Advocacy & Safety - Toy radar guns

How do you judge a cars speed? In the area where I ride the speed limit is 30mph, whenever a car passes me I ask myself if he hit me would he kill me. So some guys drive so fast I definitely know I couldnt survive getting hit by them, others drive at a speed that seems real survivable and others are in an in-between area where I'm not sure if I could survive it.

Do those little toy radar guns work?

I've heard they're pretty accurate. Keep in mind you'd haffta be standing still or factor in your speed on the bike.

If I were you'd I'd spend the brainpower figuring out how to make sure I don't get hit, rather than worrying about whether I'd survive it if they hit me.

Speed makes a big difference in survival rates in an accident, but people get killed being hit at 10 mph... I'd rather avoid the hit altogether! :)

The toy ones don't work really well and are limited in range. You can buy a decent radar gun for about $100. I bought one of these to clock the speed of my R/C cars and it works quite well. http://www.opticsplanet.net/busspeedrads.html
With these consumer level units, you need to be standing still and as in line as possible with your targets plane of travel for an accurate reading so I don't know who practical it would be unless you're planning on standing on a street corner radaring motorists. :)

Or you can always use the tried and trued method of distance over time = speed.

Bad grammar aside, the OP's post reads as if he figures that an impact speed of "X" mph - regardless of vehicle, type of collision, cyclist speed, or secondary traffic - will result in a survivable collision, yet, death would supposedly be inevitable if the vehicle's speed was X+1.

Theoretically, this would suggest that one will survive a collision with a steamroller at 5 mph, but not a collision with a scooter - or any other motorized vehicle - at 6.

Reminds me of an anti-cyclist poll to drum up cleverly skewed statistics about road danger based on speed limits.

-Kurt

Bad grammar aside, the OP's post reads as if he figures that an impact speed of "X" mph - regardless of vehicle, type of collision, cyclist speed, or secondary traffic - will result in a survivable collision, yet, death would supposedly be inevitable if the vehicle's speed was X+1.

Theoretically, this would suggest that one will survive a collision with a steamroller at 5 mph, but not a collision with a scooter - or any other motorized vehicle - at 6.

Reminds me of an anti-cyclist poll to drum up cleverly skewed statistics about road danger based on speed limits.

-Kurt

Cudak888, are you the same Cudak888 on youtube?

Bad grammar or not, anyway you look at it I wouldn't want to get hit by Tiger pulling out of his driveway.


I'm not talking about colliding, I'm talking about getting HIT. I hope 'collide' ain't a euphemism for 'hit' because they are two different things.

How do you judge a cars speed? In the area where I ride the speed limit is 30mph, whenever a car passes me I ask myself if he hit me would he kill me. So some guys drive so fast I definitely know I couldnt survive getting hit by them, others drive at a speed that seems real survivable and others are in an in-between area where I'm not sure if I could survive it.

Do those little toy radar guns work?
What do you plan to do with a radar gun, working or not? How would it make you be (or feel) any safer while cycling?

What do you plan to do with a radar gun, working or not? How would it make you be (or feel) any safer while cycling?

He can aim it like Spike Bike, perhaps?

-Kurt

He can aim it like Spike Bike, perhaps?

-Kurt
Would make as much sense as pulling a toy gun out if accosted by armed robbers; no good results can be expected.

Would make as much sense as pulling a toy gun out if accosted by armed robbers; no good results can be expected.

That's self explanatory. It's been so since the first post.

Now if this was a study in regards to motorist speed down a certain street depending on the presence of someone with a radar gun clocking their speed - that would be a bit more logical.

-Kurt

That's self explanatory. It's been so since the first post.

Now if this was a study in regards to motorist speed down a certain street depending on the presence of someone with a radar gun clocking their speed - that would be a bit more logical.

-Kurt
Logic? Whatz dat? This is a place for ranting, pontifications, legal speculation, Bicycling Brand Conventional Wisdom/Political Correctness and wishful thinking; not some weird concept like Logic.

Logic? Whatz dat? This is a place for ranting, pontifications, legal speculation, Bicycling Brand Conventional Wisdom/Political Correctness and wishful thinking; not some weird concept like Logic.

