Radar Jamming

[Jim Yanik]

keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in
newsan.2005.04.17.18.15.53.993644@att.bizzzz:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:53:31 +0800, budgie wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:25:13 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:01:36 -0400, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz
wrote:

In article <425E1625.D443DDA1@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
[snip]

It's a great way of earning extra revenue for the authorities
though.

Bingo! Vermont passed a law so virtually all "revenue" goes to the
state. The result is that localities aren't so interested in radar
traps. ;-)

Politicians worship the god of revenue. Take that away and there's
no interest.

I like the concept of all revenue going to the state. I think I'll
prime some legislators with the idea ;-)

That is the *problem* here in Australia - the state is the body
operating the devices :-(

The real problem here (US) is that the municipalities like to enhance
revenue with speed traps that might not be entirely cricket. The
local cops have a much higher tendancy to be rambo-wannabes than do
the state police, who *tend* to be very professional. Taking the
financial incentive away from every two-bit tin-horn cop and mayor and
moving it to the state tends to make the system more fair. If I'm
nailed for speeding fine, but many local speed traps are just that;
entrapment.

In some places in the US,part of the ticket revenue is shared with the
issuing authority,and part with the local gov't where the ticket was
issued. Florida does this. Its an incentive to write more tickets.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Jim Yanik]

budgie <me@privacy.net> wrote in
news:4h67619li66erha9ff9udnnlovf6odokbe@4ax.com:

I fully appreciate your situation. The thing is that here in Oz there
are ONLY state police forces unlike your Merkin model. (I mean yes
we have a federal polforce but their jurisdiction is only federal
legislation)

The US does not have Federal police that enforce traffic laws.
There are State and local police departments.Each has their own area of
authority.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <pan.2005.04.15.17.21.24.838548@doubleclick.net>,
eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net says...

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:23:32 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

I got an "energy ticket"... back in the Carter double-nickel days ;-)

Let's not blame Jimmy for what was actually an Imperial Edict from your
fair-haired proto-neocon, Richard M. Nixon, AKA Trickee Dickee.

"Proto-neocon"? Tricky Dick? What _are_ you on? I don't want that
mind damaging drug.

--
Keith

 

[Charles Edmondson]

Andy wrote:

Charles Edmondson wrote:


Andy,
So, did you every visit the California site during the installation

(So.

Cal, not the bridge?) If so, we probably met! I was in charge of
design and installation of the toll equipment, including the FastTrak


antennas!

Charlie
Edmondson Engineering
Unique Solutions to Unusual Problems



Andy writes:

No, not after it was installed, other than incidental trips on
other projects. I did a site survey at SH121 in the early 90's to see
what interferers were around, but after riding around for a day over
the proposed route with a spectrum analyzer, I didn't find anything
that
looked like it would bother us....

Several trips to Lawrence Livermore to confer with Don Davis, and
a couple others, about the system, since it was they who wrote the
Title 21 spec that the legislature passed. I have some real problems
with
a couple of their specs (namely the field activation strength) since
even NIST at Boulder Colorado could not calibrate an antenna to the
accuracy required by Title 21 (went there, too, and talked to their
big guns. However, as a practical matter, nobody else seemed to care
that
a spec was unattainable, and were mainly concerned with whether the
system would acually work....

I was lead design engineer, and worked mainly in the lab, but I set
up
a test track for TIRIS in an abandoned race track between Dallas and
Ft Worth (Richland Hills), and got a LOT of good , practical data from
this. It reinforced my feelings that , no matter how smart the team
is,
or how much preparation they do, you don't know diddly squat about how
a system works in the field till you try it out.......

Since I retired 3 yrs ago, I went back as a consultant to ETCC who
bid on a new 121 project about a year ago.... I don't work there, tho,
and
don't know how their proposal came out.....

So, have you done any in-depth tech study of TIRIS versus AMTECH,
and
how did they compare ? I am familiar with the AMTECH system, and am
fairly sure they can't meet the field activation specs any more than
TIRIS can, but , as I said, nobody seems to care (except design
engineers
like me (grin) ).

