You're still not getting it.
Basicly you're saying that unless your detector detects a signal that is pointed directly at it, you want it to not tell you anything. That's silly because if a cop is sitting around a corner, and hitting traffic in front of you, you're basicly asking the detector to ignore it. And trust me, if the cop is pointing his radar at your car, your done anyway, making the detector useless.
My wave in a pool analogy is the best I can give you. If you make a wave with your hand, its still a wave. If you're around the corner from that wave, you still see the wave, although it is weaker. If a ball fell in the pool and made that wave, you couldn't tell, its still just a wave. Anything could have created it, you can never tell because all waves are simply waves of water, with no identifying marks or signs.
Same thing with radar and detectors. If it senses a signal, it should bark, because that signal may be faint, but it could be from a cop that is sitting around a corner, and its had to reflect off of other cars and objects before it gets to you, but nonetheless, its a cop's radar signal. To ask a detector to differentiate between that signal and a doors signal that is pointed at the ground and reflecting towards you, is the same as asking you to tell what caused a wave in a pool by looking at just the wave; thats impossible, its just a wave! There's no identifying mark on that wave. The only way you could possibly tell anything is by the strength of that wave, and it would still be a guess!
Radar isn't all that complicated. Its just a wave. It doesnt carry any data, doesnt have any protocol, its simply a wave. Since doors create the same "waves" as cops radar guns (in the same band, either X, K, or Ka) there is not a way that circuitry can be used to filter out false alarms.
Thinking less false alarms makes it a better detector is a false understanding.
