Ask LEO a question

[AbNo]

imported post

I'm going to have to back Para on this...

Weather, especially fog and snow, as well as something as simple as temperature change can alter a received signal.

This was pretty common in the evenings at PSAB, when we had to adjust the TRC-170 dishes up and down every morning and evening.

And radar guns would have their already comparatively weak signals weakened/altered even more by bad weather than a larger system. Plus, a TRC is specifically designed to deal with HIGH signal loss.

If you want a quick and dirty on it, here's a short article on Troposcatter.
http://www.westgeorgia.org/nars/abttropo.htm

 

[HankT]

imported post

para_org wrote:

********Here is the crux of the matter: ***** -> There CAN BE distortion that makes the numbers generated by the receiver WRONG. And this is OFTEN weather based. (IF you are TRULY interested I am willing to explain why this is the case in more detail. But you have to be nice as well as attentive. I am not just going to go into sufficient detail to make this illuminating for you if you are not really willing to learn something.)

Tell it brother. The student has to be ready...


para_org wrote:

BTW I DESIGNED these kinds of setups, and you appear to have been trained as a user. You were not, obviously, trained as an engineer that made *and* kept these systems working or you would not have been so simplistic about what was actually going on with police radar equipment and specfically the characteristics of the reflected wave as received.

Since you probably know, I will ask this question. It seems to me that radar enforcement activities decline in intensity at night. I've always thought that this might have something to do with either the equipment capability or with the (reduced) user capability somehow. Or the tandem.

If there is, in fact, less radar enforcement after dark, is it because of receiver/human capability diminishment at night or is it just operations scheduling or something like that?

 

[AbNo]

imported post

Maybe fewer cops work at night where you live?

Perhaps you're not seeing as many cops because they are harder to see in the dark?

Or it could be something as simple as they tend to patrol more than play tax collector.


Sunlight interferes with radio waves a tiny bit. Moreso near dawn and dusk, when trying to get a reading in the direction of the sun. (RF receivers don't like to catch rays)

If anything, that would make it more useful at night, as opposed to during the day.

 

[para_org]

imported post

I am going to reply to both AbNo AND HankT in this one post.

AbNo ...you seem to have an EXCELLENT grasp on things brother. And many thanks on 'covering my back' when the 'stuff' flew here !!

HankT... AbNo is right about night time use. The equipment is fine if there are no weather issues or dawn/dusk issues and things of that nature.

BUT you are correct in your assumption that user errors can more easily creep into consideration at night, and mainly because it is both a user aimed system AND because the user is responsible for making sure that there are no reflection errors from objects that are much better seen during the day.

To be specific, police in various areas have turned to light technology in an attempt to use the less error prone technology. And they do this because of successful court challenges to the misuse of the older radar technology.

EVEN more to the point: My personal experience is that cops consider the newer technology to be perfect and without usage induced errors. Of course this is nonsense just like the poop we read here about how police radar is "24/7".

ALL technology can be misused in the right set of circumstances and NONE of it works perfectly.



Question for our expert LEO229 if he is still hanging around. (He likes to both ask and answer questions, so I will offer up this question to him

Can you correctly indicate SPECIFICALLY why cops are wrong in thinking that the newer light-based technology is not error prone ? It is a VERY simple answer, one line in fact. Since you are trained, I am wondering if you can answer that.


(No fair anyone else answering this for LEO229......at least not for a day or so...o.k. ?)

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Since you probably know, I will ask this question. It seems to me that radar enforcement activities decline in intensity at night. I've always thought that this might have something to do with either the equipment capability or with the (reduced) user capability somehow. Or the tandem.

If there is, in fact, less radar enforcement after dark, is it because of receiver/human capability diminishment at night or is it just operations scheduling or something like that?

Actually... we run radar and laser day and night. How can you possibly know what the officer is his car in complete darkness. Just because you do not see him checking speeds.. does not mean it is declining.

Darkness has nothing to do with readings. Radar sends out a radio signal that is not light dependant. Laser shoots out a beam of light that does not require any outside light source.

Mist, rain,and snow can cause the DISTANCE to be limited... but it is still possible to obtain an accurate reading. Weather will NOT alter the actual speed being displayed.

