Radar Detectors

[Airwaves]

So in advance of the victory celebration WinnFabs and others are planning since they expect the senate will go along with their "solution in search of a problem" and expenditure of funds that the Marine Patrol doesn't have, does anyone know what band/freq the radar guns that the Marine Patrol will be using will operate on?

[Dave R]

No clue, but since it's legal to use a radar in a boat, you'd probably be better off trying to jam it rather than detect it.

[Airwaves]

I'm not sure you'd want to jam radar in a boat since it would make you invisible to radar. Not only the MP's radar but the radar on say...The Mount.

I'd rather know where vessels that are using radar are than make myself invisible.

[wifi]

LOL on previous posts

[Bear Islander]

During the so called speed speed study the MP used Doppler and Laser.

However I don't think you need to worry. I have been informed by people in the know at this forum that the only thing that will work is "military style naval radar with target designation and tracking capabilities".

Here is a link with more information and a full explanation about why radar will not work.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1820

[Islander]

If the speed study proved that nobody is going faster than 45/25, why do you need radar detectors?

If radar doesn't work on the water, why do you need radar detectors?

If speed limits are a solution looking for a problem, why do you need radar detectors?

If speed limits are unenforceable, why do you need radar detectors?

If speed limits will never hold up in court, why do you need radar detectors?




Could it be that the crap the opposition has been feeding us for years is not true?

[Silver Duck]

B.I.

In all honesty, if the MP winds up using radar to enforce a speed limit, I'd rather that it be nice and accurate and completely defensible in court.

IMHO, if the MP winds up devoting precious resources to enforcing a speed limit it would be a shame to see the time, effort, and money wasted. If it actually does take military style radar to do the job, that's what they should be equipped with (providing that the speed limit does go through!)

Silver Duck

[MRJS]

What about some alternative solutions to the speed problem?

How about this? In snowmobiling there are orange signs designating trails across fields. The field could be enormous, but the owner assigns a road-width saying, "If you go down this channel, you can use my land."

What if the lake had some drag strips like that?

Alton has a plowed strip on the ice for airplanes to land on. Imagine that as a drag strip for boats.

The kayakers and canoers will have to stay out of it, but they don't usually go to the center of large open areas anyway.

The concept works for snowmobiling. I've had snowmobilers in my own group yell at me to stay on the trail because they don't want to lose their privileges.

You can't have a boat that does 70mph and not use it. As long as their is a place to use it, I think people will obey the law in the other areas.

The solution is never to say NO or hammer people into submisson. The best solution is a compromise where the most people can get what they want.

This solution could take something potentially dangerous and make it fun. Make it official. Put it on the map. Everybody likes a danger zone as long as they can feel safe outside of it.

Think about it. Or some variation thereof.

[Bear Islander]

Hi MRJS,

I absolutely agree that a compromise is a good idea. Or at least it would have been, if the opposition had been more flexible when this all started years ago.

But after years of hearing nothing but "no limits!", a compromise has about zero chance.

The opposition told us for years that radar does not work on water. But when a radar speed study seemed to support their position, suddenly radar became completely reliable and viable.

We were told speed limits are unenforceable, a totally insane argument since they are enforced on other lakes in New Hampshire and across the country.

We are also told that nobody is speeding, and at the same time we are told that the speed limits will ruin the economy and cost a huge fortune to enforce.

At least the pro speed limit argument does not contradict itself with every breath.

[fatlazyless]

Put me down as agreeing w/ MRJS' suggestion to create an area where high speed boating is welcome, like a drag strip on the water, somewhere. It is an excellent suggestion!

Winnipesaukee has been a venue for speedy boats since about 1925 and it would be nice to continue that tradition maybe in Alton Bay. Why Alton Bay? Because the Alton Bay area had six different state representatives who voted against HB847, so as representatives for Alton Bay, it just makes sense.

Plus, Alton Bay is about the only area where the boats can easily be seen from the public roads on both sides so it could be an economic boost for Alton Bay.

Sunday morning race-time on the Bay. Let's gp to Alton Bay, by boat or by car and check it out! Get an ice cream at Shibley's, mosey on down the sidewalk, and listen and watch the go-fasts, roar up and down the Bay. How's that sound? Sounds nice to me!

[Airwaves]

Islander,

Who said anything about using radar detectors to avoid speeding tickets?
As you point out the USCG, NH Boating statistics and Marine Patrol's own research shows speed is not a problem on Winni.