TIRIS was sold to a Canadian company, SIRIT, and has a headquarters
here in Dallas (Carrolton), and I went by last year to BS with the
engineers there.

Even tho I had been away fromt he project for 8 yrs or so, they were

still using the same designs for the READER and the Antenna that I
built
in the lab ( subbed to TELENEXUS and SEAVY ENGINEERING companies)....
But they told me that the lane discrimination pulses had been
eliminated from the design. Why was that ?


If you care to correspond further, give me an Email at

andysharpe@juno.com , with TIRIS somewhere in the subject line, and


we can shoot bulls till sundown.

Andy Sharpe, PE, etc etc,etc

Hi Andy,

So, we probably didn't meet, then. To bad. As I understand it, MFS
(who I worked for) contracted with TI to create the system, and so for a
while, had a partial interest in the system. My job was to take all the
parts, and put them together into an integrated system.

Did you get involved the the pickup truck problem? That was where, do
to the geometry of the beds of pickup trucks, the antenna beam reflected
off the tailgate, bounced off the back of the cab, and would read the
tag of the car BEHIND the truck when it was supposed to read the trucks
tag! I know it was driving them crazy to try to fix it, and they were
talking about range gating the signal to try and stop it!

Its fun to talk about this stuff, since all my NDAs are long expired,
although the REALLY interesting stuff wasn't the technical issues, but
all the political and management BS in the background!

Charlie

 

[Charles Edmondson]

TCS wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 23:37:07 -0400, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

Bah! Snow is easy to drive on. Ice, OTOH...


I tell my wife that I have a 4WD truck, so I can go anywhere. It even
has the off-road package so I can go off the road.


If only it had the on-road package so you wouldn't need to call a tow
truck.

Here in colorado, it's become a cliche: 19 out of 20 cars that go sailing
off road when it snows are 4wd. These idiots think that 4wd will hold the
road better instead of just gettng them out of control faster.

For several years, I lived in San Berdoo, but worked up in the mountains
in Crestline. During the winter, I got real good at putting on the
chains on my Fiesta.

One interesting morning, they had closed the road. It hadn't been a big
snowfall or anything, but there had been a little freezing rain and LOTS
of wind. There was this one hairpin turn around a maintanance yard,
where the wind and freezing rain had laid down a beautifully polished
sheet of black ice about 2" thick. The CHP would open the road for 15
minutes, close it, and then go tow all the 4WD vehicles that had crashed
going around the curve, open it for 15 minutes, close it and tow, open
it, close it, etc. When I was coming up, this had been going on for
about 3 hours. 4WD without chains couldn't cut it, but the drivers
wouldn't believe that their big babies couldn't handle it!

Although if you really want to go in snow and ice, you need a black
porshe with a ski rack. Don't ask me why, but I had these guys passing
me at 60 when everyone else was crawling up at 20. I kept expecting to
round the corner and see a pile of black metal at the side of the road,
but I never did!

Charlie

 

[Bob Stephens]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:37:11 -0700, Charles Edmondson wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 23:37:07 -0400, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

Bah! Snow is easy to drive on. Ice, OTOH...


I tell my wife that I have a 4WD truck, so I can go anywhere. It even
has the off-road package so I can go off the road.


If only it had the on-road package so you wouldn't need to call a tow
truck.

Here in colorado, it's become a cliche: 19 out of 20 cars that go sailing
off road when it snows are 4wd. These idiots think that 4wd will hold the
road better instead of just gettng them out of control faster.

I grew up on a farm in Vermont. I used to make a tidy supplemental income
in the winter pulling yuppie flatlanders out of the ditch in their shiny
new 4WD's


Bob

 

[Keith Williams]

In article <1apjw3bfmvot2$.1q9eem6it0r8t.dlg@40tude.net>,
roberts@dcxchol.com says...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:37:11 -0700, Charles Edmondson wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 23:37:07 -0400, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

Bah! Snow is easy to drive on. Ice, OTOH...