Ding, ding, ding - we have a WINNER!

-Kurt

If I were you'd I'd spend the brainpower figuring out how to make sure I don't get hit, rather than worrying about whether I'd survive it if they hit me.

Speed makes a big difference in survival rates in an accident, but people get killed being hit at 10 mph... I'd rather avoid the hit altogether! :)

Very good point. It is always better (but sadly not always possible) to be somewhere other then where "Bubba" is point his weapon, err car and NOT get hit by "Bubba." Then trying to figure out how fast "Bubba" can be traveling and still "safely" hit ya.

As regardless of the speed that "Bubba" is traveling at it's going to hurt to get hit by a car.

Even if the toy radar gun isn't effective, mounting it on your bike may have the benefit of making those cars with radar detectors slow down.

Speedo

Even if the toy radar gun isn't effective, mounting it on your bike may have the benefit of making those cars with radar detectors slow down.

First sensible point made in favor of the darn things.

-Kurt

Even if the toy radar gun isn't effective, mounting it on your bike may have the benefit of making those cars with radar detectors slow down.

Speedo

What benefit?
1. Where in the world would any motorist pay the slightest attention to what a cyclist had mounted on his handlebars?
2. Slow down to what speed - the legal maximum? What difference would it make to any cyclist in the vicinity?

30 mph = 44 feet / second, that does not leave much room for error so the old rules being visible, and predictable while you ride are your best policy. I got one of those radar guns used off ebay, it was interesting for a day or 2. It does work, but you have to be right next to the traffic lane. It might help in training so a club might be able to justify owning one.

First sensible point made in favor of the darn things.

-Kurt

What kind of range do they have? What happens when/if it causes a multi-car pile up?

What happens when/if it causes a multi-car pile up?

Has a police radar gun caused a multi-car pile up due to motorists with radar detectors?

What makes you think that some beeping noise will automatically result in an automotive Armageddon?

-Kurt

What benefit?
1. Where in the world would any motorist pay the slightest attention to what a cyclist had mounted on his handlebars?
2. Slow down to what speed - the legal maximum? What difference would it make to any cyclist in the vicinity?

Well, the motorist with the radar detector would not know that it was a cyclist. They would only know that their radar detector was indicating that there was a Doppler radar operating in the area.

I would be happy if everyone going 40 in a 30 MPH zone slowed down to 30 to pass me.

Speedo

What kind of range do they have? What happens when/if it causes a multi-car pile up?

The advantage of using the radar gun as I suggest is that you are using the gun as a beacon as opposed to a radar. So what matters is the 1/r^2 loss vs. the 1/r^4 loss for a radar. (edit: r being range /edit)

I don't really know about the legalities if there were an accident. Lot's of security systems in buildings have Doppler motion detectors that trigger radar detectors. They don't seem to be worried about being sued.

Speedo

Has a police radar gun caused a multi-car pile up due to motorists with radar detectors?

What makes you think that some beeping noise will automatically result in an automotive Armageddon?

-Kurt

No, to the best of my knowledge there haven't been any. But don't the police usually deploy them in areas where one reasonably expects them to be deployed? I mean they aren't used on every road for a reason, right?

I mean think about it. Usually some sort of warning aside from brakelights suddenly lighting up in front of a car that there's something up? And again what kind of range do they have?

Well, the motorist with the radar detector would not know that it was a cyclist. They would only know that their radar detector was indicating that there was a Doppler radar operating in the area.

I would be happy if everyone going 40 in a 30 MPH zone slowed down to 30 to pass me.

Speedo

I would also be happy if every guy doing 40 in a 30 slowed to 30 to pass me. Some guys accelerate when they pass me, others just keep their speed, some take their foot off the gas and coast by, others take their foot off the gas and brake.

I rode with a buddy who lives in Mexico, he always does 70kph on this rural road where the limit is 30kph. It's a road outside a small national park, people live along that road and you often see local workers and kids on bikes, but my buddy just zooms through there every single time. I have thought about why he drives that way, but you know, he seems to be making a statement.

Toy radar guns work great on toy cars when mounted on a toy bicycle . . .
Geeeez!