At best.. you will not get a reading at all.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

para_org wrote:

I am going to reply to both AbNo AND HankT in this one post.

AbNo ...you seem to have an EXCELLENT grasp on things brother. And many thanks on 'covering my back' when the 'stuff' flew here !!

HankT... AbNo is right about night time use. The equipment is fine if there are no weather issues or dawn/dusk issues and things of that nature.

BUT you are correct in your assumption that user errors can more easily creep into consideration at night, and mainly because it is both a user aimed system AND because the user is responsible for making sure that there are no reflection errors from objects that are much better seen during the day.

To be specific, police in various areas have turned to light technology in an attempt to use the less error prone technology. And they do this because of successful court challenges to the misuse of the older radar technology.

EVEN more to the point: My personal experience is that cops consider the newer technology to be perfect and without usage induced errors. Of course this is nonsense just like the poop we read here about how police radar is "24/7".

ALL technology can be misused in the right set of circumstances and NONE of it works perfectly.



Question for our expert LEO229 if he is still hanging around. (He likes to both ask and answer questions, so I will offer up this question to him

Can you correctly indicate SPECIFICALLY why cops are wrong in thinking that the newer light-based technology is not error prone ? It is a VERY simple answer, one line in fact. Since you are trained, I am wondering if you can answer that.


(No fair anyone else answering this for LEO229......at least not for a day or so...o.k. ?)

I can honestly say you have no idea what your talking about.

Radar is not lane selective so you need to be able to observe the speeding motorist and interpret the signals and readings you receive. At night, you can still use it but against multiple cars is a little more difficult. But when your the only car entering and exiting the beam... it is a done deal.

Laser is lane selective so during the day or night... the speed of your car.. and your car alone can easily be determined.

I cannot tell you something I do not believe. Cops do not believe the equipment is "not" error prone. They are aware that the calibration testing that happens before and after use as well as the startup diagnostic tests will confirm the machine was operating properly.

Furthermore.. using it during the day they can tell the readings are accurate bases on traffic they check.

We may favor the newer technology becauseit is lane selective and easier to use.

 

[para_org]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

para_org wrote:

I am going to reply to both AbNo AND HankT in this one post.

AbNo ...you seem to have an EXCELLENT grasp on things brother. And many thanks on 'covering my back' when the 'stuff' flew here !!

HankT... AbNo is right about night time use. The equipment is fine if there are no weather issues or dawn/dusk issues and things of that nature.

BUT you are correct in your assumption that user errors can more easily creep into consideration at night, and mainly because it is both a user aimed system AND because the user is responsible for making sure that there are no reflection errors from objects that are much better seen during the day.

To be specific, police in various areas have turned to light technology in an attempt to use the less error prone technology. And they do this because of successful court challenges to the misuse of the older radar technology.

EVEN more to the point: My personal experience is that cops consider the newer technology to be perfect and without usage induced errors. Of course this is nonsense just like the poop we read here about how police radar is "24/7".

ALL technology can be misused in the right set of circumstances and NONE of it works perfectly.



Question for our expert LEO229 if he is still hanging around. (He likes to both ask and answer questions, so I will offer up this question to him

Can you correctly indicate SPECIFICALLY why cops are wrong in thinking that the newer light-based technology is not error prone ? It is a VERY simple answer, one line in fact. Since you are trained, I am wondering if you can answer that.


(No fair anyone else answering this for LEO229......at least not for a day or so...o.k. ?)

I can honestly say you have no idea what your talking about.

Radar is not lane selective so you need to be able to observe the speeding motorist and interpret the signals and readings you receive. At night, you can still use it but against multiple cars is a little more difficult. But when your the only car entering and exiting the beam... it is a done deal.

Laser is lane selective so during the day or night... the speed of your car.. and your car alone can easily be determined.

I cannot tell you something I do not believe. Cops do not believe the equipment is "not" error prone. They are aware that the calibration testing that happens before and after use as well as the startup diagnostic tests will confirm the machine was operating properly.

Furthermore.. using it during the day they can tell the readings are accurate bases on traffic they check.

We may favor the newer technology becauseit is lane selective and easier to use.

