RadarTest

Blinded by the Light

2012-01-23T10:48:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-07T12:35:00.000-08:00


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

2011-07-20T09:24:00.000-07:00

"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

2011-01-20T13:39:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-17T09:17:00.000-08:00

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

2010-06-10T16:47:00.001-07:00

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

2010-06-10T12:46:00.000-07:00

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?

Tested: Escort Passport Qi45 remote radar detector

2010-05-22T13:11:00.000-07:00

Popular legend has it that if you're stopped for speeding and you're packing a radar detector, the officer is more likely to slap you with a ticket. Unlike with a lot of urban legends, this one is true.

"To me, a radar detector is the moral equivalent of burglar's tools," veteran traffic officer Bill Balcom told me during a ride-along years ago. "Why do they have a detector if they're not trying to break the law? I stop 'em, they're not getting any breaks."

He's not alone in his opinion, either. Although few officers believe that radar detectors are effective, to many, a detector's mere presence is proof of intent. If they stop someone for speeding and there's a detector hanging from the windshield, it automatically means a ticket.

That's why savvy drivers often turn to remote radar detectors whose discrete components can be built-in to the vehicle. Aside from incurring less official displeasure, a remote detector is also far more protected from theft.

But there's been a traditional downside: price. Aside from a purchase price that starts at $1,600, installation labor alone on high-end systems—Escort Passport 9500ci, K40 Calibre—often exceeds $400, particularly if it's going into a car whose bodywork doesn't easily accommodate the front radar antenna and front/rear laser jammer modules.

For this reason alone the new Escort Passport Qi45 remote radar detector ($549) merits some attention. In price it occupies the middle ground between high-end remote systems and a high-performance windshield-mount model. The Qi45 doesn't compete with its high-end sibling as it has no GPS capability or standard laser jammers.

The Escort Passport Qi45 is operated by a small control/display module. If an even stealthier installation is preferred, the display can be tucked away and visual warnings can be conveyed by a multi-color LED. This can be panel-mounted or hidden in the gauge cluster.

The Qi moniker stands for Quick Installation and Escort claims that it can be installed in less than 45 minutes, about one-fourth of the time required by most systems. A smaller tab for labor and the friendly price of admission are its key selling points. It also has a [laser] Shifter Pack ($250) option that adds dual front laser jammers.

Total it up and an integrated package with radar and front laser protection comes in at under a grand, about half the price of the Escort Passport 9500ci or a K40 Calibre with Defuser EX laser jammers. (There's not much to show off, however. In the photo above it's hard to spot the Escort Passport Qi45 control/display module resting at the lower edge of the cluster, between the speedo and tach. Everything else is hidden.)

A sub-45-minute installation time is a pretty tall claim—I've often spent nine hours completing a nicely-finished installation—and it seemed worth investigating.

First we spent several days performance-testing the Passport Qi45 linked to the optional Shifter Pack. For the sake of comparison, we also tested a K40 Calibre remote radar detector along with a K40 Defuser EX laser jammer.

Each system was tested against every commonly used model of radar. We also ran a separate three-day test to check the effectiveness of their laser jammers versus all of the mainline laser guns.

It was good that we took the time: one of the laser jammers proved to be an underachiever and one of the radar detectors was critically near-sighted when facing the most frequently encountered Ka-band radar frequency.

Then I installed both systems on one of the most installer-unfriendly vehicles I've encountered, an Acura ZDX. (Some compromises on the installation were needed but it was a success. See if you can spot the Escort Passport Qi45's twin laser jammers and radar antenna on the ZDX in this photo.)

You can read the comparison test and review on Radartest.com.

2010 Radar Detector Buyer's Guide

2010-04-09T17:08:00.000-07:00

Anyone who has shopped for a radar detector has probably noticed something about the descriptions of features and attributes: They're mostly incomprehensible.

Here are the first four bulleted points of one site's description of the Whistler XTR-690SE:

blue Lcd Text Display With Auto Dim/dark Modes And Led Periscope

real Voice Alerts With Quiet/auto Quiet Mode

360 degree Total Band Protection Including Pop Mode Radar

compass And Battery Life Meter

Got all that? Okay, here's another site's partial descriptive prose of the competing Cobra XRS-9955 model:

Super-Extreme range technology provide [sic] maximum detection range

Detects Stalker, Speedlaser, and Spectre IV lidar

IntelliMute Pro RDD feature makes this detector "undetectable"

Voice alerts of specific band detected

Try to look past the misspellings and grammatical errors and then ask yourself if you've learned enough to make an informed buying decision. Not yet? Don't feel bad; you're not alone.

It's clear that whomever wrote this stuff is clueless about the subject. For example, "360-degree protection" is meaningless. Neither radar nor lasers work at off-angles; signals coming from other than nearly dead-on are of no consequence and can be ignored.

"Led Periscope"? Veteran U-boat commanders might find this feature attractive. But it's actually a pair of blue light-emitting diodes (LED) that flash alternately during an alert.

"Spectre IV lidar"? It doesn't exist. The Spectre (Stalcar) is an Australian-made radar detector detector. Cobra's purported solution to evading detection by this RDD is called IntelliMute Pro. It works, but there's a huge downside risk. I'd suggest reading the small print before contemplating the use of this feature. There's only one radar detector with total immunity to the current Spectre Mk IV and Mk IV-Plus RDD: the BEL (Beltronics) STi Driver. Every other detector can be detected.

And the list goes on. If you're trying to sort through this morass of bewildering acronyms and puzzling claims, you may first want to read my 2010 Radar Detector Buyer's Guide. Look at it as the equivalent of Google Translate, a quick-reference guide that will help you make sense of the incomprehensible.

Escort RedLine vs. Valentine One: The long-range radar detection issue.

2010-04-09T11:52:00.000-07:00

I routinely get inquiries like this one, chiding me for emphasizing the importance of radar detection range. This was in reaction to my 2007 test of the (former) record holder of the title "World's longest-range radar detector":

"You make a big deal about the best radar detector spotting radar from 11.5 miles away and then you say the cop radars you from less than 800 feet. So why do you need 11.5 miles of range?"

