Radar confirmation

[mose1616]

heres a situation. you are going 80 in a 65. come over a hill and you see a cop, downshift, going 70, get pulled over. he tells you he clocked you at 82. you have a top of the line radar detector (escort passport, v1, bell) and it never went off. now although it's not recorded, you know there was no radar confirmation to the officer observing you speeding. it couldn't have been a stop watch, because of his location. despite him knowing you were speeding, the state still requires radar confirmation. could this ticket be fought or would it be his word against mine?

[blackstang]

well if the state requires confirmation than I would fight it...

[Fuzz]

heres a situation. you are going 80 in a 65. come over a hill and you see a cop, downshift, going 70, get pulled over. he tells you he clocked you at 82. you have a top of the line radar detector (escort passport, v1, bell) and it never went off. now although it's not recorded, you know there was no radar confirmation to the officer observing you speeding. it couldn't have been a stop watch, because of his location. despite him knowing you were speeding, the state still requires radar confirmation. could this ticket be fought or would it be his word against mine?

1. You can always fight any ticket
2. In your own statement you say you were speeding (70 in a 65) AFTER you downshifted which slowed you down....you got caught.
3. I'm not sure what you mean by radar confirmation.....in CA I don't have to show anyone the radar/lidar I use but if your state requires that then I guess you may have a loophole.
4. In CA the radar/lidar is a tool to confirm an officers visual estimation and just a visual estimation is enough in court in most ciricumstances

[t150vsuptpr]

heres a situation. you are going 80 in a 65. come over a hill and you see a cop, downshift, going 70, get pulled over. he tells you he clocked you at 82. you have a top of the line radar detector (escort passport, v1, bell) and it never went off. now although it's not recorded, you know there was no radar confirmation to the officer observing you speeding. it couldn't have been a stop watch, because of his location. despite him knowing you were speeding, the state still requires radar confirmation. could this ticket be fought or would it be his word against mine?
First .... You never know when the next curve or hillcrest or tree or median crossove is going to reveal the next cop .... but the next cop always knows exactly where the next potential violator is coming from .... and it's always from over that hillcrest, or around that curve, or past that stand of trees, or past the dirt embankment. He is alerted when just the front bumper or roof top or trailer top is in view. Where there is a rooftop, there is something under it. It takes maybe 37.5 mili secs to release a hold button .... or less. The element of surprise, if present, is always favoring those lying in wait.

Second .... Several possibilities come to mind ............. :cool:

1) ... We have a few specially tuned Kustom Signals Hawks that were provided to the dept with accompanying VG-2s, the radars are tuned off frequency and those will not set off even some top of the line radar detectors. We we given them to conduct a study dealing with radar detector use, we never had to give them back, they are licensed, we still have them in service. Maybe he too had one? :p

2) ... Maybe he used LIDAR :rolleyes:

3) ... Maybe he used just a very short duration shot. I have demonstrated this to people myself, set their top of line detector on the dash on top ofthe radar readout, and release the hold on the Hawk and reapply it after seeing the speed fast enough that the detector either did not go off, or at the very least, the radar was back on hold when the detector did alert a few milisecs later. These demos occur usually when a client is caught using a radar detector and speeding and swears the detector never alerted, yet it was turned on .... like they thought I was lying. :eek:

4) ... Or in the least, it would appear that his eye is keenly tuned to judging speeds of oncoming vehicles over hillcrests, as the "reading" he stated of 82 is pretty close to your admitted speed of 80, perhaps even closer to true speed than even your own car's speedo. :D

[luckydog]

i here that excuse all the time. i will hide some where or drive around waiting for the vehicle to get within range and then light him up with a short burst. this keeps your radar detector and everybody elses from ever going off. nobody even knows i am lurking.

[andy5746]

could this ticket be fought or would it be his word against mine?

Your word and his both put you at 80+. So unless you LIE (that's PERJURY and it's a FELONY), then you will not win. Man-up and pay the fine - then slow down.

[JDCOP]

Yea, you've already been locked before you see the officer. I use lidar better range and most of those detectors are just BS wastes of money.

[Taylor1430]

Your word and his both put you at 80+. So unless you LIE (that's PERJURY and it's a FELONY), then you will not win. Man-up and pay the fine - then slow down.