I tell my wife that I have a 4WD truck, so I can go anywhere. It even
has the off-road package so I can go off the road.


If only it had the on-road package so you wouldn't need to call a tow
truck.

Here in colorado, it's become a cliche: 19 out of 20 cars that go sailing
off road when it snows are 4wd. These idiots think that 4wd will hold the
road better instead of just gettng them out of control faster.

I grew up on a farm in Vermont. I used to make a tidy supplemental income
in the winter pulling yuppie flatlanders out of the ditch in their shiny
new 4WD's

Considering that I *am* a flatlander (the flattest - from the Illinois
farm country) living in NW Vermont with a shiny new 4WD that's never
been close to being stuck... I've had a few FWDs here too, but they've
never been stuck either. It actually takes some work to find one's way
into a ditch around here.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:33:25 +0800, budgie wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:15:55 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:53:31 +0800, budgie wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:25:13 -0700, Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:01:36 -0400, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz
wrote:

In article <425E1625.D443DDA1@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
[snip]

It's a great way of earning extra revenue for the authorities though.

Bingo! Vermont passed a law so virtually all "revenue" goes to the
state. The result is that localities aren't so interested in radar
traps. ;-)

Politicians worship the god of revenue. Take that away and there's no
interest.

I like the concept of all revenue going to the state. I think I'll
prime some legislators with the idea ;-)

That is the *problem* here in Australia - the state is the body operating the
devices :-(

The real problem here (US) is that the municipalities like to enhance
revenue with speed traps that might not be entirely cricket. The local
cops have a much higher tendancy to be rambo-wannabes than do the state
police, who *tend* to be very professional. Taking the financial
incentive away from every two-bit tin-horn cop and mayor and moving it to
the state tends to make the system more fair. If I'm nailed for speeding
fine, but many local speed traps are just that; entrapment.

I fully appreciate your situation. The thing is that here in Oz there are ONLY
state police forces unlike your Merkin model. (I mean yes we have a federal
polforce but their jurisdiction is only federal legislation)

Same here, but they only do the serious felony stuff, like fingernail
clippers.

So we get uniformity. Not that uniformity equates to perfection.

Uniformity is not always good, but entrapment is always bad.

(And here in WestOz the kerbside cash registers are operated by civvies employed
by the state police service.)

The *worst* of all possibilities. Many municipalities have turned over
traffic enforcement to privatized cameras. There is a convincing argument
that these sivvies are altering the light timing to enhance their revenue,
which the municipalities like too. They not only puck up more cash but
can point the finger to an "independant authority". "They went
that-a-way, george."

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:15:46 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in
newsan.2005.04.17.18.15.53.993644@att.bizzzz:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:53:31 +0800, budgie wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:25:13 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:01:36 -0400, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz
wrote:

In article <425E1625.D443DDA1@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
[snip]

It's a great way of earning extra revenue for the authorities
though.

Bingo! Vermont passed a law so virtually all "revenue" goes to the
state. The result is that localities aren't so interested in radar
traps. ;-)

Politicians worship the god of revenue. Take that away and there's
no interest.

I like the concept of all revenue going to the state. I think I'll
prime some legislators with the idea ;-)

That is the *problem* here in Australia - the state is the body
operating the devices :-(

The real problem here (US) is that the municipalities like to enhance
revenue with speed traps that might not be entirely cricket. The
local cops have a much higher tendancy to be rambo-wannabes than do
the state police, who *tend* to be very professional. Taking the
financial incentive away from every two-bit tin-horn cop and mayor and
moving it to the state tends to make the system more fair. If I'm
nailed for speeding fine, but many local speed traps are just that;
entrapment.


In some places in the US,part of the ticket revenue is shared with the
issuing authority,and part with the local gov't where the ticket was
issued. Florida does this. Its an incentive to write more tickets.