Fair question—and easily answered. Think of it in automotive terms. A modern car might easily maintain 60 mph on level ground using less than 30 hp. But it might need 250 hp to do 0-60 mph in 8 seconds and 350 hp to reach 155 mph.

The same principle is graphically illustrated in a series of tests I conducted over the past nine months for a recent comparison test story and review of the Escort RedLine versus Valentine One. At our 14.2-mile-long desert test site, the Valentine One spotted one type of Ka-band police radar at 11.25 miles. (The Escort RedLine had considerably better Ka-band radar-detection range. Not far behind the Escort Redline was the Escort Passport 9500ix GPS-enabled radar detector.)

But the Valentine One's stellar 11-plus miles of range was when the radar and radar detector were looking at one another, the former sitting on a 50-foot rise with the radar detector facing it on the distant desert floor. This type of straight, down-the-throat shot is no more difficult than spotting a lighthouse on a calm, clear night from 10 miles out at sea. With good vision (an attribute definitely not imbued on every radar detector), all you have to do is look.

Radar and radar detectors operate on line-of-sight. Microwave signals don't go through terrain, trees, brush or other obstacles. There's some reflection, or signal scatter, but not much. So when we moved the radar vehicle 800 feet farther back from the hill crest, everything changed. The instant a vehicle appeared over the hill its speed was read, allowing the driver no chance to react. (Small wonder that over-the-hill radar traps are so common.)

That scenario also stymies all but the best radar detectors. With the radar car hull-down over the back side of the hill, the radar signal was angled upward, shooting into space. In reaction, the Valentine One's 11.27 miles of radar detection range shrank to 1,432 feet. With the target car traveling at 120 feet per second, from the moment a weak, signal-strength 1 alert sounded, the driver had barely five seconds in which to react.

Only an exceptionally alert driver would make it. The typical driver would take a few seconds to glance at the detector, absorbing the information it was delivering, particularly the frequency and signal strength. As they began processing these data, formulating a response, that five-second cushion had just evaporated. When enough of their car's frontal area had popped into view— at that range, one square foot of reflective material is plenty—the radar had already clocked their speed. Game over.

Consider that against this type of radar, the Valentine One ($516 as tested, with options) ranks among the top 10 I've tested at that site. The $499 Escort RedLine had 2.7 times as much range—3,244 feet—which is still barely adequate for a dozing driver.

But compare those numbers with those of the best-performing Cobra model, the Cobra XRS 9960G ($290). The XRS 9960G delivered 720 feet of warning, belatedly alerting a few beats after the radar had already locked-in a speed. Many detectors don't do even this well. (Want proof? Watch the video.)

Moral: when you're shopping for a radar detector, don't go cheap. It'll cost you.

Why Cordless Radar Detectors?

2009-12-13T12:19:00.000-08:00

As an auto writer I test-drive and write reviews of dozens of new vehicles each year. Lately I find that particularly on many larger vehicles--but even the VW New Beetle, for that matter--a driver whose arms are less than simian in length can't reach the lower windshield to install a radar detector.

And I must assume that many designers are unfamiliar with the operation of mobile electronics. Otherwise they'd have provided a power point somewhere in the neighborhood of the upper dash area.

I've seen some of these thoughtfully tucked away in the bottom of the center console, all the way back. Aside from having to leave the console lid ajar to clear the cord, the long reach to the windshield stretches a coiled power cord so tight you can strum a high C on it. Although the new Jaguar XK convertible I'm testing this week does have a sensibly located power point on the console, draping a bulky power cord across the dash interferes with the operation of the air vents, not to mention the big LCD touch screen display.

As with many high-end cars today, all major systems are controlled by the screen, everything from HVAC and sound system to navigation. Even the seat heaters are controlled by touch screen. Much as I'd like to use a GPS-enabled radar detector such as the subject of one of my recent reviews, the Escort Passport 9500ix, it's perhaps not the optimal choice for this vehicle.

This is why I frequently use a cordless radar detector and usually take one along when traveling. There aren't many to choose from, so finding the best battery-powered radar detector takes a lot less research than with corded radar detectors. Aside from some older Korean cordless detectors developed by Attowave, imported by PNI and now being sold online under the Road Hawk label (the Traveller II and the Silver Bullet, in particular), only two players dominate this segment. The $340 Escort Passport Solo S2, introduced by Escort several years ago, occupies the upper end in price. And the new Whistler XTR-540 ($120 typical retail) is the Escort's bookend, sitting at the opposite, more affordable part of the segment.

In appearance the Whistler XTR-540 is very similar to the Whistler XTR-690SE or the Whistler Pro 78SE, two of Whistler's range-topping models.

I've been driving with the Whistler XTR-540 recently and find it a pleasant traveling companion. A wide array of menu options allows a high degree of customization to user preferences. This includes selectable radar band defeat and various display- backlighting and visual alerts, plus a pair of signal filters to reduce false alarms. The Whistler XTR-540 runs on three AA rechargeable Ni-MH (nickel metal-hybride) batteries that are recharged when the power cord is attached.

Another useful menu option is the ability to power-up the unit without having to wait for it to complete an endless self-test sequence. If you're the impatient type, frequently wishing you were packing an RPG-7 rocket launcher for use in dislodging some moron blocking the fast lane, you'll appreciate this.

Among other radar detector reviews, you can find a recent review of the Whistler XTR-540 on Radartest.com where it proved to be surprisingly competent at its mission of ferreting out police radar and lasers. Frequent fliers and others who often find themselves in different cars may want to take a closer look at this portable radar detector. [Read the full Whistler XTR-540 test and review.]

In Search of the Best GPS-enabled Radar Detector

2009-12-09T10:24:00.000-08:00

If you're pestered by red light and speed cameras and find yourself panic-braking for photo radar vans, you may be looking to buy a GPS-enabled radar detector. Range-topping models include the BEL (Beltronics) GX65; from Cobra Electronics, the XRS 9960G and XRS R10G; and from Escort, the Escort Passport 9500ix.