Absolutely amazing.

You say I have no idea what I am talking about and then talk about the VERY SAME 'user aimed system errors" I , in part, spoke about and that HankT was observant enough to ask about.

I guess unless you say it in your own words, it just ain't so, even if it IS the same thing.

But I also spoke about some other considerations;

1 - MANY cops, and apparently you too, *DO* think that a system calibration and good aiming is enough preparation to avoid problems, but that is NOT all there is to it. Not by a long shot, and that was behind some of the other points AbNo and myself were discussing with you. Not only do you and other cops think what you stated above concerning error but as a group you all seem to also show the same dog-headedness to learning more about this tool they use.

To wit; Both AbNo and myself have attempted to begin an explanation of some of the other reasons why these systems can be inaccurate. Yet your response is to ignore the information we present and then ironically you say we do not know what we are talking about. (Sad really.)

2 - There *IS* a reason the light based systems share much in common with the microwave systems, both good and bad points, including their susceptibilty to errors other than calibration and aiming. I ask again; can you explain why in one sentence ?

(NO fair guys answering for LEO229.....!!)

P.S.... Since you have engaged in much name calling and other low-brow tactics, I think we all should be able to entitled to an answer. That is if it is not too much trouble for you.

P.P.S.... There is a very exact clue which will allow you to figure out the answer within the words of the question. <- This will allow you to research the answer if you are so inclined. It really is a BIG hint !! BUT it will require discernment and deductive reasoning skills to find it. You know, design and maintenance engineering skills...grin.

(No fair ANYONE ELSE, in letting LEO229 know about any specifics on the clue !!)

 

[kurtmax_0]

imported post

I hate the lasers. They make my radar(and laser, i suppose) detector screech like crazy and it scares me to death.... It's a totally different, and creepier sound than the radar sounds...

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

para_org wrote:

1 - MANY cops, and apparently you too, *DO* think that a system calibration and good aiming is enough preparation to avoid problems, but that is NOT all there is to it. Not by a long shot, and that was behind some of the other points AbNo and myself were discussing with you. Not only do you and other cops think what you stated above concerning error but as a group you all seem to also show the same dog-headedness to learning more about this tool they use.

To wit; Both AbNo and myself have attempted to begin an explanation of some of the other reasons why these systems can be inaccurate. Yet your response is to ignore the information we present and then ironically you say we do not know what we are talking about. (Sad really.)

2 - There *IS* a reason the light based systems share much in common with the microwave systems, both good and bad points, including their susceptibilty to errors other than calibration and aiming. I ask again; can you explain why in one sentence ?

#1 WE DO NOT CARE! The courts have already ruled that we are not required to know or even understand the internal workings of the device. We are only required to perform the checks and if the device says it is out of tolerance... we do not use it.

We also verify the device is reading properly by using tuning forks or a known distance check. If they read as required.. the device is OK. The units are also checked for calibration every six months by someone trained to do it.



#2 Rain will in fact cause the return signal to vary greatly in strength, thus causing a huge amplitude variation. The radar gun, however, only relies on the frequency of the returning signal as long as the strength is good enough to detect. No amount of reflection or abortion by rain, as long as it is moving slower than the car can cause an incorrect reading.



But again... I am not sure why you are on some kind of mission to educate me on this technology. I am not required to know anything you are talking about. When you get your speeding ticket.. you can "tell it to the Judge" and I will watch his eyes glaze over and finally say "Sir, I find you guilty!. LEO.. what's his record like?" :lol:

 

[AbNo]

imported post

That level of complaceny scares me.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

AbNo wrote:

That level of complaceny scares me.

And???

Scared I will stop you for not speeding? :lol:

 

[AbNo]

imported post

Not really. You'd have to act WAAAY out of your jurisdiction to catch me.

 

[para_org]

imported post

Well.....actually I have been to court and have beaten the tickets. My record is clean for the past several decades in fact.

All because of cops with the same 'complacent' attitude about their skill-sets.

One judge was impressed enough with my presentation to explain to the cop how disappointed she was in him.

Aren't you proud of me LEO229 ?

 

[AbNo]

imported post

Ok, that was just silly.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

para_org wrote:

Well.....actually I have been to court and have beaten the tickets. My record is clean for the past several decades in fact.

