Talk:Radar speed gun

Apparent Link-spam
I have removed the current links in the links section since they appare to be spam based on:


 * All the links link a commercial web site
 * All the links link the SAME commercial website
 * All the links seem to be put up by “spammers” (i.e. each user history shows each User adds nothing but links to commercial websites.)

Wikipedia document on Spammy links:

''Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks.''

Halfblue 13:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 6 non-spammy links (some deleted by spammers) added. Last link is a blog put up by our old spammer buddies at Opticsplanet but it did have useful info - re: Other 5 links were generated from it. 69.72.7.128 13:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following link from the external links section: copradar - this is an intricate spam attempt by optics planet/radar gun. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or building link popularity. Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Thanks.

Governor x 25 February 2007


 * Unfortunately you edit history shows that you have some other agenda than just preventing spam. You constant removal of a link with no reason given (even after being asked to give a rational) and your removal of the notice about vandalism, your page blanking, and your recent vandalizing of links is painting you as a vandal/spammer. Halfblue 13:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look further into my editing you will notice that all of my edits (all topics) are to keep Wikipedia spam free. User 72.187.249.0 is the epitome of a spammer and continues to post links to cop radar. com which, if you click through that site you will discover links that direct traffic to optics planet and radar guns .com. I am only doing my part to ensure Wikipedia reamins an unbiased information source. Governor x 04 March 2007


 * The link seems to be valid re:WP:EL
 * The link contains no excessive advertising (I can't even spot the buried link you speak of)
 * The link contains further information.
 * The link has information that is free to view (there seems to be other sections that require a password but it does not effect the information presented.


 * Every time you edit you remove the "Be advised" notice/warning about possible spammer/vandal activity at the top of that section. You have also vandalized the link. You fail to give any valid reason to remove the link. You have removed the link several times under other IPs. You have vandalized other user pages and blanked your own in an attempt cover your history. You have been reverted by many users... not just the one you singled out as a "spammer". I have left a warning at your user talk page. If you continue in this fashion I will nominate you for a block. Halfblue 15:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Click contents link at bottom, then click links to other sites. You will notice that both sites aforementioned are indeed listed high on the list. THIS IS AN INTRICATE SPAM TECHNIQUE USED TO PROMOTE THESE SITES. Please advise. Also, I figured the spammer was putting in the vandal advisory. I will replace that. Governor x 05 March 2007


 * The advisory was originaly put up by me under my IP. Halfblue 14:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The following information appears as if it has been lifted directly from the advertising or sales literature of an organization engaged in the sale of commercial products, which seems inappropriate unless verifiable with information from a separate non-biased or authoritative source (Patent and Trademark office, university, IEEE, ...). This is a product advertisement because the paragraph lacks a reference from an organization that is separate from a company that sells actual products mentioned by the article.Nanoatzin (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The radar speed gun was invented by Bryce K. Brown of Decatur Electronics in March 1954,[2] and was first used in Chicago, Illinois in April 1954.[citation needed] Patrolman Leonard Baldy was the first officer to issue a speeding ticket using the new device.

Radar speed-gun manufacturers may also wish to vandalize technology disclosures that reveal limitations in commercial radar products that may reduce sales volume.Nanoatzin (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Add section (or link) to automated radars?
Automated radars, in terms of traffic control, combine use of speed-detection radar with digital cameras, as well as data links to vehicle registration databases, to generate speeding fines which are simply mailed to the vehicle owner.

While the idea has not been implemented in the U.S.A. on a wide basis, they are common in France. The following website provides a simple summary of the mechanism. External link: http://www.controleradar.org/en/technologie.html

There is also an FAQ page (in French) at http://www.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/infos-ref/regles/csa/faq-csa.html

Would it be appropriate to add a section about this topic to this page, or should it be on its own page with a link here?

Typofixer76 00:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just my passing two cents. Wikipedia seems to value action over debate (i.e. no need to ask first to do something). I would make it its own page if the name/term seems Notable WP:NN 69.72.7.141 20:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Inventor of Radar Gun: I do not want to misquote someone who passed away, so please research this topic. A former mathematics professor, Kaj L. Neilsen told our calculus class that he had invented the Radar Gun. He also told the class that he was one of the three principal mathematicians for NASA that worked out the mathematics of rondeveus in space (during the Gemini program). The last place that he taught was Butler University and he died sometimes in the 1990's. If there is any error in these quotes it is mine alone, a former student.

Radar Gun Must Be Stationary?
Ip user 66.206.149.200 edited the article to say that a radar gun "must" be stationary to measure speed. Is this true? Can someone provide a link proving its veracity? Cpuwhiz11 (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've wondered this question myself and having traveled from Missouri to Colorado numerous times in the past year alone I have never been pulled over for speeding by an officer passing from the opposite direction (they are allowed to make guesses at speed, so that would nullify the need for using a radar while traveling on the same side of a highway). I have passed numerous officers using radar guns in all three states on the side of the road (each one unsuccessful :D ). Legally it would seem dangerous to allow officers to use their one of their hands for holding the gun while not paying attention to the road in front of them. I would guess that officers would actually be penalized for attempting such a stunt.


