2012 Radar Rally

Cayman R clocked by LTI TruCam laser

I'm often amazed at the average driver's paucity of knowledge when it comes to radar and lidar (laser). For example, I recently engaged in a flurry of e-mail exchanges with a customer who swears that his Escort Passport 9500ix has hardly any range.

"My concern is that it doesn't seem to give you much radar notice.  When it does go off, it is usually a full alarm and I am right on top of or can see a cop.  Are there models that have the same or higher false alarms but better distance detection i.e. [Escort] Redline?" he implored.

He's experiencing moving radar being used in instant-on mode. Developed in the seventies to defeat radar detectors, it keeps the radar on standby, ready for action. But it's not transmitting a signal and radar detectors remain silent. When a likely target has approached the rolling cruiser to within about 700 feet, the officer presses the XMT (transmit) button and a few hundred milliseconds later, he's got a target speed. No time to react.

Explaining the phenomenon to this first-time detector user has proven fruitless, despite steering him to several videos we've made on the subject.

And another e-mail missive, this one from a fellow in Virginia. "The cops are using new radar and my (Escort) 8500 X50 doesn't go off. I'm very unhappy with its performance. Can you tell me what's wrong with it?"

In a phone conversation he related the details and it was instantly clear why his Escort had remained silent: the cops were using lasers, not radar.

Stalker II Ka-band radar at work

The sheer volume of erroneous online information on the subject of speed-measuring technology is astounding. And just about everyone, it seems, is confident that they're well up to speed on this stuff.

They're not, but try convincing them of that. Worse yet, I've got sitting on the shelf two new laser guns that can neither be detected nor jammed. Once their numbers grow, they'll become a tangible threat, further turning upside down the clueless driver's tenuous grasp of the technology.

But seeing is believing and there's one way to illustrate how the latest radar and laser are used against speeders. In mid-April we're hosting the first Radar Rally where teams will test their skill at beating the enforcers.

Cobra iRadar on Apple iPhone

Following an 80-mile route over a mix of urban streets, remote highways and county roads, they face an unknown number of ambushes en route—some of them our staffers in unmarked cars. Armed with a dazzling array of advanced electronics, they'll be lying in wait. So will the real cops, not to mention red light and speed cameras monitoring the route. Teams must identify and note the location of each threat—and without getting stopped.

I expect nearly every team to be packing advanced countermeasures. These include Cobra iRadar and Escort LIve, two smartphone apps that broadcast Internet realtime alerts to fellow users. Some will arm themselves with the Photoenforced.com or Trapster apps to skirt these hotspots. A few will pack only radar detectors; a smaller number can be expected to arrive with laser jammers to supplement their detectors.

Will anyone be able to run this gauntlet ticket-free? Perhaps; we'll find out. But our underlying mission is to raise contestants' awareness of this heightened level of enforcement. Post-race, we'll demonstrate these same radar and laser guns for the group, with tips on how best to counter them.

A few slots remain open for this fun-run extravaganza. If you'd like to test your skill at dodging the enforcers, send me an e-mail.

Blinded by the Light

At the Los Angeles Auto Show a few years ago, I digitally photographed the backs of some show cars. Upon reviewing the photos, I noticed that one car's California license plate seemed to be overexposed. It was still legible, but the already highly reflective plate somehow seemed even brighter than usual. At the time, I attributed the phenomenon to a poor choice of metering modes. In retrospect, it was likely my first brush with Photo Blocker.

This clear spray is used to coat a license plate which, says the manufacturer, now reflects so much additional light back to a red light camera, the photo is overexposed. No photo, no ticket. 

Photo Blocker-coated plate.

On the PhotoBlocker.com Web site are several video testimonials, one of them by Denver-based, self-styled consumer reporter Tom Martino. This is the same guy mentioned by Jay Leno in a monologue last fall. "He took a $2 million salary and turned it into a $78 million debt," Leno deadpanned. "And now he's declaring bankruptcy."