And again what kind of range do they have?

I depends on the sensitivity of the radar detector, and how powerful the transmitter is. I just did a back of the envelope calculation, and a pretty wimpy transmitter can be seen by a pretty deaf receiver kilometers away. But these things are line of sight, that would probably be the limiting factor.

edit: To put it in perspective, think about how far away you can see 1 watt bike light at night. The bike light isn't doing much of the way of useful illumination at any kind of distance, but it can be easily seen. /edit

Speedo

The advantage of using the radar gun as I suggest is that you are using the gun as a beacon as opposed to a radar. So what matters is the 1/r^2 loss vs. the 1/r^4 loss for a radar. (edit: r being range /edit)

I don't really know about the legalities if there were an accident. Lot's of security systems in buildings have Doppler motion detectors that trigger radar detectors. They don't seem to be worried about being sued.

Speedo

This is true, this is true, resulting in how many false positives. And I'm sure that those areas learn where they are and learn to ignore the false positives that they get.

Which if ya stop and think about would probably make them a good spot to put a speed trap.

Also didn't some of the "older" automatic doors used to set 'em off?

I would be happy if everyone going 40 in a 30 MPH zone slowed down to 30 to pass me.



I would also be happy if every guy doing 40 in a 30 slowed to 30 to pass me. Some guys accelerate when they pass me, others just keep their speed, some take their foot off the gas and coast by, others take their foot off the gas and brake.

Why should a passing motorist slow down in the presence of a cyclist? What's the difference between a passing vehicle going 30 mph, rather than 40mph?

What difference does a slower speed make, as long as the passing motorist gives the cyclist sufficient lateral distance?

Why should a passing motorist slow down in the presence of a cyclist? What's the difference between a passing vehicle going 30 mph, rather than 40mph?

What difference does a slower speed make, as long as the passing motorist gives the cyclist sufficient lateral distance?

Have you taken a defensive driving course? This is what they teach in defense driving. Motorists should slow down in the presence of cyclists and peds because cyclists and peds are unpredictable. They should slow down and be prepared for any unexpected actions of the cyclist. I heard a story last week where a guy hit a drunken cyclist. He said he saw the cyclist was riding 'uneven' but didn't think twice about it and just kept driving like normal. As he was passing the cyclist the cyclist suddenly veered in front of him, he hit him. This driver didn't have the common sense to even prepare himself, even when he saw the dude riding 'uneven' he just kept riding like normal.

When you see children playing slow down. When you see toys in or near the street slow down. There's lots of lead foot drivers on here, I figured cyclists would be slow, careful drivers.

The dude who got a ticket for doing 35 in the 20mph school zone had the nerve to say, "20mph isn't fast". I felt like asking him if he'd rather have his daughter get hit by a man doing 35mph or by a man doing 20mph. Then the dude said, "Well, it's not like I meant to speed, it wasn't intentional, I was on the phone and didn't even notice the speed limit". Chilling.

Have you taken a defensive driving course? This is what they teach in defense driving. Motorists should slow down in the presence of cyclists and peds because cyclists and peds are unpredictable. They should slow down and be prepared for any unexpected actions of the cyclist.
Unless YOU are an unpredictable cyclist incapable of riding of riding in a straight line, why should a passing motorist's speed make the slightest difference to you as long as the lateral distance was sufficient?

Using your wacky rationale, a good defensive driver would never pass anybody because the slower vehicle or pedestrian might do something unpredictable and swerve laterally (no matter what the distance) into the defensive driver during the pass.

Why should a passing motorist slow down in the presence of a cyclist? What's the difference between a passing vehicle going 30 mph, rather than 40mph?

What difference does a slower speed make, as long as the passing motorist gives the cyclist sufficient lateral distance?

Maybe we aren't discussing the same point. I was speculating on the effect of a cyclist carrying a small transmitter that was transmitting in one of the police Doppler radar bands. A motorist with a radar detector would get an alarm from that detector and slow down.

A slower speed makes a difference because it gives the motorist more time to see the cyclist, and move laterally to avoid them. If I am poking along at my usual 15 MPH, then a motorist traveling at 40 MPH will have a 25 MPH closing speed. A motorist traveling at 30 MPH will have a closing speed of 15 MPH. I'd appreciate the motorist having that extra time.