But you're unlikely to have unearthed a review where their ability to detect photo radar has been tested. Nor has the accuracy of their camera-detection databases been analyzed.

For someone driving in photo-enforcement territory, that's like carrying a piece for self defense without knowing if it will fire. Eventually you'll find out, but it may not be the result you'd hoped for.

Fortunately for the curious, we recently completed an 18-month evaluation of GPS-enabled radar detectors, including all four of these models. We tested them against the most common types of photo radar, from Redflex and ATS (American Traffic Solutions) and checked to verify adequate warning distance for red light and speed cameras.

We also analyzed the accuracy of their GPS camera-location databases by visiting 104 red light and speed cameras scattered among 19 communities in four states. (Why do you think this took 18 months?)

In the process we discovered that some camera databases are years out of date and fail to warn of a disturbing number of cameras. Others irritate by constantly alerting to phantom cameras. And except for veteran stunt drivers, some are too clunky to use safely while driving. To learn more:

GPS Radar Detector Shootout

GPS Camera-Detector Downloads: Rating the databases for accuracy

Watch your mirrors: Chevy's new police car is coming.

2009-10-08T08:08:00.000-07:00

If you get arrested and hauled off to jail in 2011 you'll be comfortable on the ride downtown—at least if the officer is driving one of the new Caprice PPV cruisers. Its rear legroom is positively limo-like, making it the most comfortable yet for those who've been "cuffed and stuffed". And the officers in front will have even more to like.

The Caprice PPV rides on the excellent unibody Zeta platform from the Australian Holden Commodore, used by the discontinued Pontiac G8 sedan (also by the Camaro). It's slightly longer than the G8 and has a considerably longer wheelbase. Although Chevrolet offered no specifications, from walking around the car, the wheelbase appears to be at least four inches longer than the G8's 114.8 inches. It retains the G8's front MacPherson strut suspension and multi-link independent rear and will debut with an L76 6.0-liter V-8 tentatively rated at 355 hp, backed by a 6L80 six-speed automatic. A V-6 option will follow. The eight-cylinder will feature Active Fuel Management, Chevy's term for cylinder deactivation technology, and will run on E85 fuel. (For reference, the G8's L76 regular-gas engine is rated at 361 hp @ 5300 rpm and 385 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm.)

Inside, the two front seats are separated by a wide center console topped with a shifter, clearly holdovers from the platform's Pontiac G8 origins. This will significantly complicate the task of installing the necessary bank of radios, siren- and light controllers along with other gear that traditionally occupies this real estate. A large binnacle over the speedo and gauges does offer some space to accommodate radar gear and similar electronics, however.

The added wheelbase allows more legroom than in the Crown Victoria and vastly more than on Chevrolet's Impala, a smaller, FWD and V-6-powered sedan. Front seat tracks have an unusually long travel and even equipped with a cage—cop-speak for a protective partition—they can be substantially reclined, an impossible feat among other police sedans.

In back, the high center tunnel also creates two-plus-two rear seating, meaning that adding a third prisoner may border on cruel and unusual punishment on longer trips. But back-seat prisoners similarly benefit from the stretched wheelbase. The only sedan ever used for prisoner transport with this much rear-seat legroom was the Monroe County (Florida) Sheriff's Checker Marathon I photographed in Key West nearly 20 years ago.

The XXL-size trunk has a flat load floor and accommodates twin batteries—one dedicated to powering auxiliary equipment—as well as the full-size spare tire so prized by fleet managers. Provisions have been made to relocate the stock radio back there, allowing its dash space to be used instead for mounting a compact touch-screen computer.

Chevy reps hovering over the car hastened to call it a concept vehicle and warned that production isn't slated to begin until early 2011. But reliable sources inside Chevrolet assured me that the show car will see production largely unchanged. It will receive bigger, 18-inch wheels shod with Z-rated tires and housing larger brakes, probably the Pontiac G8 GXP's 14.0-inch fronts and 12.76 rears with four-piston calipers. Otherwise the production car will be very faithful to the concept.

It's tough to get too worked up over police vehicles, not unless one is filling your mirrors, anyway. But that tiny market segment came alive when Chevrolet pulled the wraps off the Caprice PPV Monday at the International Association of Chiefs of Police annual conference in Denver. The acronym stands for Police Patrol Vehicle and it will be the first V-8-powered rear-wheel-drive police sedan from Chevy since production of the original Caprice 9C1 ended in 1996.

That Caprice was the best traditional police sedan ever, an opinion widely shared among law enforcement. It was rugged, fast and had a huge interior and trunk. With bulletproof brakes and cooling system plus anvil-like reliability, the vehicle was so revered by lawmen that many departments paid exorbitant sums to refurbish theirs rather than purchase the slower, less robust 4.6-liter Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor alternative.

Judging from past hands-on experience with police Holden Commodores and based upon projected power, weight and aerodynamic drag, I'd expect to see a quarter-mile time around 14.4 seconds at 100 mph. (A senior Chevrolet exec told me that test mules have already proven capable of 0-60 in the six-second bracket, slightly ahead of the Hemi-powered Charger.)

Top speed, sans light bar, could easily top 155 mph. (In 2001 I saw 255 kph (150 mph) in a light bar-equipped Holden Commodore powered by a 300 hp LS1 engine; with an extra 55 hp and less drag the Caprice 9C1 should be noticeably faster.) But don't be surprised if Chevrolet governs top speed to something more sedate, mindful that few officers are qualified to handle that speed.

One discouraging note for civilians: there is no plan for a retail version of the Caprice PPV. If you want one, it'll have to be a miled-out unit sent to auction.

Review: Cobra GPS-capable Radar Detectors

2009-09-29T10:18:00.001-07:00

When we tested Cobra's line of new GPS-enabled radar detectors last year there was an unpleasant surprise in store: the flagship dash-mount model, the XRS 9950, was inexplicably struck dumb by two of the four radars we tested it against. Regardless, once this amount of equipment and crew has been assembled for a two-day test in a remote desert location, the show must go on.