Using a Denver Police Department photo radar unit manned by cops, Martino tested two license plate covers plus Photo Blocker.  Although neither plate cover was identified, I recognized one as the Original Protector. Its prismatic material is claimed to distort part of the plate, making it unreadable. The other was the Reflector Cover, a clear plastic cover sprinkled with reflective specs that, we are told, overexpose the photo, rendering the image unusable. All three products are sold by PhantomPlate, Inc., which supplied them to Martino.

According to Martino's test, the Original Protector cover failed to deceive the camera, but, he said, the Reflector Cover did overexpose the photo. And Photo Blocker was even more effective. His recommendation, "...buy the spray."

Not long afterward, the video clip appeared on the PhotoBlocker.com Web site and every can of Photo Blocker now is emblazoned with the "test results" generated by Martino.

On its face, a very compelling testimonial, at least for the incurious. But when we tested the same products, our results were markedly different. Who's right? Check out the story and decide for yourself.

BEL Vector 995, the Rodney Dangerfield of radar detectors

Escort 8500 X50 (left), BEL Vector 995

Imagine the excitement if BMW announced that a new car, identical in appearance and performance to the M3 coupe, would be available at a steep discount. BMW mechanics can work on it and every component is OEM BMW. There'd be a single caveat: its badge would read Panhard, not BMW.

Forget for a moment some of the implications that would come with that Panhard badge, an uncertain resale value, for instance. Would you buy one anyway?

Much as I like the M3, an identical alternative available at a 20 percent discount might be enough to catch my attention. But many wouldn't bite, for the Bimmer label is a major part of why they purchased a BMW. The same car by another name wouldn't have nearly the cachet. For them, appearance is at least as important as function.

The same phenomenon applies to radar detectors. The Escort name implies high performance, impeccable build quality and leading-edge technology. Those who have been around awhile are likely to accord the same attributes to 40-year-old Beltronics (BEL), but to younger buyers, it's a relative unknown.

This is why most remain unaware of the Vector 995, the BEL version of the class-leading Escort  Passport 8500 X50, the successor to the model I christened "World's Best" when I reviewed it in 2001. Standing in the shadow of its heavily-promoted corporate sibling, the Vector 995 remains the Rodney Dangerfield of radar detectors.

How similar are these two? Very: other than a different housing and a miniscule variation in features, the BEL Vector 995 is identical to the Escort Passport 8500 X50, including the recently released 8500 X50 Black. The similarities are obvious in our new video.

The BEL has an upmarket feature: voice alerts. Unlike the Escort, which relies on audio tones to convey band ID and other information, the BEL comes with both voice alerts and audio tones. Those uninterested in or unable to master different tones can opt for a stentorian male voice to call out the details. No more having to study the detector for information.

And there are two other differences: 1) The Escort has Expert Meter, a display option no one uses that tracks multiple signals, and 2) The Escort sells for a no-discount $299.95 while the BEL can be had for substantially less. (If you see the Escort advertised cheaper, it's from an unauthorized reseller. When it breaks, don't bother returning to Escort for service; they'll decline to work on it.)

Aside from these items, the two are the same radar detector. But try explaining that over the telephone. Most of the Internet buzz is centered on the 8500 X50, and that's the model on which most callers prefer to focus. But a few want to hear more, particularly about how the two compare in performance.

To that end we recently tested both models, including an Escort Passport 8500 X50 Black. The results persuaded us to create the BEL Vector 995 Protection Pack. We view it as a cost-effective package that significantly increases one's level of protection against speeding tickets.

Best Radar Detector vs. Worst, the Movie

"According to you", the

caller said, "most radar encounters happen at less than 800 feet.  So if a

$150 [radar] detector gives me a mile of warning range, why should I spend $500 and buy an Escort RedLine?"

He was referring to our comparison test in which the RedLine spotted all of our radar guns from 14.2 miles away, a world record.

That test was an interesting--if labor-intensive--exercise intended to answer a question few have asked: How far away can the best radar detector spot radar? In hindsight I almost wish we hadn't bothered; it would have prevented an endless litany of questions like this one.

In my answers I explain how the extraordinary range of the high-end Escort, admittedly overkill when it's used on a billiard table-flat desert road like we used for testing, gives it a reserve of performance. And in difficult conditions that extra performance translates into ticket avoidance where lesser models offer no protection at all.