As I responded to Dave R, becoming invisible to radar is the last thing I want to do on Winnipesaukee. With more and more larger boats operating with radar especially in reduced visibility conditions I would like to know if a radar detector is a viable alternative to a CARD system. I have never heard a vessel sounding their fog horn during foggy conditions on the lake so I want to know where those boats are!

You certainly are quick to jump to conclusions

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

At least the pro speed limit argument does not contradict itself with every breath.

No you're right the "Pro Speed Limit" just twists facts and blames speed for all that ails the lake based on ZERO fact. Where do you get off thumbing your nose down at the opposition when your whole argument is based on lies and untruth's? You want a bill passed to clear up the boat traffic on Winni, PLAIN AND SIMPLE! Speed isn't the issue yet you pound your fists and twist, squeeze and try try try to excrete some fact that applies to why a Speed Limit is necessary when it isn't.
All we are looking for is a little honesty here. Just call it like it is. It's a means to an end.

[Dave R]

Jamming does not make you invisible to radar, it just overwhelms the reciever on the radar unit with enough RF noise that it cannot resolve the phase shift in the return signal and therefore detect the speed accurately. If the speed radar is transmitting at 1 watt, the return signal is miniscule, like microwatts. If you transmit 4000 watts of Raytheon radar at the speed radar, it cannot detect it's own signal coming back, it's just lost in the clutter.

You can jam speed reading laser (LIDAR) basically the same way, just at shorter wavelengths, for a lot less money, and without breaking any FCC laws. My recollection is that LIDAR oerates at 904 nm and that high power (relatively speeaking) LEDs at this wavelength are easy and cheap to buy.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Hi MRJS,
At least the pro speed limit argument does not contradict itself with every breath.

You can't be serious.I can see the contradiction quotes coming.Excuse me while I do some searching.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

No you're right the "Pro Speed Limit" just twists facts and blames speed for all that ails the lake based on ZERO fact. Where do you get off thumbing your nose down at the opposition when your whole argument is based on lies and untruth's? You want a bill passed to clear up the boat traffic on Winni, PLAIN AND SIMPLE! Speed isn't the issue yet you pound your fists and twist, squeeze and try try try to excrete some fact that applies to why a Speed Limit is necessary when it isn't.
All we are looking for is a little honesty here. Just call it like it is. It's a means to an end.

I have been totally honest here. Yet whenever I mention the fact that I have had high speed boats violate my 150 foot zone - because they were apparently going too fast to see me in time - many of the anti-speed limit crowd has accused me of exeragerating, lying, not knowing what 150 feet looks like, not knowing what 45 mph looks like, and many other things.

I have never twisted anything, yet I have been repeatedly accused of doing do. The truth is that some operators travel faster then their ability to see smaller boats in time to stay out of the 150 foot zone. I've seen this happen way too much.

In my opinion, a speed limit will help reduce this, because boats will have to slow down. I've spent a great deal of time on Squam, which has a speed limit - and it seems to work there just fine.

[Ropetow]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Put me down as agreeing w/ MRJS' suggestion to create an area where high speed boating is welcome, like a drag strip on the water, somewhere. It is an excellent suggestion!

Winnipesaukee has been a venue for speedy boats since about 1925 and it would be nice to continue that tradition maybe in Alton Bay. Why Alton Bay? Because the Alton Bay area had six different state representatives who voted against HB847, so as representatives for Alton Bay, it just makes sense.

Plus, Alton Bay is about the only area where the boats can easily be seen from the public roads on both sides so it could be an economic boost for Alton Bay.

Sunday morning race-time on the Bay. Let's gp to Alton Bay, by boat or by car and check it out! Get an ice cream at Shibley's, mosey on down the sidewalk, and listen and watch the go-fasts, roar up and down the Bay. How's that sound? Sounds nice to me!

Your 'plan' would basically make Alton Bay off-limits to all other boating traffic. A better place would be right in front of your house, FLL. You need help with your property taxes? Set up some lawn chairs and charge admission....sell Kool Aide, ice cream, cookies and milk as well. Become an entrepreneur....

[fatlazyless]

Now isn't that a good idea....maybe a kayak tour out and beyond buoy 3 that guarantees a safe encounter with an 8000lb boat. When sitting in a kayak, watching the big boat approach, the minimum 150' does not seem all that big so newcomers lookn' for a thrill would not be disappointed. Paddle out beyond the safety of the channel markers, and it definately raises the ante.