(edit)One thing that I don't know anything about, and would probably be pretty important, is what the FCC would have to say about using a transmitter in this way. Falling afoul of the FCC might cause some serious grief.(/edit)

Speedo

Maybe we aren't discussing the same point. I was speculating on the effect of a cyclist carrying a small transmitter that was transmitting in one of the police Doppler radar bands. A motorist with a radar detector would get an alarm from that detector and slow down.

A slower speed makes a difference because it gives the motorist more time to see the cyclist, and move laterally to avoid them. If I am poking along at my usual 15 MPH, then a motorist traveling at 40 MPH will have a 25 MPH closing speed. A motorist traveling at 30 MPH will have a closing speed of 15 MPH. I'd appreciate the motorist having that extra time.
I'm sure you would "appreciate" it if no motorists passed you at all, but that hardly makes your wish in any way safety related. Expecting/encouraging/causing motorists to slow down for no significant reason other than earning a nervous cyclist's "appreciation" is not a safety issue but IMO is more related to an anti-motorist harassment scheme/dream.

Even if the toy radar gun isn't effective, mounting it on your bike may have the benefit of making those cars with radar detectors slow down.

Speedo

Great idea but how do you mount it to your bike?

Great idea but how do you mount it to your bike?

Depending on the size on top of a front or rear pannier rack, on one's helmet, or inside of a a pannier bag.

How big are they anyway? How heavy are they? What kind of runtime do they get. What are the FCC regulations concerning their use and operation?

I'm sure you would "appreciate" it if no motorists passed you at all, but that hardly makes your wish in any way safety related. Expecting/encouraging/causing motorists to slow down for no significant reason other than earning a nervous cyclist's "appreciation" is not a safety issue but IMO is more related to an anti-motorist harassment scheme/dream.

Perhaps we disagree on the what constitutes significant. I would say that encouraging a motorists to drive within the speed limit, would be a significant achievement. The extra time that a non-speeding motorist would have is significant. Clearly I am not the macho fearless biker that you are.

I wouldn't characterize this as generally anti-motorist, I don't have particularly anti-motorist leanings. Anti-speeder I'll admit to. Scheme/dream is a good characterization. I do admit to feeling a little glee about the idea of using technology to defeat the technology used by a lead foot driver to help him exceed the speed limit.

Speedo

What are the FCC regulations concerning their use and operation?

You can visit the FCC at http://www.fcc.gov/

The applicable regulations are in Part 15 - Unlicensed low power transmitters. They have specifically fined one company who made a police Doppler radar jammer. I would guess that if you had a complete system and were measuring speed that you would be legal. If you just had a transmitter, that might not go over so well.

Here's a sample product (http://speedtrac.org/speedchek2.htm). An interesting modification would be to compensate the reported speed for your speed, face the thing backward and be a moving speed display.

Speedo

I wouldn't characterize this as generally anti-motorist, I don't have particularly anti-motorist leanings. Anti-speeder I'll admit to. Scheme/dream is a good characterization. I do admit to feeling a little glee about the idea of using technology to defeat the technology used by a lead foot driver to help him exceed the speed limit.

Speedo
You have yet to explain how the speed of a passing vehicle that gives you sufficient clearance is relevant to your safety. You make a claim that a slower speed of an approaching vehicle gives them "extra time" to take appropriate action. Technically true, though how much "extra" time is needed by a motorist is debatable, and the effect on risk to the cyclist is even more questionable. IMO real world effect of this "extra" evaluation time on cyclists' safety is probably close to zero.

You have yet to explain how the speed of a passing vehicle that gives you sufficient clearance is relevant to your safety. You make a claim that a slower speed of an approaching vehicle gives them "extra time" to take appropriate action. Technically true, though how much "extra" time is needed by a motorist is debatable, and the effect on risk to the cyclist is even more questionable. IMO real world effect of this "extra" evaluation time on cyclists' safety is probably close to zero.