To illustrate this point I remind callers that when we tested in real-world conditions, with hills and curves, that $150 Rocky Mountain Radar model failed miserably in detecting our radar soon enough. Yet the RedLine alerted at 0.6 mile, allowing 2,100 feet in which to react. You'd think that would settle the matter. But no, I can almost feel their eyes glaze over. When we say our goodbyes, most clearly remain unconvinced.

This seemed to merit a video production. The cheapest solution would be a typical YouTube effort, shot with a wobbly camcorder inside a moving car and usually, it would appear, by the driver himself. I had other ideas.

If we were going to spend two days frying in 110-degree desert heat to grab the location shots, we might as well bump up the production values and make the shoot more interesting visually.

To that end we secured the one-week loan of a new Dodge Charger SRT8, a bargain-priced road rocket packing a 6.1-liter, 425 hp V-8. In our previous tests of this Hemi-powered model it hit 60 mph from rest in 5.3 seconds and went on to reach 167 mph. Equally important, its generous interior room allowed Tyson Smith, our talented cameraman, enough space for what are called OTS shots, or Over The Shoulder, where the camera could capture the driver's point of view and also see the detectors on the dash.

The Charger SRT8 has other attributes that make it ideal for filming. Among them is an abundance of flat panels, making it easy to mount our tiny POV cameras on the front doors and hood. These use brackets with suction cups that can be detached easily while still reliably holding the tiny cameras rock-steady at speeds beyond 130 mph.

The Dodge also has bulletproof brakes, essential for making repeated maximum-G stops from speed. And, not least, its guttural exhaust gives it a commanding aural presence.

This last bit is significant since, like with most location shoots, much of the natural sound we recorded was unusable in the final edit. Example: in the opening sequence, the SRT8 crosses a distant horizon at speed. We shot three takes, each ruined by the drone of a low-flying Cessna that suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Another: the POV (point of view) Sony XC999 and Contour HD cameras clinging to the exterior of the car were shooting MOS, film-speak for "without sound". We'd need the appropriate audio to make these shots work.

That audio was recorded months earlier in another location from three other vehicles: a Jeep Cherokee SRT8--identical powertrain and similar-sounding exhaust--a Cadillac CTS-V and a Jaguar XFR. The last two have supercharged V-8s and while their exhaust notes are more refined and less raucous than the Charger's, we found that certain combinations of throttle, gear and rpm generated a reasonable approximation of the Charger SRT8's exhaust note.

So how'd all this work out? Check out the video and judge for yourself.

Escort Passport 9500ix: GPS vs. Conventional Radar Detector Technology

Escort RedLine

"What's the best radar detector, the Escort Passport 9500ix or the Escort RedLIne?" is a question I field on a daily basis. And I always answer, "It depends."

These two radar detectors have very different missions in life. So the choice depends on a host of variables, not least of which are the driver's desire for industry-best radar detection range, his tolerance for false alarms and if there's an interest in combatting red light and speed cameras.

But try explaining the differences  to a neophyte. The recently introduced GPS-enabled radar detector is one of the least-understood pieces of mobile electronics I've seen in years. Mention GPS in the same breath as radar detector and confusion often reigns. Mobile GPS-based navigation systems have become so ubiquitous that many assume that GPS in a radar detector must likewise be used to assist the wayward. Not so.

GPS lends it the ability to ferret out photo enforcement cameras but more important, GPS is used to limit false alarms. So why is this a big deal? Having driven with and field-tested GPS-enabled detectors since they arrived in 2007, the behavioral differences between conventional detectors, Escort RedLine included, and their GPS-enabled cousins is striking.

But most haven't had the luxury of conducting years-long, side-by-side comparisons of the two technologies. And I've been geting a bit weary of describing the differences. So I did what any proper resident of the 21st-century does to demonstrate a point: I made a video. Check it out and hopefully the differences between the conventional-tech and the GPS radar detector will become clear.

Real-world Radar Detector Tests

A recent caller had a question: "You test in the desert with no traffic around, no trees, nothing. But I don't live in the desert and there are cars and trees and hills where I drive. So why don't you do a real-world detector test?"

