MPH’s POP RADAR

I recently noticed MPH industries’ website was updated (actually the update occured a while ago, but hey, the Net is a big place):

“MPH recommends that the officer obtain a tracking history of a speed violator by operating the radar in normal transmit mode after determining with POP mode that the vehicle is speeding. This is because most radar case law is based on tracing a vehicle in normal radar operation. The information obtained in POP mode is accurate and reliable, but may not be supported by case law in court. “

What’s interesting is what isn’t included on that page any longer:

“For this reason, MPH does not allow the information derived in POP mode to be locked into the unit. By not allowing the speed measured in POP mode to be locked in, the evidential nature of locked target speeds is preserved and radars with POP mode can take advantage of the existing radar case law. The POP mode signal does not provide the evidence being used to uphold the officer’s visual evidence, speeds determined by traditional radar methods do.”

That paragraph was excised from that page.

This is an interesting development, I believe, as the manufacturer originally indicated that POP RADAR was not designed specifically for issuing tickets. The above paragraph leaves the door open for legal precedent to possibly allow such action. Notice the words “may not be supported.”

Does this really mean anything substantive. I am not sure, but, I can’t help but think: “give ’em an inch and they’ll take a…” Maybe
Mr. Valentine was on to something afterall…even though he relented and did provide superior POP detection is his class-leading radar detector, valentine 1.

At any rate, at least most top radar detectors are able to sniff out POP now – the Valentine 1 being the most adept. If only they would come up with reliably detecting 16ms POP that is four times quicker than their “conventional” already blistering 67ms POP RADAR.

For my money, police laser remains the threat with which to be most concerned – especially with the sub-$2000 price-barrier recently being broken by Kustom Signal with their binocular-styled police LIDAR guns.

Veil Guy

KS has released two new diminutive (less than 1b each!) police laser guns that are binocular-styled which can be worn around the neck.

They are called the Pro Lite and Pro-Lite+ and will supplement the Pro III.

According to KS site (which was offline at this time):

The Pro-Lite is a single-shot version that includes a heads-up-display for quick and easy targeting and viewing of speed information for range applications up to 1,500 ft. The Pro-Lite has a full menu of functions and features easily accessible by the operator.

The Pro-Lite + equals the targeting speed of the Pro-Lite, and uses the same HUD technology with speed or range for easy viewing by the operator. The Pro-Lite + is available for departments who want the addition of full speed tracking history and longer shooting range for multi-lane traffic situations, while still maintaining a simple, easy 4-button format. “

These binocular style, handheld devices offer easy “point-and-shoot” operation that is ideal for motor officers and even foot patrol officers. Weighing less than 1 lb., these units allow for hours of operation without physical stress and since both eyes can be kept open, eye strain is virtually eliminated. Both versions include a neck strap/lanyard, as with binoculars, they can be easily carried or worn around the neck. Additionally, these units operate on two standard AA batteries and can be used in the field for over 30 hours before the batteries need to be replaced.

The environmental mode minimizes the range-limiting effects of poor weather conditions as well as eliminating problems with shooting through obstructions such as fences and trees. Additionally, the selectable direction mode prevents displays of unselected traffic direction. This mode prevents the operator from inadvertently obtaining a speed from an opposite direction vehicle. It also has the capability of setting minimum and maximum target ranges—great for areas such as school and construction zones where you need a beginning and end mark to target vehicles inside a specific area.

—

Years ago, european Jenoptik, released its Laveg model which was also a “binocular type” with superior optics. However its solid construction (MILSPEC) made it heavy and difficult to handle for extended periods of time.

Kustom promises to be much easier to operate for longer duration.

As of 2/16/06, the IACP has already approved both of these units for use.

My understanding is that their performance should be similar to that of the Pro III meaning that countermeasures should perform similarly.

Only time will tell.

Veil Guy

Over the years of Veil’s development, we have tested with the top performancing radar detectors: the Beltronics/Bel RX65 Pro, Escort 8500 X50, and the Valentine 1. Recently, we have added a Beltronics STi Driver to our detector line-up.

We have noticed that the performance of majority of these radar detectors varies depending upon the police laser gun used to target our test vehicles.