Your going in assumption seems to be that the motorist, regardless of their speed, is going to give you sufficient clearance. I don't see how you can assume that that will be true. I would think that that is more likely if the motorist had more time to evaluate the situation determine that they need to move to the left and then execute the maneuver to the left.

Are you of the opinion that the closing speed of the motorist is meaningless? At some point it has to matter. If you think that it doesn't matter with a motorist traveling 40 in a 30 zone, what about 45 in a 30 zone? 50 in a 30 zone, or 60 in a 30 zone? Around where I live the roads are somewhat windy. It would be hard for a motorist to stay on the roads at very high speeds. But 50 in a 30 zone is possible. At that speed the motorist has much less time to make the corrections necessary to pass a cyclist safely.

Speedo

You have yet to explain how the speed of a passing vehicle that gives you sufficient clearance is relevant to your safety. You make a claim that a slower speed of an approaching vehicle gives them "extra time" to take appropriate action. Technically true, though how much "extra" time is needed by a motorist is debatable, and the effect on risk to the cyclist is even more questionable. IMO real world effect of this "extra" evaluation time on cyclists' safety is probably close to zero.
I agree that the speed of a passing motorist makes little difference. But the speed of motorists doing things other than passing can have a major impact on cyclists, peds, and other motorists. I guess that if a radar emitter could slow them down, that would be pretty cool. But I doubt if there would be much practical effect in the real world.

<Snip>

But I doubt if there would be much practical effect in the real world.

Sadly, I think that that is the truth.

But I doubt if there would be much practical effect in the real world.
Dealing with the real world does not appear to be of much concern to the OP and others who prefer to discuss conjured unlikely what-if scenarios. See http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?605565-Toy-radar-guns&p=10083703&viewfull=1#post10083703

Dealing with the real world does not appear to be of much concern to the OP and others who prefer to discuss conjured unlikely what-if scenarios. See http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?605565-Toy-radar-guns&p=10083703&viewfull=1#post10083703

The OP asked a straight forward technology question. I posted speculatively about using a transmitter to spoof the user of a radar detector. The advances in size, power requirements, and effectiveness of these devices makes their use less unlikely all the time. I would agree that the specific accident type that they might help is a rare one (being struck from behind), but it is a bad one when it occurs.

So, who're the fools here? The people having a technology and legality discussion about a topic of interest? Or the person getting wound up because someone else is having a discussion about a topic that interests them?

Speedo

The OP asked a straight forward technology question. I posted speculatively about using a transmitter to spoof the user of a radar detector. The advances in size, power requirements, and effectiveness of these devices makes their use less unlikely all the time. I would agree that the specific accident type that they might help is a rare one (being struck from behind), but it is a bad one when it occurs.

So, who're the fools here? The people having a technology and legality discussion about a topic of interest? Or the person getting wound up because someone else is having a discussion about a topic that interests them?

Speedo
Technology, schmeckology; the issue is that you think forcing/tricking drivers into slowing down to pass somehow makes cycling safer. Cyclist safety comes from not being hit and lateral distance between vehicles of different speeds.
The silly person is the one who insists that there is some sort of relationship between motorist speed while passing and the risk of the passed cyclist being struck from behind.

Technology, schmeckology; the issue is that you think forcing/tricking drivers into slowing down to pass somehow makes cycling safer. Cyclist safety comes from not being hit and lateral distance between vehicles of different speeds.
The silly person is the one who insists that there is some sort of relationship between motorist speed while passing and the risk of the passed cyclist being struck from behind.

Wow! I'm surprised that you can't see the relationship. I explained it above, you seem to have ignored it. I'll explain it again here. Perhaps it is the case that the circumstances under which we ride are so different that our assumptions are different. On quite a few of my local roads, there isn't enough room to share the lane. I'm not saying that there isn't enough room between the center of the road and the fog line. I mean that there isn't enough room between the center of the road and the end of the pavement. If a driver approaching me from the rear does not move to the left, he/she will hit me even if I am as far to the right as I can go. So there is a very real relationship between the closing speed and the time available to the driver to see me, and either slow down or move to the left and pass. Having seen me and moved to the left I would agree that the speed that they actually pass doesn't matter. But the the closing speed does. For drivers driving at the speed limit, 25 or 30 depending on the road, there is plenty of time. For drivers exceeding the speed limit 40-45 MPH it's tight. If I had a magic device to slow down the speeders it would make cycling safer for me.