If it would actually make me a buck, I'd give it a go, but I think I'm better off to stick with the old fashioned chores like painting the islands.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

...but I think I'm better off to stick with the old fashioned chores like painting the islands.

Like Christo did? Or did he just wrap some islands in cloth?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

No you're right the "Pro Speed Limit" just twists facts and blames speed for all that ails the lake based on ZERO fact. Where do you get off thumbing your nose down at the opposition when your whole argument is based on lies and untruth's? You want a bill passed to clear up the boat traffic on Winni, PLAIN AND SIMPLE! Speed isn't the issue yet you pound your fists and twist, squeeze and try try try to excrete some fact that applies to why a Speed Limit is necessary when it isn't.
All we are looking for is a little honesty here. Just call it like it is. It's a means to an end.

I have been totally up font with my opinions and desires about speed limits. Search my posts and you will find no evidence to the contrary. So either can it about my lies and untruths, or point one out.

If you are looking for a little honesty, do not look to the opposition for it. As I have pointed out the opposition blows hot and cold at the same time. I notice that your only response is to attack the pro-speed limit side. You are not defending the opposition inconsistencies because they are undependable.

[Airwaves]

Evenstar wrote:

In my opinion, a speed limit will help reduce this, because boats will have to slow down.

What boats will slow down? The Marine Patrol Speed Survey points out that less that 1 percent of boats of over 3,800 boats tracked were traveling above 45 miles an hour.
Since there was no mention of any arrests or citations in the report it would appear that none of the boats tracked were operating in a negligent or dangerous manner or in violation of the 150' rule.

Wouldn't it be ironic that if, by passage of this bill, it actually removed a tool the Marine Patrol currently has in its arsenal? Because, as it's been speculated on by both sides, radar isn't all that accurate on the water and may not hold up in court.

Wouldn't it be ironic if a sharp lawyer at some point successfully argued that the speed limit made the current provision 270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats arbitrary and open to opinion.

I'd still like to know if there is a less expensive and practical alternative to the C.A.R.D. system.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have been totally up font with my opinions and desires about speed limits. Search my posts and you will find no evidence to the contrary. So either can it about my lies and untruths, or point one out.

If you are looking for a little honesty, do not look to the opposition for it. As I have pointed out the opposition blows hot and cold at the same time. I notice that your only response is to attack the pro-speed limit side. You are not defending the opposition inconsistencies because they are undependable.

Been there done that. #1 I posted my constructive stance on my position. This is back a few weeks ago. Guess you forgot.

#2 Do you really want me to go back and search your posts for evidence of you trying to spin "incidents" into why a Speed Limit is the answer. One needs not even TRY to look that hard. You yourself used the 2002 night time incident as an argument. A twisting of the facts determining speed was the reason BY YOU!

#3 Attacks? If you want to call it an attack every time someone calls you out on your posts attacks go ahead. Just tell the truth and the truth shall set you free. When you openly admit that the Speed Limit is an arbitrary way to rid the lake of excess boat traffic I will have no comment.

#4 Attacks by you... Easy, Check out the thread on sinking boats.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Hi MRJS,

I absolutely agree that a compromise is a good idea. Or at least it would have been, if the opposition had been more flexible when this all started years ago.

But after years of hearing nothing but "no limits!", a compromise has about zero chance.

.

Some might consider the sunset aspect of the proposed law to be a compromise.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

I never got the memo discussing the compromise but have often wondered if Concord would consider keeping the "big area" speed limit free. This would give me a front row seat to the 10 mile run.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Been there done that. #1 I posted my constructive stance on my position. This is back a few weeks ago. Guess you forgot.

#2 Do you really want me to go back and search your posts for evidence of you trying to spin "incidents" into why a Speed Limit is the answer. One needs not even TRY to look that hard. You yourself used the 2002 night time incident as an argument. A twisting of the facts determining speed was the reason BY YOU!

#3 Attacks? If you want to call it an attack every time someone calls you out on your posts attacks go ahead. Just tell the truth and the truth shall set you free. When you openly admit that the Speed Limit is an arbitrary way to rid the lake of excess boat traffic I will have no comment.

#4 Attacks by you... Easy, Check out the thread on sinking boats.

Talk about spin....

I only represented the 2002 accident as meeting the specifics you yourself outlined, nothing more.

I have many times described speed limits as a way to control excess boat traffic. So please have no more comments as you promised.

