicle down at the speed of light I'm impressed. The Waze app would be more useful in this scenario..

The width of a beam at 1000 ft is about 4 feet. A small movement by the officer while pulling the trigger can make the beam sweep over multiple lanes giving an inaccurate reading and also setting off the detector.

The problem with LIDAR is that although it works just fine through the windshield of a cruiser, it is easier to get a reading from outside. Because of that it usually requires 2 officers to coordinate. If you do get a LIDAR ticket, don't bother fighting it. These things are extremely accurate and I've never heard of one being thrown out.

Most lidar manufacturers do not recommend shooting through windows due to the reduced accuracy (glass refraction, glass coatings, dirt and/or precipitation on the glass). That means most officers will shoot thru an open window. That also means dealing with cold/heat and rain/snow directly due to the open window. While the lidar units themselves work at night, there are no lidar units with night scopes. Aiming and IDing a target at night is very difficult. The cops that I know hate lidar units. It is too much work and too much weather exposure especially when compared to a fixed mount radar unit.

 

[BenedictGomez]

I don't even know where to begin none if what you said is even remotely true.

The irony of the bolded above, is that almost nothing you said is remotely true.

In fact, you packed a numerically impressive number of incorrect statements into that post, which I'd point out, except I see x10003q has already done so.


The only minor point I'd add to x1003q's post, is that LIDAR is rarely used at night in non-urban settings, and when it is, it realistically needs to be used from much shorter distances (eliminating one of its' key advantages over Radar) due to the fact that human beings have human eyes, rather than hawk eyes.

EDIT: Though reading it again I see that's what he's getting at with scope/aiming, so he actually covered that too.

 

[BenedictGomez]

The cops that I know hate lidar units. It is too much work and too much weather exposure especially when compared to a fixed mount radar unit.

Which is exactly why I think they're not used anywhere near as much as they could be.