A fair question and one easy to answer: There's no way to conduct a meaningful test of radar detectors in the real world. It would be worse than useless: misleading and more important, almost certainly unfair to some of the products. Here's why.

A comparison test generally pits one model against another, sometimes it's a before-and-after comparison of the same model's performance following a significant modification. But generally it's a shootout and like any shootout, there's only one winner.

Editors love shootouts because they sell magazines and from the late eighties until 2002, I conducted dozens of tests for magazines both here and abroad. Testing was laborious but writing the stories was much tougher. While it's easy to savage an under-performing detector and garner some laughs in the process, the tester has to keep in mind that even failures usually are collaborative efforts that consumed thousands of man-hours of labor and a lot of money. Nobody sets out to create a loser; with rare exceptions, the people behind the product did their best. Sometimes that just isn't good enough. Regardless, every participant in a shootout deserves a fair shot.

Unlike some gadgets, radar detectors can't be tested in parallel; with only a handful of exceptions, their local oscillators interfere with one another. (Even when one doesn't cause another to alert, sophisticated DSP-controlled radar detectors often dial back sensitivity to eliminate the nuisance signal, chopping sensitivity—warning range—to almost nothing in the process.) So they have to be tested separately; on rare occasions this may occur several hours apart if the number tested is unusually large or conditions dictate.

During those hours, none of the variables in the testing environment can change. This includes radar antenna alignment, radar detector mounting position (we use an elaborate test fixture to maintain alignment); target vehicle, traffic, even the weather. (Blowing dust, for example, significantly influences microwave propagation and detection range.)

The terrain used for the test site has a huge influence on detector performance. Placing detector and radar on level ground facing each other makes the detector's job easy, particularly when there's little foliage and no structures or terrain to block the signal. One operator, a guy who sells product endorsements, tests like this and not surprisingly, no detector he's ever tested has failed to be awarded his seal of approval.

Our Straightaway Test site is composed of two parallel, 2.5-mile-long straight stretches offset by a half-mile-long lateral section of road that spirals down to hop across a low-water crossing. It's not a down-the-throat shot but to a detector, it's reasonably close.

Here, the Rocky Mountain Radar RMR-D210, one of the most inept detectors I've ever tested and an electronic twin of the fabled RMR-D312, could spot most of our radars from 5,100 feet away. In these conditions, that's plenty of range. Although most of the radars could easily reach out nearly 3,500 feet here, target-capture range in practice is usually more like 700 to 800 feet.

But at our Curve/Hill site, everything is stacked in favor of the radar, exactly like you'll find in the real world. At this site the radar vehicle is hidden in the middle of a plunging S-curve and picking off targets as they pop into view only 650-odd feet away. The police vehicle can't be seen until nearly the moment when the radar locks-in a speed. And many radar detectors won't help here.

The radar beam is pointing at a sharp angle uphill, across the target's direction of travel and skyward—not at the detector. This off-axis signal is vastly more difficult to spot, the very reason why we test at this site. The Rocky Mountain Radar RMR-D210 belatedly squawked an alert at 600 feet, a few car lengths after the radar had already locked-in a target speed.

Even the Escort RedLine, proven the world's best radar detector in sheer sensitivity (warning range) in our recent test, alerts here at only about 3,300 feet. (I say "about" because the number varies slightly every time we test at this location, despite elaborate procedures to replicate conditions.) But in that other test it spotted the same radar from 14.25 miles away—in flat, featureless desert it should be noted.

Clearly, the test site and test procedures exert a huge influence on the results. So does the radar and its operation. At our Long-range Straightaway test site, the radar vehicle driver's door is aligned with our paint mark on the pavement and each radar antenna is aligned with a bubble level, then aimed at a reflector stake we hammered into the ground years ago. It's about 1,000 feet down the road and points directly to the terminus of the test site.

With the radar transmitting, the target car carrying the detectors takes its position at the edge of the test site, 5.4 miles away. Using one of the control detectors we've tested at this site continuously since 2003, we check to see if it detects each of the four to six radars being used for the test. If it doesn't, the driver instructs the radar operator by radio to make tiny changes in antenna alignment until the detector sounds a continuous alert. Then the test begins.