Speedo

A triggered RADAR detector may do more than slow people down - it may cause them to pay a little more attention to their surroundings for a few hundred yards.

Also, in my experience people who think there's a cop around don't just slow down to the posted speed, they slow down to less than the posted speed. It irritates me when I'm driving and have the cruise control set around the posted speed, and these idiots blow by me doing 15 over, then a mile later they think there's a cop around, and I have to pass them because they're doing 10 under, then a mile later they blow by me again.

I've leapfrogged people like this for miles at times - and they never figure out that they're just wasting gas, adding to wear on their vehicle, and raising their blood pressure.

Wow! I'm surprised that you can't see the relationship. I explained it above, you seem to have ignored it. I'll explain it again here. Perhaps it is the case that the circumstances under which we ride are so different that our assumptions are different. On quite a few of my local roads, there isn't enough room to share the lane. I'm not saying that there isn't enough room between the center of the road and the fog line. I mean that there isn't enough room between the center of the road and the end of the pavement. If a driver approaching me from the rear does not move to the left, he/she will hit me even if I am as far to the right as I can go. So there is a very real relationship between the closing speed and the time available to the driver to see me, and either slow down or move to the left and pass. Having seen me and moved to the left I would agree that the speed that they actually pass doesn't matter. But the the closing speed does. For drivers driving at the speed limit, 25 or 30 depending on the road, there is plenty of time. For drivers exceeding the speed limit 40-45 MPH it's tight. If I had a magic device to slow down the speeders it would make cycling safer for me.

Speedo

I understood your explanation the first time - slower speeds gives drivers "more" time to properly respond to a cyclist ahead. T We seem to disagree that 45mph drivers have insufficient time to respond to a cyclist they can see. I ride daily on a 55mph road and find that drivers have loads of time to respond because they can see me from a good distance due to my lighting display and/or bright clothes. Whether they do respond correctly is not a function of speed but rather driver attitude.

We both agree that the driver's speed is irrelevant during the actual pass as long as adaquate lateral distance is maintained.

I understood your explanation the first time - slower speeds gives drivers "more" time to properly respond to a cyclist ahead. T We seem to disagree that 45mph drivers have insufficient time to respond to a cyclist they can see. I ride daily on a 55mph road and find that drivers have loads of time to respond because they can see me from a good distance due to my lighting display and/or bright clothes. Whether they do respond correctly is not a function of speed but rather driver attitude.


If they don't have enough time to respond, then regardless of attitude, they can't respond.

Speedo

If they don't have enough time to respond, then regardless of attitude, they can't respond.

Speedo
If an inattentive, inebriated, and/or reckless driver is unable/unwilling to properly respond at 45mph, what makes you think "more time" will make a difference?

If an inattentive, inebriated, and/or reckless driver is unable/unwilling to properly respond at 45mph, what makes you think "more time" will make a difference?
I basically agree with you in this thread. But "more time" could be a factor in unusual circumstances, such as bad sight lines on a hill or curve.

As long as we're cooking up weird hi-tech schemes, maybe they should put little radio transmitters alongside the road on hills and curves that activate a warning signal in cars that are equipped with special radio receivers. Or at least build warnings into GPS systems.

If an inattentive, inebriated, and/or reckless driver is unable/unwilling to properly respond at 45mph, what makes you think "more time" will make a difference?

You've got them as inattentive, inebriated and unwilling, not me. Responding to a situation takes time, more time is just more time to observe, consider and then act.

Speedo

As long as we're cooking up weird hi-tech schemes, maybe they should put little radio transmitters alongside the road on hills and curves that activate a warning signal in cars that are equipped with special radio receivers. Or at least build warnings into GPS systems.

Yeah, the things that were crazy and outlandish to consider even a few years ago are looking like they are on the cusp of possibility today. You can imagine a system that would provide information to a vehicle about the positions and velocities of all the other road users. On potential conflicts it could issue a warning. If the false alarm rate could be kept low enough it would be useful.

Speedo