You post a picture of the boat I use to transport my family across the lake in October (and other months) and add....


posted by hazelnut
I call this all individuals on board dead within minutes in late October.

With a Whaler this will not happen. If you think those little foam pieces under the seat of an aluminum boat will keep it afloat you are naive. I guess I am lying about sinking a 14 foot aluminum boat. Oh yeah and the 15 foot fiberglass boat that was on the bottom of the lake. Oh yeah and my buddies 11 foot aluminum boat with just the nose sticking out similar to the picture. Go read all the little articles you want and cite coast guard regs till you are blue in the face. I will go with personal experience. I hope you are done grinding your axe. We are here to share information not spread misiformation due to issues with each others stance on an issue. Thanks


Then you have the nerve to describe these posts as me attacking you....

get a clue

[hazelnut]

Bear Islander you want so bad to believe that you are above all the name calling and mud slinging... Whatever helps you sleep at night.

My post above was in DIRECT RESPONSE to yours:

Aluminum boats have flotation under the seats. They will not sink. Sink means go to the bottom. If a boat is floating, then it has not sunk.
It is very difficult, almost impossible, to get anything to stay suspended below the surface of the water. If you wait a little it will go to the bottom or the surface.
If you had an aluminum boat that would sink below the surface but not go to the bottom, you should have sold it to the Navy.
I checked Websters. Sink = "go to the bottom". You should look up swamped, that is the word you are looking for.
Hmmm oddly looks like an attack to me. Guess I misread it though?

If you want to go on thinking that you are above it all and the anti-Speed Limit crowd is beneath you and your supreme intelligence keep on kidding yourself.

We post facts, YOU post spin. Your entire position is based on supporting a law that treats no ailment. Laws are usually enacted to treat a specific problem. The specific problem here is overcrowding/traffic. The law "SPEED LIMIT????" Does that not make your head spin. It's like a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. No study has been done to determine if this will even HELP the problem. Don't you get that? Obviously not. If you did you would realize that this law will be followed by many more stupid laws until New Hampshire makes Massachussetts look like Nevada.

As for a clue, It's obvious that I have one and you my friend do not. You put your entire family in an aluminum boat in October???? Somehow I'm the bad guy for telling you that it is dangerous and you might all get in deep trouble. Not that I even knew that you had an aluminum boat anyway. You should thank me for cluing YOU in on the danger you are putting your family in.

[Bear Islander]

You should explain to the thousands of people that use aluminum boats on the lake, from ice out to ice in, what danger we are in.

Just so we understand, if a boat hull is fiberglass it's safe in October, but if the hull is aluminum it's a deathtrap.



In 1972 I put a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It was a rifle bullet it the leg of an 11 year old named Eric. It worked just fine until I got him to the hospital.

[Skip]

C'mon folks....enough is enough already!

Back to the original question posted; whether the NHMP uses LASER or the more traditional RF handheld radar units, they will be using either standard highway enforcement gear, or gear that is marinized (has additional water-proofing elements). There are no special "bands" or different frequencies used on the water versus terrestial use.

Therefore any commercially available combination radar detectors will detect the units that will be used on the water.

There are no restrictions on radar/laser detector usage for non-commercial vehicles or boats in this State. It is, however, a federal offense to use an RF jamming device to jam RF radar units. That said, there are no current restrictions on devices that are purported to alter laser readings, although many independent testing labs have stated that most commercially sold jamming devices are nothing more than expensive junk.

Finally, despite claims to the contrary there are no "special" marine radar units that are more accurate on the water, as has been claimed by some in the past. As I said earlier, a "marinized" unit comes in a differennt color (white) and uses additional weather resistant elements in the cone and trigger assembly areas due to the constant operation in a moist environment.

Hope this helps answer the original question....

[hazelnut]

I'll start another thread for the edification of the uneducated regarding the pluses and minuses of Hull types.

The original thread here has been hijacked sorry for my part in that.

I concur with whomever wrote in an earlier post, if it passes the Marine Patrol should invest in the most state of the art Marine Grade laser/radar/GPS whatever technology to ensure accuracy. Lord knows the speedo on a boat is never even close. My GPS unit is super accurate nd that is what I rely on.

I'd be curious what kind of lengths the department will go to to acquire the most accurate equipment.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

...I'd be curious what kind of lengths the department will go to to acquire the most accurate equipment...

They'll use State bid procedures and procure off the State bid list.