But even with these safeguards, sometimes there are surprises. After using the same Stalker radar for several years of testing, once during this calibration sequence the control detector inexplicably couldn't hear the Stalker. No amount of antenna realignment could induce it to detect the previously detectable radar. We tried another control detector with identical results.

At wits' end, finally I asked the radar operator to replace the antenna with a spare unit. In response, the detector barked an alert at maximum range. After some experimentation by switching between the two, we found that the recently-repaired antenna we'd started with could be detected, but detection range now was 20 percent less than in prior tests. In a later chat with Stalker's chief engineer I learned that a running change had been made to the antenna components and, thinking they were doing me a favor, Stalker had replaced the antenna innards with those of the new unit. It looked the same, but detectors somehow found it far more challenging to spot.

This is why, to be accurate, the tester has to control every variable. That includes traffic. Recently we tested detection range when the radar was behind the detector. The Valentine One has a rear-facing radar antenna and detects radar from behind just as well as it does from the front. This has sold a lot of radar detectors for Valentine but the truth is, any competent detector will detect radar coming from behind. The signal shoots past the target, reflects from a road sign or nearby structure—sometimes from the back of an 18-wheeler's trailer—and straight into the detector's antenna, setting it off.

From experience I knew that detection range by conventional detectors of rear radar is heavily influenced by the presence of 18-wheelers. Follow one with a polished-aluminum trailer door at 50 feet and it'll bounce back a strong enough signal from a radar four miles back to drive a high-end detector into a frenzy. Drive 50 feet in front of one and it will effectively block the signal, reducing even the V1's range by up to 90 percent or more.

And sure enough, with the radar car sitting next to I-10, detection range varied from 0.3 mile to over 2.0 miles. The difference was caused by truck traffic and the moving target car's proximity to road signs. It took endless hours to make a few good sets of runs not influenced by passing trucks, an illustration of why testing on public roads is generally a lousy idea.

These instances depict why "real-world radar tests" prove nothing. Most who earnestly offer these as evidence of detector performance, often on social media sites and YouTube, often aren't even using their own radar. They're depending on an anonymous signal, maybe a state trooper seen earlier parked at roadside.

But they're not operating the radar, the trooper is. And if he's like most, he'll be switching between the front antenna and the rear, also often placing the unit on RF Hold before taking another snapshot of a likely violator. Once on RF Hold, there's no signal present to set off a detector. Or he may adjust the antenna alignment or reposition his car, completely altering the beam strength as the detector sees it.

In the mid-nineties we were engaged by a radar manufacturer to conduct the first comparison test all of the front-line moving radar units. For the test I hired the Colorado State Patrol's chief radar instructor as an assistant. I didn't really need his help but felt that a veteran CSP sergeant as an observer would help to defuse the inevitable claims by the losers that the test was rigged.

Leaving the sergeant in the radar vehicle to mind the hardware, we began testing. After an hour spent making repeated passes, the numbers weren't making sense. Maximum target-capture range of the first radar model, an MPH Python II, was varying wildly, jumping from barely 1,200 feet on some passes to nearly 3,500 feet on subsequent runs. In the total absence of other traffic, all other variables being equal, there is no way on Earth radar should behave this way.

Exasperated and bewildered, finally we drove back to the radar vehicle. After chatting for a bit, I casually asked the sergeant: "Mike, by chance did the radar antenna get bumped or something while we were out there?"

"Didn't bump it but I did adjust it a bit," he said. "Figured you might get better range."

Now things made sense. Every time he tweaked the antenna alignment by a few millimeters, everything changed.

After admonishing the radar instructor not even to breathe on the antenna for the duration of the test, we started over. And this time the results were consistent. Moral: don't assume that someone with a Radar Instructor title necessarily knows much about radar, an observation I've since had occasion to confirm more than once.

On some YouTube flicks the videographer is using a radar speed trailer parked on the shoulder. Employing one of these as a radar source is equally fraught with peril since the results are heavily skewed by passing traffic. Just as that rear radar test illustrates the influence of large vehicles on detection range, even pickup and SUV-sized vehicles passing between detector and radar trailer will cause sudden drops in detection range as they block the beam. And it's entirely possible that a vehicle may pull onto the shoulder, disrupting the beam for the duration of its visit. But the videographer probably won't notice; he's half a mile down the road, driving the car, filming the action and staring intently at the detector, waiting for an alert.