For precisely this reason we usually have a backup for each radar detector on the testing schedule, but on that occasion we weren't so blessed. It would be months before we could find time for a re-test of the XRS 9950 and, not surprisingly, when we did test another sample it performed up to expectations.

In the most recent test all of the new Cobra radar detectors acquitted themselves well, showing the best detection range we've yet seen from Cobra against conventional K- and Ka-band radar. (Few detectors are coping well with the new Redflex pulsed K-band photo radar and Cobra, alas, is no exception.)

Since the Cobra lineup of GPS-capable radar detectors had expanded by early summer, we tested four models this year, up from two in the last test. (We missed two more, the XRS 9860G and the XRS 9990 which had been announced but which weren't yet in the retail pipeline.)

After the misfortune last year I feel it's only fair to note that my latest review of new GPS-enabled Cobra "15-band" radar detectors shows all of them to be very class-competitive in performance. You can read the full story on Radartest.com

Tested: Radar Detectors vs. the Latest Photo Radar

2009-09-25T19:29:00.000-07:00

For a 1991 Automobile magazine story, I was forced to travel halfway across the country to conduct the first test of radar detectors versus photo radar. For a recent such test the nearest photo radar van was less than two miles from my office, with nearly 100 others roving around the state. And as recently as last week I received e-mail from reader Shane Ponting in New Zealand, asking about radar detectors to counter the Redflex vans in his country. This is a testament to the proliferation of these mobile ticket-dispensers during the 18-year interim.

To any who dismiss these roving revenue-generating devices as unlikely ever to appear on their own doorstep, I'd advise a little caution: The allure to cash-hungry governments is nigh irresistible. By calling it a public-safety initiative rather than an unwritten tax, politicians and government hacks regard it as an unbeatable combination. (Never mind that the speed vans have zero effect on speeds and the photo enforcement industry slyly fabricates public opinion polls showing overwhelming citizen support for them.)

Those looking to avoid photo radar traps have one tool at their disposal, the radar detector. But my tests over the years have shown that few detectors are adept at ferreting out this low-powered kind of radar. And with the recent deployment of a new type of TTL-pulsed radar by Redflex Traffic Systems, the ante has just been upped.

This called for a new test, pitting nine of the latest radar detectors against this newest of photo radar units. Among others, the test contenders include:

• BEL (Beltronics) GX65
• Cobra XRS R10G
• Cobra XRS 9960G
• Escort RedLine
• Escort Passport 9500ix
• Valentine One (software version 3.872)

The full story and test results are on Radartest.com and may surprise you.

Contentious Vehicle Electronic Systems

2009-09-13T08:41:00.000-07:00

A friend in San Diego recently sent me a news story about an off-duty CHP officer who, with his wife, daughter and a relative, was killed when his 2009-model loaner crashed at very high speed.

Although the final report isn't yet in, it appears the driver had applied heavy, prolonged braking for miles prior to the impact. Witnesses reported seeing flames coming from all four wheelwells. Investigators said they were looking into the possibility that the car was equipped with dealer-installed floormats, the subject of an earlier recall after reports that they could jam the pedal and cause the throttle to stick wide open.

Investigators also mentioned that this model's engine can't be shut off unless the start button is depressed for at least three seconds. They were unsure if the driver had tried to kill the engine or shift into neutral.

It's been my experience that not every vehicle allows its transmission to be shifted from drive into neutral once underway. Some allow the selector to move but refuse to disengage the forward gear. Others—many current-model Dodges and Chryslers, for instance—allow the driver to grab neutral from drive, but limit revs to protect the engine. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the Mini, which will let drivers destroy the engine if they insist. It all depends upon the manufacturer's design philosophy.

This led me to think of some instances where I've found myself at odds with the design of a vehicle's electronic systems. (Some of my other opinions on related subjects are to be found in the road test section on Radartest.com.)

Turn Signals

I sometimes want a turn signal to flash once. Not two or three times, just once. But Audi, Mercedes, VW and a host of others know better. Depress the lever momentarily and you get... three flashes. It’s their way of saying, “No, you don’t want one flash. Nobody wants one flash. You’re changing lanes while juggling a Big Mac, placing a call on hold and checking in your mirror for a five o’clock shadow. So we’re going to flash the turn signal three times to help you out.”

Anti-lock brakes

Once I was driving a new German compact sedan in wintertime Denver. (No model names; we're talking about a difference of opinion here, not liability.) After a light snow overnight, sand trucks had been out and I could see diamond-like granules of rock salt glittering in the intersections. At their approaches, snow had been compacted and burnished into ice by the spinning tires of morning rush hour traffic.

Following another car as it slowed for a four-way stop sign, I moved off-line to avoid the icy tracks and began braking. It was instantly apparent that I'd overestimated the traction coefficient. As the back of the other car grew ominously close, I stood on the brakes and felt the anti-lock system begin pulsing. The ABS performed perfectly and not a wheel was locking—but neither was the car slowing very much. Moments away from impact, in desperation I yanked the emergency brake lever and locked the rears. There was a series of shudders as the rear tires chewed down toward the pavement, building up little piles of debris ahead of themselves. I lurched to a stop with millimeters to spare.

Moral: anti-brakes are generally wonderful, but not in every situation.

Electronic Stability Control Systems, Part One

At a press event a few years ago at Willow Springs Raceway north of Los Angeles, I was the first journalist of the day to drive a new German performance sedan. Its robust 342-horsepower V-8 was a treat, but I despaired of the ESC system’s heavy-handed intrusion. No matter how smoothly I drove, just when I wanted full power to exit the off-camber, medium-speed Turn 5, the electronic nanny sensed imminent disaster and instantly chopped engine power.

On the second lap I pressed the ESC switch to shut if off, an event verified by a big amber warning light in the cluster. Freed from the hobble, at Turn Five I tried a different line, one I’d seen Hurley Haywood try earlier in a 997 C4 Porsche—and found I’d turned-in a bit early. No worries. I let the back end rotate under hard braking, applied opposite lock and, at the appropriate moment, toed deep into the throttle to straighten it out. In response, the engine dropped to idle and I could feel the ESC vainly locking the outside rear brake as I executed a snap spin, coming to rest backward with the right wheels on the marbles.