Why do I have the feeling that the OP does not care about lying? He admittedly was speeding (within 2mph of what the officer said) and he wants to fight it.

Sometimes you get caught...sometimes you dont. When you do, own up and pay the ticket.

[saranac]

I say fight it. That $200.00 radar detector has to be more reliable than the word of a police officer. I also bet it is more reliable than his radar. I think you can get a refurbished stalker radar for around $2,000.00. Also it has to be tested by a certified technician annually or it cannot be used. It is also tested daily with tuning forks. I would bet that you do not test your radar detector every time you drive. The top of the line radar detector off the Wal-Mart shelf should easily outweigh the officer's testimony and his worthless equipment.

You invested in that piece of equipment to assist in breaking the law. It is a target. My standards for speeding are usually 20 over the speed but when I see that RD in the WS, I drop it down to 15 over.

As I tell people when they tell me that I did not clock them because they have a top of the line RD, I will reactivate the radar to test it and they are right, it does not go off, looks to me like you have a very expensive paper weight.

[mose1616]

thanks for the replies, i appreciate it.

i just want to clarify. i never wanted to to commit perjury, lie, etc. a similar situation happened to me and i wanted to know if i stood a chance. i've already paid the ticket.

p.s. i don't think you give detectors credit. many are worthless b/s but mine has picked up on the lidar 4 being aimed 4 cars in front of me.

[Taylor1430]

thanks for the replies, i appreciate it.

i just want to clarify. i never wanted to to commit perjury, lie, etc. a similar situation happened to me and i wanted to know if i stood a chance. i've already paid the ticket.

p.s. i don't think you give detectors credit. many are worthless b/s but mine has picked up on the lidar 4 being aimed 4 cars in front of me.

And yet you had it on and got caught?

[mose1616]

yes i had it on and i was pulled over with so called confirmed radar and it did not activate. it is just funny because it always works. i often have people comment on how it hurts their ears when i get K blasted.

radar bounces off guardrails, cars, trees, and even the weakest signals still set off the detector. on a clear day with no fog/rain, if he had me locked before he saw me, i would have known about it.

but i agree, detectors will be subject to errors, radar roy proves it himself. i am just trying to gain insight of the bigger picture.


on a side note, the Kustom radar detectors you mentioned, they use the UK's Ku band correct?

[t150vsuptpr]

yes i had it on and i was pulled over with so called confirmed radar and it did not activate. it is just funny because it always works.
Unless you have some independent way of knowing every time there is a radar set activated near you, you can only assume that it (your top dollar radar detector) "always works".

As I stated, and I believe as others here have alluded to, it is possible to put that top dollar radar detector right on my dash, right beside the radar antenna, right on top of the counting unit, and release the hold using front antenna stationary mode, see the reading, and place it back on hold without waking up your "pedigree dog".

As I said, T have done it many times when demonstrating to motorist whom I have stopped after checking their speed and catching them speeding with a radar detector, and while I wrote out the two tickets.

It's so easy, one just hits the hold button twice in rapid succession and in between ... flashes the reading in a red LED display that imprints and I have never had a motorist see this and not be able to tell me the speed of the "test vehicle" (just some schmoe going by that we shot in the back) from the short reading. Don't need to be displaying it for more than it takes to read.

Many find it "enlightening" .... especially when I show them which button releases and activates the hold feature, and let them check a couple at their own leisure, usually by the second or third try they too are able to check on and get it back on hold before the dog barks.

:D

[rayder1]

I really don't buy the story about LIDAR detection. You have to have the lidar beam pointed directly at the lidar detector's antenna or IR pick-up.

Considering lidar has a beam that is approx. 3' wide at 1000 ft.....maybe the width of a car at a quarter mile. It is very hard to detect. Additionally the lidar is an instant on-off type of measuring device. There really are no reliable detectors for lidar. Of course it will work if the beam is right on the lens of the detector, but by then it's too late.

It is true you may pick up lidar beam scatter at extreme distances but beyond 5000' the infrared beam is not much stronger than naturally occurring infrared radiation. If it works to slow someone down..then it's doing what we want.

Same goes for instant on-off radar. By the time the little $200 brain figures out it has a good radar signal....and you are the target...the $2000 radar brain has your speed locked.