Under these conditions there's no testing being performed; it's just some enthusiastic guys driving around aimlessly and watching the detector. When one performs differently than another, they have no idea why; they just report it as fact. This makes for entertaining YouTube footage but as an accurate comparison test, forget about it. There's no control of the variables.

A complex product like a radar detector doesn't lend itself to real-world tests, which is the whole point of product testing. By controlling the variables, a competent tester can consistently replicate test results within a window of confidence. The process isn't perfect, but anything else purporting to be a test is merely theater and rarely a reflection of a radar detector's true performance.

Radar Detectors Exposed: How to Find the Right One

Choosing a radar detector is different than buying, say, a laptop computer. Thousands of people are qualified to weigh in with opinions on computers. But the number of radar detector experts--experienced folks who have exhaustively comparison-tested models from every manufacturer against every type of threat--can be counted on both hands. On the Internet, the most shrill voices tend to be heard and any self-proclaimed expert with good SEO skills will regularly appear high in Google rankings. None of which helps the prospective radar detector buyer.

This may be why the question I hear most often is "What's the best radar detector?" Before even attempting to reply, first I quiz the caller, gathering information. How experienced is he at using a detector? Will it be moved among vehicles? What type of car does he drive and last--most important, where does he drive?

That last question is critical. For example, Joe from New Jersey called today and asked for a recommendation. He'd had two already: his dealer suggested a K40 Calibre ($1400) remote system and a friend suggested a Valentine One. What, he asked, would I recommend?

By making my usual queries I learned that he wanted a dash-mount (a.k.a. windshield-mount) model, he commutes 70 miles daily over urban freeways and that he frequently drives to Florida in his Mercedes S600. He also hasn't used a radar detector since tossing his last one into the closet ten years ago. Why? Incessant false alarms, particuarly in town, he said, a familiar refrain.

I suggested either a BEL (Beltronics) GX65, an Escort Passport 9500ix or a BEL (Beltronics) STi Driver, Okay, Joe said, explain why.

Fair question, and easily answered: 1) Either of the first two, GPS-enabled radar detectors, is practically immune to false alarms: if they sound an alert, it's nearly always a police radar or laser gun; 2) The New Jersey State Police continues to use X-band MPH radar heavily, meaning that his detector must have good X-band sensitivity but also great filtering to shut out the ubiquitous radar-controlled automatic door openers also operating on X band--and both models excel at both tasks; and 3) The BEL GX65 and Escort Passport 9500ix are almost completely undetectable by the Spectre radar detector detector (RDD). And the BEL STi Driver is 100 percent undetectable by the Spectre RDD.

Remember, he said he often drives through Virginia. Detectors are illegal there and the Virginia State Police use Spectres to spot illicit radar detectors. We test annually against the latest Spectre RDD model and know that it can spot both the K40 Calibre and the Valentine One from hundreds of feet away. It belatedly spotted the BEL GX65 and Escort Passport 9500ix from 32 feet away in our most recent test, in essence making them invisible to roving enforcers. The second Beltronics model was even better: the BEL STi Driver could be placed with its case touching that of the Spectre RDD (above right) without being detected. This makes it the best choice for anyone driving with a CDL or those who live in Virginia or Washington, D.C. where detectors are illegal.

I also told him that our tests show that in City mode, the K40 Calibre is totally oblivious to the New Jersey State Police X-band radar, but if left in highway mode, it constantly false-alarms on X- (and K-) band. The Valentine One turned in an even more dismal showing in a recent urban false alarm test.

Through this process of elimination I was able to offer three top picks to the New Jersey Mercedes driver: detectors that meet his criteria of quiet operation, excellent performance and invisibilty to RDDs.