As I entered the pits, the manufacturer's West Coast PR manager was waiting silently for me by the pit wall, hands clenched behind his back. He didn’t look happy. There wasn’t much to discuss; spinning a car on a race track generally indicates driver error.

“One hundred percent my fault,” I stammered. “I thought ESC was shut off but maybe it wasn’t. I apologize for spinning your car.” He graciously accepted my apology—but the car was done for the day. Though it was unscathed, a few small pebbles had lodged between a wheel rim and tire, forcing him to withdraw the vehicle from the event.

Heading home on the plane the next day, I was scanning Car and Driver magazine. By coincidence, they’d tested the same car some weeks earlier. One of their complaints: an intrusive ESC system that couldn’t be disabled. They'd discovered that when the system indicated that it was off, it really wasn’t. Turning if off merely raised the intervention threshold a bit. The ESC systems of other manufacturers are similarly deceptive. And there's no way to know their truthfulness until the limits are probed, but then it's usually too late.

Electronic Stability Control Systems, Part Two

A big domestic manufacturer debuted electronic stability control technology on its flagship sports car and soon after its introduction, I was driving one southbound on the Sam Houston Toll Road in Houston. About ¾ mile ahead I saw that the highway zoomed upward sharply as it made a high arc to clear a dozen lanes of Interstate 10 lying far below.

I also noticed a little rain squall moving laterally across my path and estimated that I'd meet the rain very near the summit of the flyover ahead.

Presently, cruising in lane one, the farthest to the left, I hit the uphill section and began climbing. Although noontime traffic was plentiful, no vehicles lay between me and the summit, a situation for which I'd later be thankful.

Right on schedule, as the road leveled off, the advancing black rain cloud moved to intercept me. In anticipation, an instant before piercing the band of rain I reached down for the wiper switch. I was rotating the lever when the blast of water struck the windshield. Without warning, the car snapped sideways. Not a wee bit, either; I was now viewing the freeway through the passenger window.

I lifted from the gas, countered quickly with an armful of opposite lock and the car obediently straightened itself. Then it executed a snap-spin in the opposite direction. This is extremely unusual behavior for a thoroughbred sports car. Actually, it's fairly weird for any vehicle found outside an amusement park.

I'd passed the summit and now was heading downhill, still moving along briskly. A third spin was countered by yet another application of opposite lock, but I was fast running out of ideas. I was off the gas and by rights, the rear end should have hooked up. The car's steamroller Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar tires are a closed-tread summer performance design and not as sticky as some in the wet, but there wasn't nearly enough water on the pavement to induce this kind of behavior. The effect was identical to a car whose emergency brake is yanked at high speed in mid-curve.

Meanwhile, the electronic stability control system was trying to sort things out. I could feel it locking and releasing the offside rear brake as the back end slewed sideways. This wasn't quite what I had in mind. When a rear tire is sliding, the first order of business is to get it rolling again. But the ESC had its own ideas for a solution.

When the car broke away again I was late in catching it; on the next oscillation it was gone. As I sliced across three lanes backward, heading toward the right-hand railing, there was just enough time to try hard acceleration and opposite lock. No response; dynamically, the car was in way more distress than I or any software program could handle. Finally I stood on the brakes and waited for the impact.

As the car executed an additional half-rotation clockwise, the left quarter struck the guardrail and slammed the car full-length against the concrete, where it came to rest backward.

In the silence I glanced at the cluster, now aglow with warning lights. Clutch in, I cranked the 400-horsepower engine and it caught instantly. Cars were approaching, speed undiminished, apparently unfazed by the sight of another car parked facing them in a travel lane. With no shoulder available for U-turns and with zero time, I dumped the clutch in first gear to rotate the car 180 degrees and accelerated to 50 mph, listening for damaged rotating components. I limped off at the next exit for an inspection.

Surprisingly, the composite bodywork proved far more resilient that I'd expected. It was badly cracked vertically over the left wheelwell and the left taillight area and bumper were ravaged. There were scuff marks all along the left side and both driver-side wheels were deeply scratched by the concrete, but neither was bent. And the car still drove perfectly.

That afternoon I put the car on a lift to learn the full story. I found no additional damage--and quickly discovered the reason for the treacherous handling in the rain. The 3,500-mile press vehicle had two pristine front tires with full tread depth. But the rears were worn into the wear bars, averaging barely 2/32-inch apiece. In effect, they were racing slicks.

Why was I driving a car with bald rear tires? Chalk it up to blind trust and complacence. Auto manufacturers engage press-fleet management companies to maintain these vehicles and strictly speaking, it was their problem. But neither they nor I expected to find a month-old car that required new rear tires—even a high-performance sports car. Uncharacteristically, I hadn't closely checked the condition of the tires before departing.

With the secret of the tires revealed, I pieced together the event. When the toll road changed from uphill to downhill—at almost the precise moment I entered the rain—the ESC system couldn't sense the subtle dynamic weight transfer. (This effect was heightened by a nearly-empty gas tank.) It also didn't know that the rear traction coefficient had changed in lockstep, from sticky to greasy, as the bald tires hit the water. With the throttle feathered and the car rotating around the front axle, the ESC assumed that it could help restore stability by applying rear braking. And it was wrong.

Ironically, I later drove an identical car on the West Coast and on this one, all four tires were bald. (I can't complain about their condition; the company PR manager kept the car in service solely to let me drive it. The following week it was sent to auction.) Driving at speed in a downpour on a nearly-deserted I-8 east of San Diego, it readily skittered into adjacent lanes in reaction to deep standing water. But although it had very little grip, on equally-worn tires it was at least predictable and fairly manageable.

Moral: the ESC system is a wonderful invention, so good that on most vehicles, I leave it engaged during street driving. But it can't account for every variable. Like most electronic systems it's usually a friend, but like most friends, it's not perfect.