[Vtfuzz]

heres a situation. you are going 80 in a 65. come over a hill and you see a cop, downshift, going 70, get pulled over. he tells you he clocked you at 82. you have a top of the line radar detector (escort passport, v1, bell) and it never went off. now although it's not recorded, you know there was no radar confirmation to the officer observing you speeding. it couldn't have been a stop watch, because of his location. despite him knowing you were speeding, the state still requires radar confirmation. could this ticket be fought or would it be his word against mine?

Although it is harder to prove, VT does not require radar "confirmation" for speeding violations. VT does however give "judicial notice" that a properly tested unit and a trained operator are all that is needed for a conviction, thus making it pretty hard to beat a speeding ticket based on radar. As the rest have stated, radar detectors are much less reliable than the companies will tell you, and there have been dozens of times I've stopped someone who has had a detector not go off while I hit them with radar. Another point of interest is that if you were stopped by a trooper on 89, there is a huge possibility that they were using LIDAR and it is hit or miss whether a detector will even pick it up.

[jthorpe]

yes i had it on and i was pulled over with so called confirmed radar and it did not activate. it is just funny because it always works. i often have people comment on how it hurts their ears when i get K blasted.

Funny you mention this. On average, when I'm sitting behind a car and I see a detector, I'll burst mine to see how long it takes for his to alert. Out of the times I've done it, it takes the detector anywhere from 1/2 second to 3 seconds before it goes off!!! Guess what? It takes a lot less than 1/2 second to get your speed. Sounds to me like you lost the battle against a good RADAR operator. Nice try. Maybe next time?

radar bounces off guardrails, cars, trees, and even the weakest signals still set off the detector. on a clear day with no fog/rain, if he had me locked before he saw me, i would have known about it.

See above. That's what you THINK but this time that's obviously not the case.

[SddR70]

I guess I'm not up on "radar confirmation". Is this like a link between his camera and radar unit, that would display the reading from the radar on the tape/disc? Or is it more of having current documents to show the device is working according to the factory standards?

In Iowa, I'm not required to show you anything, even if asked when I stop a person. And as a matter of safety for the alleged violator, and myself, I don't. If taken to court, I do need to provide proper documentation as for the radar's calibration from the factory or a certified company that checks the device and its tuning forks yearly. I have to provide documentation (at least in my current jurisdiction) that I was trained and certified to operate a radar device (I've got both Academy and Factory certification). I'm also required to testify as to whether or not I performed the routine start up and check test(s) of the unit prior to operating it on traffic. That set-up is required only once per shift, not every car I plan on checking speed of.

If you were going 80, then downshifted to 70, I know its possible for him to get you on laser or even Ka band (which I use) prior to you having time to downshift or know about it. I have personally had friends bring their radar units, some of them junk brands, others those you mention to me to see if "they work". On the top end ones, I managed to count anywhere from 2 to 4 seconds before the device would show active radar, after I had already turned my radar on. If I flashed the detector (quick on/lock/off), it never registered on the detector.

I won't explain how to go about your court case, obviously you know where to get that info. What I will say in addition to what I've already posted, is that you're allowed to contest the citation and as in any court case, its always your word against anothers.

[mose1616]

well thanks a lot for all your responses. very informative

[jthorpe]

well thanks a lot for all your responses. very informative

I've come to the conclusion after reading all of your threads that you should seriously just consider buying a bicycle and getting rid of the car.

[Ten10]

say i had 30 acres of land. would i be able to clear a 1/4 mile straight, pave and drag race cars there? not as a business or anything, just a hobby :D


i drive a potentially fast car, and it feels like i'm profiled all the time. i suppose it comes with the package, (especially in vt, subaru outback country).



Hmmmm........hmmmmmmmm.............:rolleyes:

[trooperden]

I just love it when these idiots pay the big bucks to side step the speed limit and still get caught, and then want to question the ticket, ha ha ha ha

[e-man]

yes i had it on and i was pulled over with so called confirmed radar and it did not activate. it is just funny because it always works. i often have people comment on how it hurts their ears when i get K blasted.

radar bounces off guardrails, cars, trees, and even the weakest signals still set off the detector. on a clear day with no fog/rain, if he had me locked before he saw me, i would have known about it.

but i agree, detectors will be subject to errors, radar roy proves it himself. i am just trying to gain insight of the bigger picture.


on a side note, the Kustom radar detectors you mentioned, they use the UK's Ku band correct?