Sure, that was my origianl point. Vermont decided to change the "cut" so
the state gets all but a few dimes in "court costs". As such, there is
little incentive for the locals to write tickets. ...one of the good
things they've done in the past decade, even if only by stupidity.

--
Keith

 

[budgie]

On 18 Apr 2005 14:18:02 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:

budgie <me@privacy.net> wrote in
news:4h67619li66erha9ff9udnnlovf6odokbe@4ax.com:




I fully appreciate your situation. The thing is that here in Oz there
are ONLY state police forces unlike your Merkin model. (I mean yes
we have a federal polforce but their jurisdiction is only federal
legislation)

The US does not have Federal police that enforce traffic laws.
There are State and local police departments.Each has their own area of
authority.

I suspect you misunderstood what I think I meant to infer ...

Nah, I realise your feds don't get into ground traffic. You have state AND
local polforces. We don't have any polforce below state; their jurisdiction is
whole of state.

 

[budgie]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:56:56 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:33:25 +0800, budgie wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:15:55 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:53:31 +0800, budgie wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:25:13 -0700, Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:01:36 -0400, Keith Williams <krw@att.bizzzz
wrote:

In article <425E1625.D443DDA1@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
[snip]

It's a great way of earning extra revenue for the authorities though.

Bingo! Vermont passed a law so virtually all "revenue" goes to the
state. The result is that localities aren't so interested in radar
traps. ;-)

Politicians worship the god of revenue. Take that away and there's no
interest.

I like the concept of all revenue going to the state. I think I'll
prime some legislators with the idea ;-)

That is the *problem* here in Australia - the state is the body operating the
devices :-(

The real problem here (US) is that the municipalities like to enhance
revenue with speed traps that might not be entirely cricket. The local
cops have a much higher tendancy to be rambo-wannabes than do the state
police, who *tend* to be very professional. Taking the financial
incentive away from every two-bit tin-horn cop and mayor and moving it to
the state tends to make the system more fair. If I'm nailed for speeding
fine, but many local speed traps are just that; entrapment.

I fully appreciate your situation. The thing is that here in Oz there are ONLY
state police forces unlike your Merkin model. (I mean yes we have a federal
polforce but their jurisdiction is only federal legislation)

Same here, but they only do the serious felony stuff, like fingernail
clippers.

So we get uniformity. Not that uniformity equates to perfection.

Uniformity is not always good, but entrapment is always bad.

(And here in WestOz the kerbside cash registers are operated by civvies employed
by the state police service.)

The *worst* of all possibilities. Many municipalities have turned over
traffic enforcement to privatized cameras. There is a convincing argument
that these sivvies are altering the light timing to enhance their revenue,
which the municipalities like too. They not only puck up more cash but
can point the finger to an "independant authority". "They went
that-a-way, george."

In some states here the operation is contracted out to private organisations.
In WestOz (you know, that place that nicked the America's Cup for a short time)
the civvies are actually employees of the polforce, so there is no incentive for
them to fiddle the system. In fact there is no opportunity, as all the
downstream processing is done by police officers.

Having read the "Cops Manual" on deployment of portable speed cameras, it is
full of safeguards for the motorist. Like: "the camera shall only be deployed
on a straight and level section of road with a least 20m of straight road before
the camera site". there are a number of these safeguards.

Then the catch-all: "unless otherwise directed". Bewdifull, just bewdifull.

 

[Jim Yanik]

budgie <me@privacy.net> wrote in
news:fj0961hrcksfjsut1pt0ifg70oatmb454a@4ax.com:

On 18 Apr 2005 14:18:02 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:

budgie <me@privacy.net> wrote in
news:4h67619li66erha9ff9udnnlovf6odokbe@4ax.com:




I fully appreciate your situation. The thing is that here in Oz
there are ONLY state police forces unlike your Merkin model. (I
mean yes we have a federal polforce but their jurisdiction is only
federal legislation)

The US does not have Federal police that enforce traffic laws.
There are State and local police departments.Each has their own area
of authority.

