[Shotimes] Radar/Laser Detectors

[Donald Mallinson]

Yes real world results are a nice thing, but one isolated 
example when people were probably on an adrenaline rush 
already, and at high speed, in totally uncontrolled 
conditions, that were not repeated...... does NOT make a 
test, at least not one that I would take to the bank.

Based on that type of "test" we have a LOT more examples of 
Val 1's  alerting way before many other brands.  If you 
don't understand that these on-highway tests just aren't 
scientific, then there is no hope for any agreement or real 
communication.

In the service, if some highly controlled tests were never 
performed, you would most certainly never get "real world" 
results.  Would you care to take any piece of armed hardware 
into a situation where you are going to be shot at before it 
has been tested somewhere else than "in the field"?   Takes 
BOTH kinds of tests before I would want to put my life on 
the line, or yours. And the real world test is almost always 
worthless without some truly controlled test situations to 
find problems and tweak the hardware/software.

Also, I never said you had to have the extra range, but if 
your argument is you want the best protection, then isn't 
more and better....well, better?  I have said several times, 
that there are a bunch of good to decent detectors that will 
do the job, if all you want to know is IF there is radar in 
the area.  I have always been able to determine WHERE and 
HOW FAR the threat is away with a better unit than with a 
cheap one.

You want to tell the pilot in a jet that just knowing there 
IS radar is just as good as also knowing WHERE and HOW FAR 
it is?

No way.

I have run scanners a lot, they are part of a set of tools 
for informed highway driving.  As Ron would point out, I use 
them more for fun than to avoid the law, but a scanner is a 
lot less useful than your own skills or a CB, or even a 
detector.  It also requires a lot more attention, which is 
why I turn mine on on long trips, helps keep the mind alert. 
But it certainly isn't a really reliable tool for knowing 
where the radar traps are.  Better for knowing where the 
wrecks/fires are.

I enjoyed the back and forth.  But I think we have beat this 
horse to death, or at least to the point of diminishing returns.

Don Mallinson

D Potter wrote:
> Oh, I know the rules of propogation and detection very well. I was
> commenting on what seem to be a contradiction, though, in that the more
> expensive valentine type units are superior, yet a test consisting of two
> exact same cars, side by side on a road, would not be considered a valid
> test. When I was in the service, the only thing we counted were the real
> world tests.
> 
> Now, if you are getting at the fact that "holes" exist in a propogated
> wave's coverage due to reflections and impedances, you are correct, but the
> problem with this test is that the cars were moving (at quite a fast rate)
> and any "gaps" in the signal would have been passed on the order of parts of
> a second. Even if you were to block one car from the signal, it should
> stilll pick up reflections coming off cars in the other lane.
> 
>  Yes, quality makes a difference, which is why I suggest Whistler after
> ripping mine apart. Is a valentine better? Probably. Do I really need the
> 30% extra detection distance the V1 provides? Two miles is plenty of
> distance for me. Does the guy/gal that just tosses their detector up on the
> dash "wherever" need a V1? Most likely.
> 
> For a little more than the cost of a V1 you can get a half-decent scanner
> and always know when a cop is around by picking up their trunking signal. Of
> course, they could be up to 5 miles away, and nowhere near your road, but
> you'd know they were there as long as their comms were up and running.