Testing Radar Detectors in the Sonora Desert

2009-09-04T11:55:00.000-07:00

Radar detector manufacturers usually introduce new models at the Consumer Electronics Show, the huge trade show held in Las Vegas each January. But by the time these new models are flowing through the retail pipeline, summer has arrived at our Sonora Desert test sites.

There are better times to work there. Aside from venomous bark scorpions and Western Diamondback rattlers, summer days routinely hit 108 degrees. The overnight low temperature frequently hovers well above the 90-degree mark. Locals don't blink at those numbers, but when the thermometer resolutely creeps past 110, the difference is both palpable and as history shows, lethal. (The 2005 heat wave led to the deaths of 18 people, for example.) This year it's been hotter.

To test radar detectors we use three primary sites along rural desert highways in central and western Arizona. Our radar vehicle, a Ford Expedition 4WD, is parked at roadside and remains idling there for the day. Six to eight hours spent motionless in ambient temperatures ranging up to 116 degrees, with the air conditioning running flat out, places considerable thermal stress on a cooling system. The intercooled ATI D1SC ProCharger supercharger only adds to the heat load.

I've owned several new police vehicles and modified most of them—B4C Camaro, Mustang SSP, Crown Victoria Police Interceptors and Chevrolet Caprice 9C1s, among others--and I'm impressed by their bulletproof cooling systems. These include larger radiators, extra-capacity fans, and heat exchangers (coolers) for engine, transmission and power steering fluids. Also standard are additional front fascia air intakes and wide-open-throttle A/C cutoff switches. Any of these vehicles could be run at top speed for an hour and then parked nose-in to a block wall and left idling in 105-degree heat. Come back one hour later and fluid temperatures would still be within spec.

But even a police-package vehicle can't maintain those healthy fluid temperatures all day long. Inside, the first sign of distress is a steady rise in air temperature flowing from the A/C vents. As the sun climbs higher, the pleasant 62-degree dash air rises in lockstep. Engine oil will nudge 235 degrees; the tranny fluid nearly as high. After three hours the A/C will be blowing warm air, with fluid temperatures dangerously elevated.

We can't afford that kind of heat buildup while testing. The vehicle has to sit there and cope with the brutal heat, reliably spinning the 250-amp Ohio Generator alternator and the A/C compressor, powering the radar gear and radios while keeping the operator cool.

To accomplish this we added a second engine oil cooler, a big liquid-to-air unit, plumbed inline with the stock liquid-to-liquid cooler and controlled by a thermostat to bring it online when the oil reaches 215 degrees. Two thermostatically-controlled, liquid-air transmission fluid coolers, taken from one-ton Ford commercial vans, were added to supplement the stock liquid-to-liquid cooler.

To improve airflow over the coolers and A/C condenser, a Denso two-speed electric radiator fan was added, also thermostatically-controlled. I trimmed away much of the splash guard along both sides of the engine block, letting hot engine compartment air exit behind the front wheels. The result is fluid temperatures that remain below 210 degrees F regardless of the hours spent idling.

But nothing can prevent the sun's rays from heating our dash-mounted radar units. The adhesive of the Velcro affixing their brackets to the IP turns liquid and flows in rivulets slowly down the dash. It's not unusual to have a radar shut down without warning, a design feature to protect it from dangerously overheating. Oven mittens are useful for prying them from the dash to hold in front of the A/C vents to cool, their metal surfaces routinely reaching a skin-blistering 185 degrees. The radar detectors get nearly as hot. But there's an upside: if a radar detector is prone to overheating, we're always the first to identify the problem.

Red Light Camera Detectors Reviewed

2009-08-28T15:23:00.000-07:00

Talk about irony: The U.S. government— the world's biggest promoter of red light and speed cameras—has unwittingly become instrumental in helping motorists to avoid these pestilential devices. So the next time you're whining about paying taxes, give thanks that Uncle Sam spent about a jillion of our taxpayer dollars to develop the Global Positioning System (GPS).

First used to help guide cruise missiles through Iraqi doorways while also keeping our troops from marching endlessly in circles, GPS technology has become indispensible for directionally-challenged men. Now red light camera detectors also benefit from the orbiting array of GPS satellites.

These new detectors come in two flavors: combination radar/laser detectors with integral GPS, and stand-alone models that warn only of red light cameras. Most of the latter are private-label British imports, not a big surprise as England has been awash in cameras for years.

Unlike with a combination detector, if you blunder into the microwave beam of a photo radar unit (a mobile speed camera like the Gatso, Multanova and Redflex), one of these red light camera detectors won't make a peep. It actually detects nothing; it merely alerts when it arrives at a set of programmed GPS coordinates. To handle radar, of the photo variety and others, you'll need one of the best radar detector models, one with extreme K- and Ka-band sensitivity. (Don't get depressed, but I've found only a handful of radar detectors that can deliver long-range protection against the radar speed van.)

For some drivers the combination radar/laser/speed camera detector is a more useful tool. The first of these was sold briefly by Uniden in 2002 but disappeared almost immediately. I tested one and tried hard to like it, but the user interface was too clumsy to be useful.

Escort was the first to get it right, introducing the well-received Escort Passport 9500i and its upmarket sibling, the Escort Passport 9500ix, along with the Passport 9500ci custom-installed remote model. Corporate cousin BEL (Beltronics) offers the slightly less expensive dash-mount model, the GX 65. Cobra also has two GPS-enabled models, the dash-mount XRS 9960G (a renamed XRS 995 0 model) I've reviewed earlier, and a hybrid, windshield-mounted remote system, the XRS R10G (a renamed XRS R9G model), also the subject of an earlier review.

But the least expensive of these combination units is $275, and many drivers already have a radar detector. This accounts for the increasing popularity of stand-alone red light camera detectors. One model I tested, the Whistler RLC-100 (about $100 street price), offers adapter power cables that allow it to be linked to a radar detector, including high-end models from BEL (Beltronics) and Escort, and the Valentine One (V1). This frees up one power point and helps to reduce dashboard clutter. You've still got two pieces of gear competing for windshield or dashtop real estate, but it's an improvement.