I suspect you misunderstood what I think I meant to infer ...

Nah, I realise your feds don't get into ground traffic. You have
state AND local polforces. We don't have any polforce below state;
their jurisdiction is whole of state.

It gets really confusing when you call 911;they ask what city you're in(if
the Caller Id does not reveal your location) and whether you need fire or
police. If you are not within city limits,you get county police or fire.If
you are not sure,then they have to use the address of your location to
determine who gets called,and it takes longer.

I encountered this when my car window was smashed in at a restaurant.
I was in county,but not actually within the city(Winter Park,FL).
County cops were much slower to respond,too.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Charlie Edmondson]

mabelmapleleaf@yahoo.com wrote:

Charles Edmondson wrote:


Hi Andy,
So, we probably didn't meet, then. To bad. As I understand it, MFS
(who I worked for) contracted with TI to create the system, and so

for a

while, had a partial interest in the system. My job was to take all

the

parts, and put them together into an integrated system.

Did you get involved the the pickup truck problem? That was where,

do

to the geometry of the beds of pickup trucks, the antenna beam

reflected

off the tailgate, bounced off the back of the cab, and would read the


tag of the car BEHIND the truck when it was supposed to read the

trucks

tag! I know it was driving them crazy to try to fix it, and they

were

talking about range gating the signal to try and stop it!

Its fun to talk about this stuff, since all my NDAs are long expired,


although the REALLY interesting stuff wasn't the technical issues,

but

all the political and management BS in the background!

Charlie



Andy writes:

Yes, I worked closely with MFS for the initial proposal and thru the

development.... I didn't get involved with the pickup problem, tho
"range gating" was not compatible with the system. Sounds like some
"blue sky" solutions, since at a nanosecond per foot, it would be
impossible to achieve the necessary bandwidth in the TIRIS system....
I never had to address that particular problem, but , offhand, I can't
see an electronic solution that could have been incorporated into the
working TIRIS sytem....


All manner of initial approaches were proposed by academic types before
I built the first system. Antenna angle, Power level, angle of
arrival,
.... all things that work pretty well with missles in space but have
no possibility of working when trying to triangulate vehicles in
multiple
lanes, going bumper to bumper at 150 mph ( the spec)..... Unless one
actually goes into the field and measures the reflections, one will
have one's head up one's ass when one is trying to sound knowledgeable
about lane discrimination.... (grin)

I wrote an article on Automatic Vehicle Identification for Microwave
Electronics ( or was it Microwave Journal... I forget) about 15 years
ago. It included some antenna pattern measurements made with automated
equipment for a typical toll plaza configuration, which was made at the

Raytheon Antenna Lab in Texas....... What a confusing combinations of
fields and reflections !!---- the academic treatment was useless... So
I proposed a system which didn't use any of the fancy angle of arrival
stuff, and it worked pretty good..... T I got a few patents on it..
It is fully described in the article......

(IBM patent server ---- Assignee: Texas Instruments Inventor:Sharpe)

That was a damn fun project.

Andy Sharpe

Yeah, there were some fun specs on those projects. The one I had to

deal with was in vehicle separation. We needed to determine when a
vehicle entered the toll zone, and when it left it, to within a few
milliseconds. Needed to work on motorcycles, cars, trucks, and
correctly identify trailers as part of the same vehicle! Of course,
when I got to the actual installation, I saw that this was in the car
pool lanes of the highway, so it was illegal to tow a trailer there!
But, it was 'in the spec!'

Solved that one by using multiple laser sensors, and combining them in a
logic box to identify when a valid signal was detected. Should'a
patented that one, but the company wasn't into getting patents on its
technology. They were probably infringing on too many already...

My favorite part about the antennas was that they were mounted by a pair
of U-bolts. Worked great, until the wind came up. Those almost meter
square antennas had a lot of sail area, and unless you REALLY torqued
them down, they would slowly rotate!

