Radar Detector?

[Soup DeVille]

I will respond to one last post from you. (again)

Would you please link the source you received this information from?

Based on the IACP-SMAT recommendations made to NHTSA.

You can request documentation on any currently manufactured speed measurement device by calling the IACP Speed Measuring Device Program CPL, (703) 836-4543.

[hounddog]

Based on the IACP-SMAT recommendations made to NHTSA.

You can request documentation on any currently manufactured speed measurement device by calling the IACP Speed Measuring Device Program CPL, (703) 836-4543.

That is fair.? Unfortunately, it only makes suggestions and has no other interests.? It has no enforcement authority over how lidar is employed.? For instance, the Michigan Speed Measurement Task Force has no set standards or guidelines regarding distances of measured speed on target vehicles.? In fact, they specifically mention that if a car is targeted at distances greater than 3,500 feet it is good practice to obtain a second reading immediately following the first.? And that came directly from Rohan, who is still using LIDAR  today as an active duty LE training sgt.

I also was looking over your posted links, I noticed a HUGE flaw in their testing.? Tell me, do you see anywhere, at all, in any of those sites that describes the methods employed to determine if/how calibration/external/internal checks on each unit were completed?? That one thing alone completely discredits anything they did.? How can they even know if the laser is working properly if they did not perform basic performance tests prior to using them?  That lack of information leads me to believe there is a possiblity that either the tests were 'fixed', or they had doctored the units.  Why else would they leave off such important and crucial tests?

Lastly, according to the Michigan Speed Measurement Task Force "LIDAR Instructor Course for Law Enforcement" texts, "LIDAR is approximately six (6) inches in diameter at one half mile, which would be the approximate size of a standard softball.? For this reason, MSMTF requires the use a rifle scope style device, which is permanently affixed to the unit and properly aimed by the manufacturer, to render a "distance reducing affect" on the target at great distances for the purpose of accuracy. "? Now, I will freely admit that my book was from 1996, so things may have changed a great deal since then.? It is completely possible, that since then, standards have changed.? I will be the bigger man here, and admit that you may have been right about the modern size of a LIDAR beam at certain distances.

BUT, I am still waiting for you to post a link saying that Stalker is the most widely used LIDAR unit out there.? Hell, their radar units are not even the most widely used.? ?And, you were wrong about how to employ the LIDAR? in the field.?  AND, why does Kustom NOT put in place a code indicating jammed?  Remember here in Michigan, where you are, ?Kustom is very widely used.  Probably the most widely used radar and LIDAR in the state.  Yet no jamming codes.

[Soup DeVille]

That is fair.? Unfortunately, it only makes suggestions and has no other interests.? It has no enforcement authority over how lidar is employed.? For instance, the Michigan Speed Measurement Task Force has no set standards or guidelines regarding distances of measured speed on target vehicles.? In fact, they specifically mention that if a car is targeted at distances greater than 3,500 feet it is good practice to obtain a second reading immediately following the first.? And that came directly from Rohan, who is still using LIDAR? today as an active duty LE training sgt.

I also was looking over your posted links, I noticed a HUGE flaw in their testing.? Tell me, do you see anywhere, at all, in any of those sites that describes the methods employed to determine if/how calibration/external/internal checks on each unit were completed?? That one thing alone completely discredits anything they did.? How can they even know if the laser is working properly if they did not perform basic performance tests prior to using them?? That lack of information leads me to believe there is a possiblity that either the tests were 'fixed', or they had doctored the units.? Why else would they leave off such important and crucial tests?

Lastly, according to the Michigan Speed Measurement Task Force "LIDAR Instructor Course for Law Enforcement" texts, "LIDAR is approximately six (6) inches in diameter at one half mile, which would be the approximate size of a standard softball.? For this reason, MSMTF requires the use a rifle scope style device, which is permanently affixed to the unit and properly aimed by the manufacturer, to render a "distance reducing affect" on the target at great distances for the purpose of accuracy. "? Now, I will freely admit that my book was from 1996, so things may have changed a great deal since then.? It is completely possible, that since then, standards have changed.? I will be the bigger man here, and admit that you may have been right about the modern size of a LIDAR beam at certain distances.

BUT, I am still waiting for you to post a link saying that Stalker is the most widely used LIDAR unit out there.? Hell, their radar units are not even the most widely used.? ?And, you were wrong about how to employ the LIDAR? in the field.?? AND, why does Kustom NOT put in place a code indicating jammed?? Remember here in Michigan, where you are, ?Kustom is very widely used.? Probably the most widely used radar and LIDAR in the state.? Yet no jamming codes.

That's why I said 'discouraged,' not 'forbade.' In fact most manufacturers claim ranges of 4000 feet or more.

