Pssst...your elitism is showing.

Actually, my intent was to advise folks of a means of conserving funds - to the tune of $1000 - $5000 per year per vehicle! --- Granted, the 'deposit' is forfeit should an 'at fault' claim against the 'holder' be sustained --- Thus it's a matter of 'betting' upon one's safe driving! $50k -- $300k (i.e. the minimum requirement in one's jurisdiction) is not an unreasonable 'stake' considering one is implicitly betting his/her life on same!!!

a confiscatory law allowing the police to seize that money without any crime, suspicion, or charges, until you prove it isn't "drug" money. Google, "Policing for Profit".

Guilty until proven innocent! -- And for all that the CJS wonders how they came to have an unfavorable reputation!?!?

Best regards
HP

 

I need a radar detector scheme that detect the signals of radar systems that have been installed beside the roads to specify speed limit of cars. The circuit must be able to detect the radar signals before it can lock on the car and specify its speed and alert me with a beep.
I want to use this circuit to notify me, when I am approaching a speed radar so that I can reduce my speed before pay a fine.

Of course I don't want use is as an illegal device, because I usually don't drive fast, but I am a forgetful person and sometimes don't look at the speed signs or don't remember where the speed radars have been installed!

It used to be the case that different areas used different radar bands, so you had to make sure you had all the bases covered.

Some forces use pulsed laser - if you're going wideband, you'll have to find some way to fill the terahertz gap.

 

Actually, my intent was to advise folks of a means of conserving funds - to the tune of $1000 - $5000 per year per vehicle! --- Granted, the 'deposit' is forfeit should an 'at fault' claim against the 'holder' be sustained --- Thus it's a matter of 'betting' upon one's safe driving! $50k -- $300k (i.e. the minimum requirement in one's jurisdiction) is not an unreasonable 'stake' considering one is implicitly betting his/her life on same!!!

HP I say @#12 is just saying some ppl don't have enough ready funds to put on deposit like that? So how would you advise them to beat usuristic indemnity fees?

 

I need a radar detector scheme that detect the signals of radar systems that have been installed beside the roads to specify speed limit of cars...

After you build/buy the radar detector, you will find they use lidar.

...The circuit must be able to detect the radar signals before it can lock on the car...

And how do you expect to reverse time ? When the speed measuring signal is detected by your device, your car speed has been measured.

...Of course I don't want use is as an illegal device, because I usually don't drive fast,...

Good boy !

 

HP I say @#12 is just saying some ppl don't have enough ready funds to put on deposit like that? So how would you advise them to beat usuristic indemnity fees?

As I understand your question, you are asking how the interest attendant to financing a surety (or a deposit with one's state comptroller, etc...) would likely compare with fees ensuant to an auto liability policy? --- An interesting question to be certain! --- Embarrassingly, I haven't a clue

All the best
HP

 

And how do you expect to reverse time ? When the speed measuring signal is detected by your device, your car speed has been measured

But then all EMR scatters -- As long as other vehicles{s} are (previously) targeted while the 'detector' is in range, I see no problem?

Best regards
HP

 

As I understand your question, you are asking how the interest attendant to financing a surety (or a deposit with one's state comptroller, etc...) would likely compare with fees ensuant to an auto liability policy? --- An interesting question to be certain! --- Embarrassingly, I haven't a clue

All the best
HP

If you are going to finance it, then let's say that you borrow $100,000 at 3% (and I don't know if you could get that low a rate on something like this or not). That would be $3000 a year in interest alone.

I currently have $300,000 liability on four vehicles plus comprehensive on two of them plus $50,000 zero-deductible medical on all of them. It is costing me $2004/yr total.

One way to look at this is that (leaving aside time-value of money), if we have just one full-limit claim in 150 years we are money ahead. Of course, it is unlikely that we will ever have claim that large, but the proper role of insurance is just that -- to protect against highly unlikely yet catastrophically expensive events. Claims in the $10k to $30k are quite common and it is not at all unreasonable to expect that we might well have a $20k at-fault event sometime in the next ten years, which would make our insurance a wash. A few years ago my wife slid into the community gate on the ice and that was an $6k claim (it just got taken out by someone else and that ended up being a $12k claim).

There's also the service factor to consider. If we have an at fault accident the other person merely files a claim with our insurance company and they handle everything. If we self-ensure, then we have to deal with all of the details working with the other person, their insurance company, the repair facilities (and we aren't going to get the discounts that the large insurance companies have worked out). If I have to spend just three days dealing with that instead of working on a project I have lost more than an entire year of insurance premiums cost.