We were curious to investigate more closely and have prepared a report which chronicles these differences.

We pitted these radar laser detectors against all currently available generation 3 (Gen III) police lasers:

Kustom Signal Pro Laser III

Laser Atlanta S

Laser Atlanta S – stealth mode

Laser Technology Ultralyte 100LR

Stalker LZ1

Read the following to see what we found out:

Laser Detectors Reviews, Tests, & Comparison

Veil Guy

I am pleased to report that after spending several weeks with Beltronic’s newest and most unique radar detector, I have accumulated enough experience behind the wheel with it to proffer some preliminary opinions.

Bel STI Driver Preview

I am refraining from undertaking a complete and thorough review until the production of the STi Driver radar detectors picks up in the coming months.

According to one of our sources, the older european radar band is likely not coming to our shores.

Since the publishing of a recent report on the invisibility of the STI driver to the SPECTRE III, we have come to learn of two skeptics of those findings.

It’s been suggested that a modified SPECTRE II is not the same as an actual SPECTRE III.

We’ll just have to wait a little bit longer to see what comes of this.

Yesterday (15 DEC 05) may prove to be one of the most significant days (in the world) for decades (generations) to come – and serve as an exemplar of the guileless importance/potential of connectivity.

With the vote in Iraq and surrounding areas from Iraqi expats, the ME region appears to be continuing its nascent steps towards The Functioning Core. Movafagh baasheed!
حظ سعي

Some believed it was not really possible or feasible, BUT:

Bel has recently announced a new high-end model called the STI Driver. A recent SpeedZones field test found the STI Driver to be completely undetectable by all currrent RDDs such as the SPECTRE III! The STI Driver model has been in the offing for some time and appears to be nothing short of an engineering “miracle!” Kudos to Beltronics for their innovation!

From what we gather it is built like a tank and performs exceptionally well with all radar bands and has undergone a major improvement to off-axis laser detection capabilities.

We are anxious to get this new model into our test cycle.

Valentine Research has recently informed me of an updated model now shipping (ver 3.826) which has some improvements to their “J” function (muting out false Ka LO leakage from lesser radar detectors in close proximity). After the Christmas and New Year’s holiday, we will send out our Valentine One (ver 3.826) to get flashed.

Veil Guy

I wanted to create a short note addressing the concerns expressed by a few that our testing methodology is “flawed” whenever we compare two high-end detectors “side-by-side.”

Certain individuals have commented that testing radar detectors in this fashion is taboo.

After living with the three top radar detectors over the years and have personally driven more than 6000 miles with them in operation in both stand-alone and “side-by-side” comparisons, I can state that we have not noticed any real noteable performance differences of any of them in either of the two testing modes.

I wouldn’t necessarily recommend such operation on “lesser” detectors, however, but feel that at this level of performance, any two of the top detectors (we use the current Valentine as our reference detector) should get along quite well – particularly if they are spaced well apart on the windscreen.

Prior to conducting our extensive radar detector tests, we asked the leading authorities in the detector industry including a representatives of each of the top three detector manufacturers as well as authoritative reviewers. Other than the one dissenting opinion (which I believe is based upon historical experience of older models) they each gave us a thumbs up to our testing approach.

In one case we did attempt to include a “lesser” detector (although, not in price!) into the mix and found that it caused our reference detector to false Ka. In this instance we immediately suspended our test and decided that the 2nd detector wasn’t worthy of testing because of its poor (lack-of) control of its own LO leakage and limited programming/configuration.

Other than this one obvious cross-talk issue we have found our detector comparisons revealing of actual performance in the real-world. We have approached known sources of bona-fide radar (X, K, and Ka) – from a variety of various angles – and have found alerts to essentially occur from any one of these top detectors as they would when run in solo-operation.

Of course, police laser/LIDAR performance of detectors is not subject the same potential of RF cross-interference permitting “fair” back-to-back realtime comparison of any given two laser detectors.

As radar detector manufacturers continue to “clean-up” the operating modes of their detectors (Bel appears to be leading the way with its new STI driver and the V1 continues to become tighter in operation) we believe the ability to do “side-by-side” comparisons will eventually become a more accepted practice – at least with the top-engineered radar detectors.

Veil Guy