No, none of the tests refer to the units being tested having a current IACP cert. However, It would be a foolish assumption to think they were all so far out of wack to show good results without a jammer and be able to be jammed with them. Let's try to go with the 'reasonable person' standard here, and not try to force empirical evidence or clinical standards on this. Let me remind you that my contention here is that these units do exist, and do work to a certain extent; exactly how well and how often is debatable. (and an even better question is- is it a good idea to use them, and you may very well be surprised at my stance in that).

Now, I'm fully willing to believe that you are directly quoting from your own training literature, but all the manufacuter's spec sheets that I've seen quote an angle of divergence in the 3 millirad range- which makes the softball about 9 feet wide.

I can't back up the  claim I made about Stalker. I remember reading an article that referred to the company as such, but it may have been in error. Anyways, its not a major part of my argument. Applied Concepts is a legitimate LIDAR manufacturer and their units are widely used throughout the country. All indications are that they produce about as many units as Kustom does- how many are used and how many- like your Lyte unit- are just shelved, well... You'd know better than I.

Why doesn't Kustom use jam codes? Well, I don't work for them, so I don't know; but jamming units aren't very widely used, and in most jurisdictions are legal anyways, so it may simply be that they haven't yet seen it to be a necessary thing.

As for how its used in the field? My information came from a Macomb County sherrif's deputy who was using his gun at a couple of different SCCA Solo I events I played steward at. That was his technique, and it did seem to work for me the couple of times I used it.

But again, my main thrust of this argument has been that LIDAR jammers do exist, do work, and are commercially available and legal in most places. I stand by that statement.

[hounddog]

No, none of the tests refer to the units being tested having a current IACP cert. However, It would be a foolish assumption to think they were all so far out of wack to show good results without a jammer and be able to be jammed with them. Let's try to go with the 'reasonable person' standard here, and not try to force empirical evidence or clinical standards on this. Let me remind you that my contention here is that these units do exist, and do work to a certain extent; exactly how well and how often is debatable. (and an even better question is- is it a good idea to use them, and you may very well be surprised at my stance in that).

I was referring to the Ferancy tests performed by a certified user.? There are tests that must be performed before and after every shift use for it to be considered accurate and reliable in court.? Laser or radar, either can be easily tampered with and unless these tests were completed the rest of the results mean nothing.? Internal(self check for proper internal functionality)/external (lights and numbers and beeps and steady sound)/moving and stationary for radar/distance and target for LIDAR using one of three techniques to achieve results.

But again, my main thrust of this argument has been that LIDAR jammers do exist, do work, and are commercially available and legal in most places. I stand by that statement.

Let us pretend there are actually working and efficient electrical devices out there which do make the laser gun not work properly.? They are not jamming the light beam.? They are producing a false reading by sending out another beam to the receiver.? The only thing that happens is that the computer can not read the second beam as anything other than noise.? Yes, that is right, noise.? It then is unable to do anything with the math, and would tell you.? Nothing is "jammed."? There is no divergance of the initial beam.? There is once again, no way to create anything of the sort unless you are using a military defractor which does nothing more than redirect the light beam, or you are driving a Galaxy class starship.? Unless, of course, you went for the top of the line model Sovereign class starship!? (The latest one where Data was killed)

But, that aside, there is still no incontributable evidence showing these devices actually work.?

This afternoon I called an old friend with the motor unit of a large department in the Detroit area.? He told me that they are testing a couple Stalkers, and why Stalker puts a code in place to inform the officer someone is using a "jammer."? He told me that they are doing that so officers can stop and cite/confiscate said "jamming" equipment.? Because, as you remember, it is a misdemeanor in Michigan to employ such devices on our roadways.? ?They put that code in there as a favor to law enforcement everywhere.? He also told me that Stalker instructs them that once that code is received to reshoot that very same area and you will receive a speed reading.? He said Stalker tells them that the unit simply blocks out, or ignores, the exact frequency which caused the code.? He said that is Stalkers way of leveling the playing field.? He said Kustom does not use a code, but if you reshoot the car a second time it too will simply ignore the extemperaneous signal and provide the officer with a correct speed reading.? The last thing he told me was he was aware of the edmonds tests.? He said they never reshot a car once they got a JTG reading, and they did it on purpose because they knew what would happen.? He also told me that one of the "jammer" makers fully funded that test, but either would not or did not know which one.? He would not tell me that, either!

I am only relaying what someone told me, and I have no knowledge if any of it is true.? But I have known this guy for about 25 years, and he is pretty honest.? He was his counties officer of the year twice for his work with OUIL's, and has been honored by Governor Engler for the same.? Take it for what it is worth to you.

[Soup DeVille]

Okay, so that we can agree on a point of vocabulary:

"Jamming" in general refers to interfering with the communication loop between emitter and the receiver on the gun. It doesn't imply that the "beam", be it laser or radar is actually stopped in its tracks. Not even military jammers claim to do that. It is jamming the communication.