But he could have discovered this for himself and faster, too. We rolled out the prototype DetectorSelector recently, a computerized system that matches buyer with radar detector. It has a national database of speed-enforcement equipment used by law enforcement agencies--radar make/model/frequency, photo enforcement (red light cameras, speed cameras and photo radar); lasers, aircraft, you name it. Enter your Zip code, answer a few questions and it generates a list of suitable models. Try the DetectorSelector and see for yourself:

Wronged by Radar

There's a recurring theme on forums and newsgroups whenever someone posts a missive relating the circumstances of a speeding ticket. Without exception, eventually a Safety Nannny ventures this opinion: "Don't speed and you won't get a ticket." And like a lot of opinions on the Internet, this one is dead wrong.

I routinely hear from defense attorneys shopping for an expert witness for a speeding case. Most involve radar and in most cases, I'm not interested. After a conversation with the defendant it's usually clear that A) They're guilty as charged and, B) Mounting a proper defense would cost perhaps 20 times more than the price of the ticket. After this is made clear, most disappear.

But not always. Occasionally, after scrutinizing the facts of the case, it's obvious that the police officer made a mistake. Sometimes they lie. And over the past decade these cases have often shared two common characteristics: the officer was using moving radar in Fastest Speed mode and the radar involved was a Stalker Dual or DSR model.

The most recent of these occurred late last year when Marc Berger called from California. He'd been cited by the California Highway Patrol for driving 91 mph in a 65 mph zone in the northeastern part of the state.

He was outraged, convinced that his black Porsche Cayenne Turbo, moving at 65 mph, he claimed, had been singled out solely because it was a Porsche. He'd requested a Trial by Written Declaration, a California oddity where both sides present written accounts of the event and a judge makes a determination. After inquiring about the facts of the case I told Berger I'd look into it.

From Berger's description of the event I was fairly certain the radar was a Stalker Dual SL and that the officer had incorrectly identified the vehicle producing the 91 mph target speed. When the case documents arrived, it took about two minutes to determine that I'd guessed right.

The written declaration from the CHP officer, identified as K. Miller, made for interesting reading. It was the standard boilerplate used by speed cops everywhere and began:

"On 08-15-2009 at approximately 0942 hours, I was on patrol in a marked black and white CHP patrol vehicle (#1288901), in full CHP uniform. Traffic was light at the time. The weather was clear and the pavement was dry. I was on patrol driving northbound on US-395 south of Coso rest stop in the county of Inyo. There are four lanes for traffic, two for S/B and two for N/B separted by a dirt/grass center divide. In this section of US-395 there is a posted maximum speed limit of 65 MPH. I was using a Stalker Dual radar unit (#046167), which I have been certified in using, to confirm my speed estimations... The radar was being used in moving, opposite mode with the "fast" mode selected.

I observed a solo vehicle, later identified as a black Porsche Cayenne, traveling S/B in the #1 lane approaching me at a high rate of speed. I visually estimated the vehicle to be traveling at 90 mph. I activated the forward antenna on the radar unit and observed a speed of 91 mph in the target window. I then locked in a speed of 91 mph. There was a strong Doppler sound indicating a good lock on the vehicle being tracked.

The suspect vehicle was rapidly overtaking another vehicle approximately 700 feet in front of it and outside the radar cone. I performed a U-turn and began to oertake the suspect vehicle. I then activated my patrol vehicle's emergency lights and suspect vehicle slowed to the right shoulder..."

Other documents revealed that the officer claimed to have observed the speeding Porsche for 3 to 5 seconds, establishing a proper tracking history before taking enforcement action. I also learned that he had graduated from the academy four months previously, giving him no more than four months, at most, of radar experience. There were over a dozen more pages attached, copies of the radar repair logs, patrol vehicle speedometer accuracy certification and the officer's daily log. None of this interested me; the officer had already proven the case for the defendant.

From the officer's sworn declaration I already knew that A) He'd incorrectly identified the Porsche as the vehicle producing the 91 mph reading, 2) His knowledge of radar operation and particularly, his knowledge of the Stalker Dual, was abysmal, and 3) In his declaration, he was lying about what he'd observed and how he'd used the radar.