 * During these drives I was wondering if radar guns were less effective depending upon the angle of the car's trajectory path to the officer. After talking to a former officer in a Denny's in Kansas, he informed me that the radar guns available today allow officers to pickup accurate readings at angles, such as being off the side of the road or up on a bypass. --75.171.141.169 (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Limitations
Mobile and hand-held radar have significant limitations, so I added that section to the article to correct an omission. I also expanded the radar detector area and added some credible references. I hope this finds everyone well.Nanoatzin (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Weasel words
"It is suggested that interference in the RADAR band by cellular phones, transmitters of other kinds, power wires, high tension wires, signs and even stationary walls can create erroneous readings."

"it is suggested" is weaselly; this claim should be reworded (with documentation, ideally) or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom239 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This sounds like nonsense from someone who doesn't understand electronics trying to get out of a ticket.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.67.33 (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

While the words "suggested " are used, the facts are that courts have seen and noted that "interference in the RADAR band by cellular phones, transmitters of other kinds, power wires, high tension wires, signs and even stationary walls can create erroneous readings" So it is suggested that you alter that part of the wording. The fact that the writer is not sure of his facts has caused the weasel words to be used. But the problems are pure physics, which most people are NOT aware of, and some would like to dismiss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.137.93 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been operating radar speed measuring equipment since 1975, and am a fully qualified instructor (with International recognition) in this equipment. I currently use a Genesis II Directional unit. It is capable of accurately measuring the speeds of vehicles while I am stationary or in motion - whether traveling in the same or opposite directions. It is capable of discrimination of directions. It cannot display a target speed that is in excess of 315km/h (200 mph). Therefore claims that aircraft can create readings in the 400 mph range are erroneous and at best urban myth. The example used of a Corvette doing 50 mph at short range and a truck going much faster at a range of 2000M causing an officer to issue improper process is also erroneous. Basic training teaches that radar speed measurement is corroboration and not primary evidence of speed. Primary evidence of speed is the officer's estimate of the vehicles speed. Speed estimation is part of the officer's training. The photo of the Brazilian radar unit also looks suspiciously like a Megatech Ultralight Laser unit and not radar. Interference created by electric wires, transmitters and phones do not give erroneous readings. All modern units efficiently disregard this interference and do not display readings. The interference is quickly disregarded by the unit in the presence of a valid target. Interference will only reduce the range of the radar unit NOT the accuracy.

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia
The 15:24, 9 June 2010 Loadmaster version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia--Wing (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of radar guns in sport
I've just copy edited this article for the GOCE. Very interesting, but I was wondering whether any editor might like to include a section on the use of radar guns in sport, since it's briefly mentioned in the lead paragraph with reference to baseball but then never followed up. I only mention this as Wimbledon (tennis tournament) is going on at the moment, as well as England v Australia cricket in the UK, and ball speeds are routinely given in all these games when they are televised. Richard asr (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

amplitude modulation
A limitation not discussed so far is the sensitivity of a simple radar gun receiver to amplitude modulated signals. See Direct-conversion receiver for a discussion the technical details; the point being that an amplitude modulated input at the original frequency will produce a tone at the mixer output that the receiver can not distinguish from a Doppler shifted signal. The easiest demonstration of this for the skeptical is to recall that a tuning fork is commonly used to check a radar gun calibration; no part of the tuning fork is moving at 60 mph or whatever the calibration speed is; the tuning fork is simply reflecting back into the receiver a fluctuating copy of the emitted signal, that is, it is reflecting back an amplitude modulated signal. It is well known by users of these devices that other objects than can produce time-varying reflections, such as a moving cooling fan in a running motor, can produce similar errors. --AJim (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Commercial site
Reference 5 (Radar detectors FAQ. Whistler Group. Retrieved 2010-09-17) goes to the main page of a commercial website (i.e., it is the wrong page). Although it has a Help/FAQ on a different page on that website, that page contains, mostly, information for its own products. Although the FAQ does contain generic info about radar guns, such could be found on the web without having to go to a commercial site. It should be changed to a more appropriate FAQ or relevant descriptive web page, or removed. I do not feel comfortable doing either, and, as such, leave it to somebody else (n.b., a similar issue was brought up at the top of this "talk" page). Skaizun (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Safety issues
There is no mention of potential dangers of speed guns to the wielder. For example, in decades past, police, who used radar guns, regularly, allegedly came down with cancers of the fingers, hand, crotch (when held at waist level), face (when held at eye level), etc. Curiously, I can find no references to such on the web. Skaizun (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)