You've kind of stepped on your own logic though. Either these devices interferere with police speed measuring equipment or not. If they don't, then there is no legal basis to confiscate them. If police are confiscating them, then they must have legal reasons to do so, therefore they must work!

Yes, reshooting the same target will usually produce a reading: even the jammer manufacturers say this in their own literature. The laser beam will be detected, jammed, and the driver will be alerted. The jamming signal will then be shut off- and the driver will hopefully have the chance to "correct" his driving before the second reading has taken place. On the Lidatek units, the jamming signal will work for 5 seconds and then shut itself off for 30 and not refire even if it detects another beam.

[SVT_Power]

I'm going to be getting a Valentine 1 soon. Passports seem to be recommended too.

You know you can get pulled over for having one right?

[hounddog]

Okay, so that we can agree on a point of vocabulary:

"Jamming" in general refers to interfering with the communication loop between emitter and the receiver on the gun. It doesn't imply that the "beam", be it laser or radar is actually stopped in its tracks. Not even military jammers claim to do that. It is jamming the communication.?

That is what I said.? But thanks for restating it!  But it would not jam communication, rather calculations.  No communication exists within a single computer. 

You've kind of stepped on your own logic though. Either these devices interferere with police speed measuring equipment or not. If they don't, then there is no legal basis to confiscate them. If police are confiscating them, then they must have legal reasons to do so, therefore they must work!

Intent.? That is the key word.? You can buy a bag of powedered sugar, but if you believed at that moment (intent) it was an illegal substance like cocaine, you still get charged and convicted of the crime.? Same applies here.? If a unit is installed and used on a car which its sole purpose is the intent of disrupting speed measuring devices, it is illegal.? They do not have to work according to manufacturer specs, just have to be used with intent.? And yes, I realize that is a simplistic answer.? It is still, however, accurate under Michigan law.

Yes, reshooting the same target will usually produce a reading: even the jammer manufacturers say this in their own literature. The laser beam will be detected, jammed, and the driver will be alerted. The jamming signal will then be shut off- and the driver will hopefully have the chance to "correct" his driving before the second reading has taken place. On the Lidatek units, the jamming signal will work for 5 seconds and then shut itself off for 30 and not refire even if it detects another beam.

Well, first off, they say it because they know.? ?Secondly, I can reshoot a car in less time than it will take you to realize a problem, formulate you plan, activate and carry out your plan which takes 1.75 seconds on average.? It takes me about 1 second to fire two beams at you and receive signals back.? Even if it takes me two seconds, you still will get something in the way of tickets.? Whether it be a speeding and a electronic jamming device, or just the latter.? Either way, you lose.

[hounddog]

Also, I did not realize until just now I had farqued up the quote thing on my post #93.  I just fixed it.  I hope.

[TheIntrepid]

Also, I did not realize until just now I had farqued up the quote thing on my post #93.  I just fixed it.  I hope.

[BartsSVO]

I will point out that a jam code on a laser gun merely indicates the possibility of a jammer being present. It is not die hard proof that the targeted vehicle has one. Tests by SML and GOL have shown that laser guns can produce false jam codes or even have a jam code triggered from a car that is equipped with a jammer, but is not being actively targeted. Laser Atlanta units are about the only ones that produce a jam code only when a jammer is positively detected. Others, most notably the Stalker, seem to give an error code due to bright headlights or strong reflections of the sun. So if you're going to go around and pull over every vehicle that generates a jam code on your laser, you're going to be pretty busy!

[LonghornTX]

W/ respect to the original topic, I would recomend the V1.  It also has a lifetime upgrade plan (or at least my dad's did, and he has had, and upgraded it, for some 10 years now), which is cool.

[NomisR]

W/ respect to the original topic, I would recomend the V1.? It also has a lifetime upgrade plan (or at least my dad's did, and he has had, and upgraded it, for some 10 years now), which is cool.

That's my plan, it seems like laser jammers are illegal in California so I guess i'll get the V1 once my mounting bracket comes in. 

[Soup DeVille]

That is what I said.? But thanks for restating it!? But it would not jam communication, rather calculations.? No communication exists within a single computer.?
Intent.? That is the key word.? You can buy a bag of powedered sugar, but if you believed at that moment (intent) it was an illegal substance like cocaine, you still get charged and convicted of the crime.? Same applies here.? If a unit is installed and used on a car which its sole purpose is the intent of disrupting speed measuring devices, it is illegal.? They do not have to work according to manufacturer specs, just have to be used with intent.? And yes, I realize that is a simplistic answer.? It is still, however, accurate under Michigan law.
Well, first off, they say it because they know.? ?Secondly, I can reshoot a car in less time than it will take you to realize a problem, formulate you plan, activate and carry out your plan which takes 1.75 seconds on average.? It takes me about 1 second to fire two beams at you and receive signals back.? Even if it takes me two seconds, you still will get something in the way of tickets.? Whether it be a speeding and a electronic jamming device, or just the latter.? Either way, you lose.