Sooo troll, you ALWAYS SPEED HUH?

Glad you got busted. I got family that drives those roads.

[Dingbat]

Sooo troll, you ALWAYS SPEED HUH?

Glad you got busted. I got family that drives those roads.

Can you show me scientific proof that speed is what actully causes the accidents? And the accident was caused by the drivers inability to safely handle those speeds? Or it wasnt some idiot on there selfphone that caused the driver to get in a accident.

im a very strong believer in the fact speed doesnt kill, it just makes a accident alot worse. Whos to say that i can not safely drive on the interstate going 100mph with my driving practice/training( ive done autocross since i was 16 only a bi monthly to monthly basis and been in a few drift events since i was 19 (im 25 now)). And cellphone charly has the ability to safly handle a car going even 50mph?

[trooperden]

Dingbat is the correct name for you

[SgtScott31]

Dingbat is the correct name for you

Agreed.

Another diehard "but speed doesn't kill, I'm a great driver and speed limits are set by the corrupt government" speech.

Coming to a LEO forum where we see what speeds do on a daily basis to victims of car crashes and throwing that speech is retarded. Could there be other contributing factors?? Absolutely, but speeds are the main factor of the significant trauma sustained in crashes. If someone crashes at 45mph on a cell phone versus 70-75 mph on a cell phone, who will have worse injuries?

Besides, when I worked fatal crashes back in the day on a rescue squad, it wasn't cell phones or distractions that were the primary cause of the crash. It was speeds.

Who am I going to listen to? People like you or state police/highway patrol who are accident reconstructionists?:rolleyes:

[J. Slacker]

Mose: Why come to a police forum, admit to committing traffic infractions and look for advice/info on how to continue to do so in the future?

Dingbat: Why post in a restricted area of this forum (ONLY SWORN PERSONNEL MAY REPLY TO QUESTIONS IN ASK A COP), all the while spouting some nonsense that you know will get you flamed?

http://eatourbrains.com/EoB/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/troll.jpg

Trolls, be gone!

[Dingbat]

Coming to a LEO forum where we see what speeds do on a daily basis to victims of car crashes and throwing that speech is retarded. Could there be other contributing factors?? Absolutely, but speeds are the main factor of the significant trauma sustained in crashes. If someone crashes at 45mph on a cell phone versus 70-75 mph on a cell phone, who will have worse injuries?

but thats not the question, the question is was speed actully the cause of the crash or was it someone who couldnt handle the speed? Which would cause there inability to be the reason for the crash and not speed.

Slacker:

That was a legitmate question, Alot of people say speed kills. If thats the case then you would see alot more deaths then there already are. Since speed kills thats stating that 100% of people that speed will die by speed and not by another factor. I do see speed causing a higher mortality rate in a crash but i dont see it as being the reason for the crash.

[Blatant]

You're clearly not a cop and just as clearly were not a math major. Saying that speed kills does not in any way equate to your thesis that everyone who speeds will die.

We just had a fatal in my city two days ago, where two idiots racing on a major six-lane surface street struck an elderly man's car. He was ejected and DRT (dead right there).

How does that stack to your half-witted theory?

[CragCrawler]

im a very strong believer in the fact speed doesnt kill, it just makes a accident alot worse. Whos to say that i can not safely drive on the interstate going 100mph with my driving practice/training( ive done autocross since i was 16 only a bi monthly to monthly basis and been in a few drift events since i was 19 (im 25 now)). And cellphone charly has the ability to safly handle a car going even 50mph?

Not everyone has the ability to drive that fast nor do they have your so called experience. And I don't think the Law makers are going to change a law because a couple of people can handle those speeds.

Be careful what you are and advocate for. Here is a story about a young man who was against seatbelt laws and see what happen to him. http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/01/04/local/doc41db350078259784029686.txt

I am in noway trying to start a seatbelt debate just making conversation.