Charlie

 

[Terry Given]

Pooh Bear wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:


On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:30:11 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:


On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:18:08 -0700, the renowned Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:


On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:10:12 +0100, Pooh Bear
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


Harvz wrote:


Has anybody actually made a working radar jammer themself?

No, but I've always fancied equipping a car with extensive ECM.
;-)


Graham


I understand a 30-06 is effective against photo radar ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Perhaps, but highly inadvisable if it's the manned type.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

They've started pole installations around here... damned stupid if you
ask me... in a state where virtually everyone is armed.

...Jim Thompson


Aside from shooting up the box which is what I assume you meant ( no
concept of 30-06's here in the UK - is that a 300 calibre revolver ? ) -
other tactics have been used against radars on poles - like pulling them
down with 4WDs and sawing the pole down ! I believe the citizens of some
countries have even resorted to 'thermite treatment' too - lol !

In Holland IIRC - 'concerned citizens' seek out the mobile radar traps and
post warning signs in advance.

This damn country ( or some of the goddam self appointed do-gooders ) is
fixated by speed radar despite the fact that road fatalities have not
budged as much as a significant inch since their introduction. We get
around 3000 - 3500 ? road fatalities p.a. and have done consistently so
for many years now.

The fact that road deaths is attributable mainly to *lousy driving* seems
to be lost on said goody goodies.

It's a great way of earning extra revenue for the authorities though.


Graham

I think you miss the point. I agree totally that fatalities are mostly
due to bad driving. Here in NZ the stats for fatal crashes are roughly:

involving alcohol: 33%
involving speed: 33%

so 2/3 of crashes dont involve alcohol, and 2/3 of crashes dont involve
speed. They pretty much *all* involve bad driving - not driving to
conditions, doing seriously stupid things etc.

The problem is the 1-2 million (pop. 4e6) lousy drivers (all of whom
think they are good drivers). How does any government turn these idiots
into good drivers? with extreme difficulty, if at all. OTOH reducing
speed is fairly simple to do, and drastically reduces kinetic energy.
Coupled with improved vehicular safety, this minimises harm.

The worst bit is *not* fatalities, its the much higher rate of
mutilation that really costs the most.

People here whinge about "speed tax". They are correct (its a random tax
applied to speedsters) but they all seem to forget its a voluntary tax.
After paying $50,000 income tax one year then getting a $300 ticket, I
decided to stop volunteering for additional taxes (speeding, parking, no
WOF/rego etc). My fuel bill went down as a direct result, and I no
longer bother looking for cops. Instead, I look for the homicidal
lunatic coming the other way.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Terry Given]

Jim Yanik wrote:

budgie <me@privacy.net> wrote in
news:fj0961hrcksfjsut1pt0ifg70oatmb454a@4ax.com:


On 18 Apr 2005 14:18:02 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:


budgie <me@privacy.net> wrote in
news:4h67619li66erha9ff9udnnlovf6odokbe@4ax.com:




I fully appreciate your situation. The thing is that here in Oz
there are ONLY state police forces unlike your Merkin model. (I
mean yes we have a federal polforce but their jurisdiction is only
federal legislation)

The US does not have Federal police that enforce traffic laws.
There are State and local police departments.Each has their own area
of authority.

I suspect you misunderstood what I think I meant to infer ...

Nah, I realise your feds don't get into ground traffic. You have
state AND local polforces. We don't have any polforce below state;
their jurisdiction is whole of state.



It gets really confusing when you call 911;they ask what city you're in(if
the Caller Id does not reveal your location) and whether you need fire or
police. If you are not within city limits,you get county police or fire.If
you are not sure,then they have to use the address of your location to
determine who gets called,and it takes longer.

I encountered this when my car window was smashed in at a restaurant.
I was in county,but not actually within the city(Winter Park,FL).
County cops were much slower to respond,too.

Cops responded to your smashed window? wow. Over here they are far too
busy looking at internet porn (or manning radars) to attend crimes.

Cheers
Terry