I tested the first red light camera detector when it arrived stateside in late 2001. By the summer of 2009 it had been joined by three more stand-alone models of red light camera detector. And I hadn't even finished evaluating these before two others, the Cobra Electronics SL-3 and the Cheetah C50 entered the fray. It took several months of side-by-side comparison to figure out which of these works the best, and if you're planning to start packing red light camera protection, my new reviews may save you some time and money. Hint: the most expensive red light camera detectors aren't necessarily the best at keeping you from getting a ticket.

Hauling Cats

2009-08-27T08:12:00.000-07:00

I was in Houston this spring for a seminar and was offered two 12-week-old kittens by a friend. Okay, why not, I figured? My last cat, Max, died at age 15 in 2007 and I'd been pet-less since, for the first time in memory.

My friends in Houston promised to air-mail the felines to me. Okay, air-freight them. But they neglected to research the issue and simply showed up at Continental’s air freight counter, thinking they could chuck them aboard the next flight heading west. Wrong. With no vet’s certificate of good health, no flying.

This dragged on until I resolved to drive there and return with the cats. The journey may be slower, but it's far safer for the animal than air freight.

I speak from experience: Northwest Airlines lost my favorite cat, Fred, and sent him flying around the nation for two days in the belly of a Boeing 747. He lived for a month and then dropped dead at age three from a stress-induced aneurysm.

In small-claims court a Northwest Airlines representative dismissed my friend's death as a crass ploy on my part to generate a story. I won $50 in damages, the airline's maximum liability. (The Northwest Airlines guy chided me for failing to purchase insurance. They can kill a pet with almost no consequences although they're liable for much higher damages for lost luggage.) Not surprisingly, I'm of the opinion that air-freighting animals is to be avoided if possible. Doing so in the Arizona summertime might be considered cruel.

I reluctantly chose my police-package Ford Expedition for the trip, mainly because I anticipated that the cats would be screaming for the entire journey. And the Ford is big enough that with them in the rear cargo area, it would be akin to tolerating cats howling from two blocks away, something I could live with if I absolutely had to. By contrast, using a sedan would put their cat carrier in the passenger compartment. Way too close.

Like a proper 21st century, computer-savvy male, rather than dusting off the atlas to check road miles to Houston, I used Google. And Google assured me that it was barely over 1,000 miles. I hadn’t driven from AZ to Houston since my star-crossed trip to Baja, Mexico's La Carrera Classic II road race in the Cannonball Ford. (Car and Driver chronicled my 1988 race--and the fabled car's ignominious end--in "Cheating Death in the Desert". I'm still trying to live it down.)

I seemed to recall the distance as being somewhat longer than Google's number—it’s nearly 850 miles from Houston just to the New Mexico state line—but it’d been awhile and hey, Google knows best. But on the trip to Houston, I watched the trip odometer roll past 800 and I was still far to the west of San Antonio, which I knew to be at least 200 miles from Houston. I spent the night in bucolic Ozona (yes, it’s on the map, barely) and drove into Houston the next afternoon. It was 1,250 miles and after fighting gale-force crosswinds for nearly the entire trip, I was numb with fatigue.

I couldn’t bear the thought of returning the next day so I delayed my plans by 24 hours and chilled with friends. Then I loaded the cats at 6 a.m. and headed west. They stayed eerily silent, so quiet that I was beginning to think they’d both expired of stress-related complications. But every four hours when I stopped to pump $90 worth of 91-octane to refill the 30-gallon tank, I peeked in to see if they were breathing. And they were.

After 14 hours I stopped briefly in Tucson and let them out of their carrier for a snack and water. This elicited some stares: it's uncommon to see cats scurrying around inside a marked police vehicle. Then back inside and we hustled along the final 150 miles, arriving home not long after dark. During the 16-hour trip I burned 105 gallons of fuel, ate 3.5 pounds of trail mix and dodged eight radar ambushes. The cats were suitably impressed.

Why Ka-band is a Headache for Radar Detectors

2009-08-25T07:39:00.000-07:00

If you drive with a radar detector that digitally displays the radar gun's frequency, you may have noticed that one of the three Ka-band frequencies is particularly hard to detect.

Sitting at the very top of the super-wide Ka-band radar spectrum, 35.5 Gigahertz (GHz) is the toughest. There's a lot of these radars trolling the highways. Two of the four domestic radar manufacturers adopted 35.5 GHz and today there's about a 50-50 chance that when you encounter Ka-band radar, it will be one theirs.

The use of 35.5 GHz in traffic radar wasn't accidental. It was chosen by someone I've known for many years. I'll refer to him here only as Steve. No last names; he shuns publicity. Steve once confided that he knew this frequency would be a headache for radar detectors. And he was right.

Ka band runs from 33.4 GHz to 36.0 GHz, some 2,600 megahertz wide. In comparison, K band is 200 megahertz wide and X band only 50. Steve could have chosen any slice of that Ka-band real estate, and he purposely grabbed the highest available. He knew that countering it would require superior engineering and more-expensive components, making for a pricey radar detector.

To illustrate the conundrum this frequency poses to detectors, visualize standing before a trio of identical, half-mile-long railroad tunnels. The left tunnel represents 33.8 GHz; to the right is 35.5. In the center is 34.7 GHz.

Your job is to spot an approaching train and warn others. (No, you can't rely on your auditory senses; this is a government job. You're wearing OSHA-approved hearing protection.)

The train will be traveling at 300 mph (pretty fast for Amtrak but hey, it's a Mag-Lev) and there's an equal chance it can emerge from any of the three tunnels. Taking up station in front of the center tunnel might seem sensible but by standing there, you can't see far enough into the other two. So you sprint back and forth between the three tunnels, conscientiously keeping watch on each. It's exhausting work, for there's a very real risk that a train in one tunnel will get the drop on you while you're busy peering into another.

This illustrates the task facing a radar detector on Ka band. For the past decade few manufacturers have even attempted to monitor all three frequencies with equal facility. Most chose the midpoint, 34.7 GHz, and accepted a steep performance roll-off on both sides. This practice has been nearly universal among detectors priced under $200.