[CityCopDC]

Can you show me scientific proof that speed is what actully causes the accidents? And the accident was caused by the drivers inability to safely handle those speeds? Or it wasnt some idiot on there selfphone that caused the driver to get in a accident.

im a very strong believer in the fact speed doesnt kill, it just makes a accident alot worse. Whos to say that i can not safely drive on the interstate going 100mph with my driving practice/training( ive done autocross since i was 16 only a bi monthly to monthly basis and been in a few drift events since i was 19 (im 25 now)). And cellphone charly has the ability to safly handle a car going even 50mph?

Its really not that hard. Try running into a telephone pole at 20 mph. Then get in another car and do it at 70+ mph. Youll never be back here again to post. Laws of physics are not hard to comprehend. When your car hits something (depending on what it is) the speed of your vehicle is slowed dramatically, sometimes instantly. You however countinue to travel at whatever speed you were travelling till you hit the windshield, steering wheel, dash board etc.

[jamesrm]

Dingbat is the correct name for you

/agree


If you want hard evidance that speed kills, take a little test.

Get 2 cars and find two trees of equal and large mass. Take one car and spead into said tree at 30 mph. Take note of the damage. Take car two and repeat test at 70-90 mph. Tell me that the results would not cause much more severe injury and or death?

**Please do not actually do that yourself or have anyone else do it, its just to make my point**

Also, the faster you go, you have much less reaction time to road hazards. That is easy to prove with the good ole Train A, Train B equation.

[J. Slacker]

Can you show me scientific proof that speed is what actully causes the accidents? And the accident was caused by the drivers inability to safely handle those speeds? Or it wasnt some idiot on there selfphone that caused the driver to get in a accident.

im a very strong believer in the fact speed doesnt kill, it just makes a accident alot worse. Whos to say that i can not safely drive on the interstate going 100mph with my driving practice/training( ive done autocross since i was 16 only a bi monthly to monthly basis and been in a few drift events since i was 19 (im 25 now)). And cellphone charly has the ability to safly handle a car going even 50mph?

Your post is contradictory and self-defeating. The fact that speeding "makes accidents alot worse" (as you stated) is our point! Running into a stationary object, for example, at a higher speed means you're less likely to walk away without serious injuries...if at all.

Even with your 'sweet driving skills', you still endanger yourself and others when driving at high speeds on the road. If you encounter a road hazard, an oil slick, a traffic crash, or flying debris right in your pathway, do you really think (despite science i.e. physics that will suggest otherwise) that you will be able to adapt and adjust as safely at 100mph as at 60mph, 70mph? :rolleyes:

Just slow down, stop trying to be an Indy car champ on public roadways. Take your adventure for speed/sports driving to a track so that we'll have at least one fewer body to identify from some preventable wreck. Talk to any responsible amateur racer and you'll find out that, in spite of "superior driving skills" (both actual and perceived), they will not endanger the public (full of less capable drivers and unnecessary hazards) by driving recklessly on our streets/highways.

And as far as your question (Whos to say that i can not safely drive on the interstate going 100mph with my driving practice/training): I for one will go out on a limb and bet that you can't. Just reading the nonsensical post is enough proof for my pudding (see above re: responsible car enthusiasts). I (my colleagues as well) have heard more than my fair share of these silly arguments. Its the same as the drunk or the pothead who believe that operating while impaired "gives them clarity" that they don't have when sober. Therefore they drive in a safer manner when drunk/stoned, and yeah I've had people argue that with me while I was arresting them.

For the clearest (and funniest) answer that I have, quite frankly ever read:p...I will defer to my brother in the Nation's Capitol. See below:

Its really not that hard. Try running into a telephone pole at 20 mph. Then get in another car and do it at 70+ mph. Youll never be back here again to post. Laws of physics are not hard to comprehend. When your car hits something (depending on what it is) the speed of your vehicle is slowed dramatically, sometimes instantly. You however countinue to travel at whatever speed you were travelling till you hit the windshield, steering wheel, dash board etc.

Bottom line: driving at higher speeds lowers ones cognitive ability to react when it counts. Plus it causes a general hazard to others on the roadway.

[CityCopDC]

Y
For the clearest (and funniest) answer that I have, quite frankly ever read:p...I will defer to my brother in the Nation's Capitol. See below:

Being the first responder to several of these type of accidents where someone travelling at a high rate of speed hit something that didnt move, even the seatbelt can kill you at high rates of speed.