The rookie officer may have, as he claims, instantly and with phenomenal accuracy visually estimated a distant vehicle's speed within 1 mph of its actual speed. Veteran traffic officers can visually estimate speeds with an accuracy tolerance of plus/minus 2-3 mph, but In 25 years of operating radar, I've yet to meet a rookie who can accomplish this feat. But to be charitable, let's assume that he did.

What proves the case for the defendant is the officer's statement that he "... observed a speed of 91 mph in the target window... then locked in a speed of 91 mph." No he didn't. The radar won't permit this.

First, some background to support this statement. Among other qualifications, I'm the only person who has ever field-tested all of the frontline moving radar units, the Stalker Dual included. These tests were performed for the manufacturers, curious to see how their wares compared to the competitions'. The Fastest Speed feature was tested extensively during the course of these tests.

I've also worked traffic with the Stalker Dual since 1994 and have owned one for years. And as any experienced Stalker operator knows, the Dual SL and Dual DSR have the longest range in the business. The Stalker can easily clock a Cayenne-sized target at one mile or more; I've clocked 18-wheelers at twice that distance.

Here's an excerpt from my expert report sent Berger that explains what happened:

Radar operating in conventional Moving Mode/Opposite Lane will display only the speed of the strongest target. When two or more targets of roughly similar size are in the beam, the strongest target will be the vehicle in the radar beam that is closest to the radar antenna.

The Stalker Dual has Fastest Speed mode, in which it displays the speed of the fastest vehicle in the radar beam as well as that of the strongest target. Officer Miller was operating his Stalker radar in this mode, monitoring opposite-lane vehicles as they approached his rolling cruiser.

The Fastest Speed feature is designed to enable the officer to monitor the speed of a vehicle that is moving faster than the strongest (generally the closest) target. The speed of the fastest vehicle cannot otherwise be clocked because the more distant vehicle presents a substantially weaker radar return signal.

This reflects a phenomenon known as the radar Inverse Square Rule: Return-signal strength decreases by the square of the distance. For instance, the return signal of a Porsche Cayenne that was at least 800 feet from the radar would be no more than 1/16th as strong as the return signal from a mid-sized passenger car that was 200 feet from the radar. To become the strongest target, the Porsche's frontal area would need to be more than 16 times larger than the closer car's, roughly equivalent to three 18-wheelers sitting abreast of one another.

In his declaration Officer Miller states: "I activated the forward antenna on the radar unit and observed a speed of 91 mph in the target window. I then locked in a speed of 91 mph." [emphasis added]

This 91 mph target-speed reading could only have been produced by a vehicle other than the defendant's Porsche Cayenne. Here's why.

• If the Porsche had been the 91 mph Fastest target, its speed would have appeared in the Stalker's Fastest (middle) speed display window. Only a target that is both strongest (closest) and fastest can appear in the Target window.




• As an additional safeguard, the speed of a Fastest target can only be locked when it's also the Strongest target. In the officer's declaration he states that he observed the Fastest speed in the Target window and that it remained there when he locked the speed. Because of the Stalker's design, the only circumstance under which this can occur is when a Fastest speed is generated by the strongest (closest) target. The manufacturer built-in this safeguard to prevent an officer using Fastest Speed from mistakenly assuming that a nearby vehicle is producing the Fastest speed--when the radar instead is reading a vehicle up to one mile behind it.

Bottom line: the rookie officer failed to obtain a proper tracking history of the 91 mph target, incorrectly assumed that the speed of a much closer vehicle wouldn't be read by his radar and assumed that the Porsche must have been generating the 91 mph reading. This tells me that Officer Miller is also not telling the truth when he claims to have visually estimated the Porsche's speed at 90 mph. If he'd been paying attention, he'd have noted that the car he was about to meet was traveling at 91 mph, not the Porsche, and that the nearby car was the only target in the radar beam that was both closest (strongest) and fastest. The radar confirmed that.

Naturally you'll be shocked to learn that the judge ruled in favor of the prosecution. Now Berger is pondering whether to pay the $384 fine or spend big bucks to vindicate himself. By coincidence, I was retained not long before this as an expert witness by a Florida millionaire who'd been nailed by the Florida Highway Patrol in an identical case. The radar in question: a Stalker Dual SL.

Still feel that a radar detector is unnecessary if you drive the speed limit?