Yes, it is communication- it is closed loop communication, and thats's not an uncommon concept in computers at all, but I'd rather not argue minor semantics.

And if anybody gets convicted for carrying powdered sugar, they have the world's absolute worst lawyer. I have a pretty bit of red braided string with a couple of bells on it that was given to me by an ex-girlfriend. its supposed to be some sort of Chinese good luck symbol. I believe it makes my car invisible to radar (devil's advocate here, H-dog). Does that make it illegal? No! And why not? Because nobody takes it seriously. The police generally don't like to waste their time confiscating chinese good luck symbols. And if laser jammers were as useless as you think, the police wouldn't bother confiscating them either.

If it takes me 1.75 seconds to hit the brakes on my car, I have absolutely no business driving on a public road in the first place.

[hounddog]

And if anybody gets convicted for carrying powdered sugar, they have the world's absolute worst lawyer. I have a pretty bit of red braided string with a couple of bells on it that was given to me by an ex-girlfriend. its supposed to be some sort of Chinese good luck symbol. I believe it makes my car invisible to radar (devil's advocate here, H-dog). Does that make it illegal? No! And why not? Because nobody takes it seriously. The police generally don't like to waste their time confiscating chinese good luck symbols. And if laser jammers were as useless as you think, the police wouldn't bother confiscating them either.

I did not say carrying powdered sugar, I said "if you buy" it.   You do not need the worst defense lawyer, any probationary prosecutor can make it stick.  Believing a string of beads makes your car invisible will not land you a citation or get your beads confiscated.  It may get you thrown into a padded room, but, it is completely different situation than having an electronic device on your car that was manufactured to disrupt speed measuring devices.  I am not going to argue this one with you.  They are simply not the same.  Intent, its all about your intent when it comes to this law.  Period.

If it takes me 1.75 seconds to hit the brakes on my car, I have absolutely no business driving on a public road in the first place.

You can simply not do anything faster than that.  But, I did misquote my notes; it should have read 0.75 seconds. 

[Soup DeVille]

I did not say carrying powdered sugar, I said "if you buy" it.? ?You do not need the worst defense lawyer, any probationary prosecutor can make it stick.? Believing a string of beads makes your car invisible will not land you a citation or get your beads confiscated.? It may get you thrown into a padded room, but, it is completely different situation than having an electronic device on your car that was manufactured to disrupt speed measuring devices.? I am not going to argue this one with you.? They are simply not the same.? Intent, its all about your intent when it comes to this law.? Period.
You can simply not do anything faster than that.? But, I did misquote my notes; it should have read 0.75 seconds.?

Well, my braided string was made with the express intent of thwarting the police as well. But anyways, many of these things serve double duty as garage door openers, whether this will make much of a difference or not I'm not sure, as it doesn't look like anybody's really contested it in court in Michigan yet. I'm sure it will eventually be worked out in case law. Of course, if the guy pulled over replies, "yes, officer that is a laser jamming device and i know they're illegal," then that would make everything pretty easy.

I simply do not see any law enforcement people taking the time to confiscate a bogus device that they know does nothing. I only see them confiscating it if they believe it does something that makes their job harder.

I would have believed 0.75 seconds as an average.

[sparkplug]

I'll just get some of that radar absorbent paint they used on the F-117A stealth bombers. Wonder if it'll absorb lasers too? hehe

[etypeJohn]

For what it is worth.

Laser may be hard or impossible to jam, but you can cut down the effective range of the gun by driving around night and day with your brights and driving lights on.   

[traumadog]

I have a V1 here - and it spent some time in my glove compartment when I went to Toronto.
Other than that, it's on-duty.

Oh, and for those with V1's, you might be interested in this page:

http://www.valentine1.com/lab/MikesLabRpt3.asp

It lists other programming options not listed in the User's Manual; I used it to shut off X-band - no agencies use it here (NYSP prefers those "particle-wave thingies" being discussed here) and it cuts down on falses immensely.

[sparkplug]

I have a V1 here - and it spent some time in my glove compartment when I went to Toronto.
Other than that, it's on-duty.

Oh, and for those with V1's, you might be interested in this page:

http://www.valentine1.com/lab/MikesLabRpt3.asp

It lists other programming options not listed in the User's Manual; I used it to shut off X-band - no agencies use it here (NYSP prefers those "particle-wave thingies" being discussed here) and it cuts down on falses immensely.

I'd like to test it out. What kind of car alarm do you have. hehe
I've been telling my brother the best radar detector out there is the valentine one. It's a good deal because they've kept the same case and upgrade to newer components.