This has changed recently. For the first time, mass-marketers Cobra Electronics and Whistler offer several attractively-priced models with class-competitive Ka-band performance, including against that elusive 35.5 GHz frequency.

I recently tested several models from each manufacturer, plus a BEL (Beltronics) Vector 955, the perennial class leader. Reviews of these radar detectors and the test results are on Radartest.com.

Dodge Magnum SRT-8 vs. Boeing 737

2006-08-18T14:03:00.000-07:00

Traveling by air the 370 miles from my home in Phoenix to San Diego now is a four-hour-plus trip, measured by door-to-door elapsed time. That includes driving to Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, parking, wading through the tedious security checkpoints and, at the other end, enduring a lengthy wait for luggage (the new ban on liquids in carry-on bags almost guarantees you’ll have to check your bags). Then there’s the process of lining up a rental car and driving to the final destination.

Nuts to that. Instead I drove a Dodge Magnum SRT-8 and despite Sunday traffic and road construction delays, covered the distance in 4.5 hours. And the trip was a whole lot more enjoyable than standing in lines, then sitting folded-up in a Kerosene Queen for the journey.

The standard Hemi-powered Magnum, like its LX-platform stablemates, the Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300C, is a terrific ride. But with a 6.1-liter Hemi, revised suspension, killer Brembo brakes and 245/45-ZR20 footwear, on trips shorter than 400 miles the SRT-8 is a viable alternative to air travel.

It’s basically a last-generation E-Class Mercedes: same suspension architecture, 5-speed manumatic and a lot of other common parts. But it follows a traditional American recipe for speed: cubic inches, a lot of them. The 6.1-liter SRT-8 Hemi is rated at 425 hp but it feels stronger. I saw 166 mph with the speedo still climbing before I had to back off due to traffic. Given enough room, I’d estimate the Magnum SRT-8 is probably good for 170 mph. It wasn’t particularly difficult to drive at that speed either.

And in a game of tag with a new 438 hp, V-12 BMW 760i along I-8 through the eastern California mountains, the BMW was left for dead. The Magnum SRT-8, complete with optional satnav, sunroof and side-curtain airbags, cost $41,400.

Nice work, Dodge.

Who's Craig Peterson?

2006-05-16T10:16:00.000-07:00

Scottsdale's Speed-Camera Scam

2006-05-16T09:37:00.000-07:00

Since early 2004 I’ve been researching automated enforcement in metro Phoenix, especially Scottsdale. That wealthy suburb has been the most aggressive in the country in finding new applications for red light cameras. They make heavy use of photo radar vans as well. And they were the first to install cameras in a mid-block location where there’s no traffic light, just plenty of targets rolling past. This year they installed six cameras on heavily traveled Loop 101, also a first.

After two years of doing speed surveys, intersection analysis, studying accident stats and poring over thousands of pages of documents, I’ve started working on the story. Scottsdale won’t like it.

What I’ve found is that Scottsdale:

· Never bothered to do a traffic study on Loop 101 to justify the installation of the speed cameras
· Has no idea what the fatal accident rate is on the Loop (it’s an outstandingly safe freeway)
· Developed no criteria by which to judge the effectiveness of the nine-month “trial program”
· Expects to issue 300,000 tickets during this period, grossing $47 million
· Spent over $400,000 of public funds on a publicity campaign to convince residents and the witless local press that speeding is a problem on the Loop and elsewhere
· Conducted a rigged traffic-speed survey on the Loop to support this contention
· Stonewalls investigative reporters looking for data that should be freely available under the state’s Open Records law
· Uses separate accounts to show a net loss on their automated enforcement program while concealing millions in profits
· Routinely lies to the press
· Installs red light cameras at intersections with no history of excessive accidents caused by red-light running
· Has never done a study to see if their red light cameras reduce red-light running
· Neglects to mention that most Scottsdale intersections monitored by red light cameras experience up to a 35 percent increase in accidents after cameras are installed. The remaining intersections have accident rates little different than non-camera intersections.
· Began issuing speeding tickets (called Speed On Green) with their red light cameras without bothering to mention it to the public
· Writes 600 percent more $178 speeding tickets than $157 red light tickets at intersections with cameras (some drivers get hit with both)
· Relocates their cameras to follow shifting traffic patterns. When traffic volume increased in the northeast part of town, the cameras followed. I’d call this practice “following the money.”

And Scottsdale’s not alone. Neighboring Mesa, facing a $30 million budget shortfall this year, responded by increasing their red light cameras from 13 to 30. And they added Speed on Green at every one. This was announced to the press in a two-paragraph press release that was almost totally ignored. I calculate the changes should boost their automated enforcement revenue by at least $4 million this year.

Good thing I’ll be moving from Mesa shortly after the story appears on Radartest.com.

Ku-band Rumor

2006-05-16T09:36:00.000-07:00

Ku Band

Since January I’ve been looking into the Ku-band rumor. I’ve known of only one Ku-band radar ever to appear in the States. That was a Gatso Type 09 Microspeed unit (private labeled as a Speedophot) brought here for a three-month Federal Highway Administration photo radar test along the Washington, D.C. Beltway in 1990. The unit was returned to Europe after the test concluded. (It’s also been out of production since 1988. Judging from its size--that enormous box on the rear bumper is the antenna--is this any wonder?)

According to one Web site whose operator is known for rumor-mongering, there’s a possibility that a U.S. manufacturer may introduce a Ku-band radar. From what I’ve found, there’s an equally good possibility of an asteroid hitting Topeka later this year.

Turns out that a single U.S. radar manufacturer has cobbled up a couple of Ku-band prototypes—for their Irish distributor. And there’s a good likelihood that the unit will never be produced. The chances of its being released in the U.S.: about zero.

But it’s given Cobra Electronics a 12th “band.” There are only three radar and one lidar (laser) bands in use here, a number highly unlikely ever to increase. But twelve band’s got to be better than four, right?