All because of cops with the same 'complacent' attitude about their skill-sets.

One judge was impressed enough with my presentation to explain to the cop how disappointed she was in him.

Aren't you proud of me LEO229 ?

I sure am.... You should be proud of your skills.

I have seen people get off for the dumbest reasons...

I did my job.. I do not determine innocence or guilt.. I leave that up to the Judge. :lol:

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

AbNo wrote:

Not really. You'd have to act WAAAY out of your jurisdiction to catch me.

Pass thought Arlington some time.... and go down a hill... they love to set up at the bottom of the hills.

 

[para_org]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

para_org wrote:

Well.....actually I have been to court and have beaten the tickets. My record is clean for the past several decades in fact.

All because of cops with the same 'complacent' attitude about their skill-sets.

One judge was impressed enough with my presentation to explain to the cop how disappointed she was in him.

Aren't you proud of me LEO229 ?

I sure am.... You should be proud of your skills.

I have seen people get off for the dumbest reasons...

I did my job.. I do not determine innocence or guilt.. I leave that up to the Judge. :lol:

But you DO determine quilt or innocence when your write a ticket. That ticket represents your assigning blame for breaking a law, which could only take place if YOU believed that one had been broken. You are not saying maybe, as you are ready to testify in court that you observed a 'violation'.

And you most certainly share a belief *with the courts* that this equipment is capable of a high level of accuracy with the low-level of training you have received.

It is *very* sad that you come here and try to say different.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

para_org wrote:

But you DO determine quilt or innocence when your write a ticket. That ticket represents your assigning blame for breaking a law, which could only take place if YOU believed that one had been broken. You are not saying maybe, as you are ready to testify in court that you observed a 'violation'.

And you most certainly share a belief *with the courts* that this equipment is capable of a high level of accuracy with the low-level of training you have received.

It is *very* sad that you come here and try to say different.

Nope... the summons is only a promise to come to court and appear before the Judge.

The Judge then asks YOU if your guilty or not.... He does not ask me.

He will ask me to testify to what happened and what I observed. He NEVER asks me if you are guilty.

 

[para_org]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

para_org wrote:

But you DO determine quilt or innocence when your write a ticket. That ticket represents your assigning blame for breaking a law, which could only take place if YOU believed that one had been broken. You are not saying maybe, as you are ready to testify in court that you observed a 'violation'.

And you most certainly share a belief *with the courts* that this equipment is capable of a high level of accuracy with the low-level of training you have received.

It is *very* sad that you come here and try to say different.

Nope... the summons is only a promise to come to court and appear before the Judge.

The Judge then asks YOU if your guilty or not.... He does not ask me.

He will ask me to testify to what happened and what I observed. He NEVER asks me if you are guilty.

Regardless of what the judge may or may not ask me;

The ticket IS a summons true enough. BUT MUCH more importantly it is a summons to court to explain MY actions that YOU observed concerning the the breaking of a law.

YOUR testimony DOES determine quilt in cases where YOU used a radar gun unless someone with my skill set comes into court.

We both KNOW that. Why parade differently here ? Why speak in half-truths and skillfully learned subterfuge ?

To tell the WHOLE truth would engage our respect. As you have let things stand now your answers are becoming quite useless as they represent less than the WHOLE truth and, entirely too often, they are less than an HONEST account of things.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

para_org wrote:

Regardless of what the judge may or may not ask me;

The ticket IS a summons true enough. BUT MUCH more importantly it is a summons to court to explain MY actions that YOU observed concerning the the breaking of a law.

YOUR testimony DOES determine quilt in cases where YOU used a radar gun unless someone with my skill set comes into court.

We both KNOW that. Why parade differently here ? Why speak in half-truths and skillfully learned subterfuge ?

To tell the WHOLE truth would engage our respect. As you have let things stand now your answers are becoming quite useless as they represent less than the WHOLE truth and, entirely too often, they are less than an HONEST account of things.

Again... your way off base.

I do not determine guilt. The Judge will decide based on evidence and testimony. Why is this so hard for you to figure out.

I am not the Judge Dredd I pretend to be.