Remember, the Governor along with the Legislature is in the process of slashing the State budget, as has been reported statewide. While they may purchase some new units, if tradition holds true thay will use units that are already in State inventories.

As has been reported, they will probably use a mix of units, i.e. RF or laser, depending on availability and conditions. One of the results of the testing was that each type (laser or RF) worked better under certain conditions.

Any unit that is on the State bid list may vary by feature, but accuracy remains the same. Paying more money gives you added features, but accuracy remains constant across brand and price range. It has to, or the evidence developed would not be submissable in Court.

Finally, the units operated by State agencies are certified by technicians and equipment already employed by the NHSP Radio Shop in Concord. Any uints purchased will have to be compatible with already existing test equipment at their shop.

The largest cost will not be in procuring equipment, it will be in manpower allocation. NHMP is already short staffed and the Governor's current budget proposal clearly indicates that their will be no new personnel or programs initiated. Therefore any radar deployment will have to co-exist with current personnel and patrol patterns, i.e. whenever they can squeeze it in.

[Airwaves]

Thanks Skip, a CARD system is just not practicle on a 22' bowrider!

I havn't had a radar detector in my car in years, do you know if they are directional and need to be pointed at the source or if they are omnidirectional and pick up the signal from all directions?

[Bear Islander]

When a speed limit passes most people will be surprised how little things have changed. The MP might be out using radar here and there, but it will go mostly unnoticed. Warnings will be given, tickets will be rare.

Boats will still go full speed through the Bear Island NWZ every day.

The radar units and officers they have now will suffice. As time goes by this will be just a little slower and less hectic.

It will be like same sex marriage was in Massachusetts. Top story for a short time, then most people hardly notice.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

...When a speed limit passes most people will be surprised how little things have changed...

I concur.

For the same reasons that most folks have figured out when and where its safe to speed on our hyways and byways.

For the same reasons that the 45 MPH blanket speed limit for snowmobilers is widely ignored and has had no effect on the proliferation of high speed sleds (including my own).

If the limit passes folks will quickly figure out when and where its utilized and mostly where its not enforced. Others will quickly figure out the court system loopholes.

The Lake crowding will continue to ebb & flow due to the economy, price of fuel and so on, with an occasionally enforced limit eventually having little or no effect.

The real dangers will remain....uneducated boaters, local bars & restaurant overserving boaters, boaters overserving themselves and folks that just no longer practice civility, common sense or courtesy.

And as always, except for the weekends and holidays you can count with your fingers and tows, Lake Winnipesaukee will actually remain the fairly quiet, beautiful and greatly enjoyed resource that draws all of us to this website daily to bask in all that it offers!

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When a speed limit passes most people will be surprised how little things have changed. The MP might be out using radar here and there, but it will go mostly unnoticed. Warnings will be given, tickets will be rare.
Boats will still go full speed through the Bear Island NWZ every day.
The radar units and officers they have now will suffice. As time goes by this will be just a little slower and less hectic.
It will be like same sex marriage was in Massachusetts. Top story for a short time, then most people hardly notice.

I suppose. I mean it really does not affect me personally. I don't own a boat that goes faster than 50MPH. Besides gas prices make it almost crazy to travel faster than 30-35 anyway.

The Bear Island NWZ is a sore spot for me, not as much as it is for you, but nonetheless, I hate when people ride right up on you and "race" through there.

I still wish there was a way to actually address the problem rather than a roundabout way that may actually have little or no impact on what really is the problem facing safe boating on Winni....... Rude, ignorant, clueless, lawless boaters putting all of us in jeopardy.

It'll be fun to debate the actual effects on boating this law has after it passes and we see the "results."

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Thanks Skip, a CARD system is just not practicle on a 22' bowrider!

I havn't had a radar detector in my car in years, do you know if they are directional and need to be pointed at the source or if they are omnidirectional and pick up the signal from all directions?

I just skimmed the CARD website. I get the impression that it picks up the marine radar transmitted by the boat/freighter. Some of these are X band, some low S band and I think (??) some may be C band. The point being that only the X band overlaps the frequencies that might be used for speed measurement. I'm not at all sure a CARD system would detect a "speed gun" though it might be useful to detect the Raymarine radar that I see on most of the NHMP boats.

As for the directivity of your typical radar detector antenna ... they are somewhat directional but will pick up stronger transmissions off the side and from behind. The only one I'm aware of that let's you know where the signal is coming from is the Valentine 1.

[Excalibur]

Stealth, But I am afraid the top speed is classified.