 

But then all EMR scatters -- As long as other vehicles{s} are (previously) targeted while the 'detector' is in range, I see no problem?

Best regards
HP

But the amount of scatter received has to still be identifiable as a police radar AND above detection thresholds.

 

There's also the service factor to consider

Agreed! --- That consideration alone is perhaps the best argument for 'conventional' insurance!

But the amount of scatter received has to still be identifiable as a police radar AND above detection thresholds.

Indeed! It's largely down to 'range' -- and all the contingencies attendant thereto -- Seems the vital point is that while 'detectors' may "improve one's odds" - they're anything but a guarantee! --- Hence my lackluster solution (to wit: obey regulations)

Best regards
HP

 

Indeed! It's largely down to 'range' -- and all the contingencies attendant thereto -- Seems the vital point is that while 'detectors' may "improve one's odds" - they're anything but a guarantee! --- Hence my lackluster solution (to wit: obey regulations)

I adhere to the same solution but for a different reason.

I actually lost my license on points when I was twenty and, as it happened, that occurred on the day before I had to report for active duty. Clearly I had no problem with speeding back then. But in the 30+ years since I have gotten two tickets -- one of which was clearly a case of the cop's radar locking on to a car some distance behind me since he said I was doing 70 mph at the top of a long hill that, from long experience, I knew that the best I had ever been able to maintain was 50 mph by the time I got to the top, while the other one, which I just got last year, was for 4 mph because I got inattentive at 2 am.

So, although I wasn't particularly trying to, I had largely been following the rules for over fifteen years when, a few months after 9/11, I was talking to an Air Force major and he said something that made a real impact on me. He said that one day, after his radar detector warned him of an upcoming speed trap (which he slowed down in time to avoid getting caught), he realized what his actions said about him -- here he was a serving member of the military prepared to kill other people to defend the Constitution which, in essence, is defending the concept of the Rule of Law, and yet here he was demonstrating by his own actions that wasn't willing to live by the very concept he was willing to kill for. He said that that realization nearly made him physically ill and sickened him so much that he pulled off the first chance he got and threw his radar detector in the trash at a gas station.

As I pondered that conversation that night I realized that my attitude at the time, which was that I could speed as long as I was committed to pleading guilty to any legitimate ticket I got (the "do the crime, pay the dime" philosophy) and for which I patted myself on the back, really made a mockery of my time in defense of the Constitution. So from that day forward I have not intentionally sped (it certainly happens due to inattention, but as soon as I catch it I slow down) and I use the cruise control extensively -- and set it for the speed limit, not 3 mph over like many people do. The same goes for all laws of any kind -- though the time may come when too many blatantly unconstitutional laws are foisted upon us for me to maintain that policy.

Interestingly, I discovered something that went counter to what I had always believed. I had always believed that the overwhelming majority of people ignore speed limits, but I found that when I set my cruise control at the speed limit, I rarely got passed. On a trip out to China Lake (actually back from) I went over 400 miles (from getting on after fueling to getting off to fuel again) and was not passed by a single vehicle even though there were dozens that I could see behind me and as many ahead of me.

I've also, sadly, noticed that this is no longer the case.

 

I adhere to the same solution but for a different reason.

I actually lost my license on points when I was twenty and, as it happened, that occurred on the day before I had to report for active duty. Clearly I had no problem with speeding back then. But in the 30+ years since I have gotten two tickets -- one of which was clearly a case of the cop's radar locking on to a car some distance behind me since he said I was doing 70 mph at the top of a long hill that, from long experience, I knew that the best I had ever been able to maintain was 50 mph by the time I got to the top, while the other one, which I just got last year, was for 4 mph because I got inattentive at 2 am.

So, although I wasn't particularly trying to, I had largely been following the rules for over fifteen years when, a few months after 9/11, I was talking to an Air Force major and he said something that made a real impact on me. He said that one day, after his radar detector warned him of an upcoming speed trap (which he slowed down in time to avoid getting caught), he realized what his actions said about him -- here he was a serving member of the military prepared to kill other people to defend the Constitution which, in essence, is defending the concept of the Rule of Law, and yet here he was demonstrating by his own actions that wasn't willing to live by the very concept he was willing to kill for. He said that that realization nearly made him physically ill and sickened him so much that he pulled off the first chance he got and threw his radar detector in the trash at a gas station.

As I pondered that conversation that night I realized that my attitude at the time, which was that I could speed as long as I was committed to pleading guilty to any legitimate ticket I got (the "do the crime, pay the dime" philosophy) and for which I patted myself on the back, really made a mockery of my time in defense of the Constitution. So from that day forward I have not intentionally sped (it certainly happens due to inattention, but as soon as I catch it I slow down) and I use the cruise control extensively -- and set it for the speed limit, not 3 mph over like many people do. The same goes for all laws of any kind -- though the time may come when too many blatantly unconstitutional laws are foisted upon us for me to maintain that policy.

Interestingly, I discovered something that went counter to what I had always believed. I had always believed that the overwhelming majority of people ignore speed limits, but I found that when I set my cruise control at the speed limit, I rarely got passed. On a trip out to China Lake (actually back from) I went over 400 miles (from getting on after fueling to getting off to fuel again) and was not passed by a single vehicle even though there were dozens that I could see behind me and as many ahead of me.

I've also, sadly, noticed that this is no longer the case.

All said and done it's fair enough! -- Observance of a veritable handful of reasonable regulations seems little enough to require in exchange for the degree of liberty afforded US residents via the fortuitous combination of an extensive highway system, a large land area, inexpensive vehicles, low fuel costs (even at the worst of times), and, of course, the provisions of the "Privileges and Immunities Clause" - One need only contrast the ridiculous over-regulation of federally administered transportation services with current highway codes to apprehend the equity of the latter!

Kudos on your integrity!

Best regards
HP

 

But then all EMR scatters -- As long as other vehicles{s} are (previously) targeted while the 'detector' is in range, I see no problem?

Best regards
HP

There is a problem. Drivers trying to outsmart police officers that make their living by daily catching speeders and know all and more about proper and smart lidar operation techniques than you can imagine. ( They have more adrenaline to catch you than you to evade them )

----> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIDAR_speed_gun

 

But then all EMR scatters -- As long as other vehicles{s} are (previously) targeted while the 'detector' is in range, I see no problem?

Best regards
HP

As long as your sensor is at least as sensitive as theirs, the beam only has to make a one way trip to get to you - for them, it has to get to you and all the way back.

 

There is a problem. Drivers trying to outsmart police officers that make their living by daily catching speeders and know all and more about proper and smart lidar operation techniques than you can imagine. ( They have more adrenaline to catch you than you to evade them )

----> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIDAR_speed_gun

As long as your sensor is at least as sensitive as theirs, the beam only has to make a one way trip to get to you - for them, it has to get to you and all the way back.

...And for all that --apart from anything else-- observance of regulations is simply more practical -- Especially in consideration of the fact that reduction of one's TTG by as little 1/4 requires 'eyeball conspicuous' speeding - it hardly seems worth courting the 'ire' of the 'authorities' - to say nothing of safety and liability issues!

Best regards
HP

 

As long as your sensor is at least as sensitive as theirs, the beam only has to make a one way trip to get to you - for them, it has to get to you and all the way back.

But you have to consider that their sensor knows exactly where and when to look and exactly what to look for -- that gives them the ability to have extremely high gain right where it counts.

 

All said and done it's fair enough! -- Observance of a veritable handful of reasonable regulations seems little enough to require in exchange for the degree of liberty afforded US residents via the fortuitous combination of an extensive highway system, a large land area, inexpensive vehicles, low fuel costs (even at the worst of times), and, of course, the provisions of the "Privileges and Immunities Clause" - One need only contrast the ridiculous over-regulation of federally administered transportation services with current highway codes to apprehend the equity of the latter!

Kudos on your integrity!

Best regards
HP

Just don't run out of polish for your goody_two_shoes, HP! Do you come to full attention and salute at sight of police officers too? If that's what comes with maturity then my reckless ways might just spare me a fate _worse_ than death!

 

Just don't run out of polish for your goody_two_shoes, HP! Do you come to full attention and salute at sight of police officers too? If that's what comes with maturity then my reckless ways might just spare me a fate _worse_ than death!

Oh, @Aleph(0).......

Speaking of salutes:




TTFN
HP

 

Oh my. That has multiple meanings depending on the geography. I'll assume the worst.

 

Oh my. That has multiple meanings depending on the geography. I'll assume the worst.

Legend has it: The French boasted they'd cut the bow string fingers off any English archers they captured.

As the surrender monkeys were being marched off to the prison camps - the English archers defiantly demonstrated they still had both bow string fingers.

 

Oh, @Aleph(0).......

Speaking of salutes:
View attachment 103776



TTFN
HP

HP Tnx for making point for me Your goody_two_shoe manners won't let you give all American one fingered salute