16 November 2000
Editorial, Introduction and admin stuff
A slightly changed layout to make info easier to find.
For the last 14 months or so we have been building a house, hence the web page has taken a back seat.
Previous editorial:
I have a few comments about the NZ photo radar system (and the money it brings in) and the amount of money they bring in, and so has Andy Gardener
Thanks to all the people who replied and freely gave their opinions of radar countermeasures. Any errors are probably mine, and the spelling mistakes certainly are. The frames are new, to try and make navigation easier. It is a new field for me (using a demo copy of Pagemill) so be nice, huh.
One problem with living in New Zealand is that we don't get all the magazines, so I am missing some of the articles. I appreciate the help of countless people who have sent me their opinions and reviews. They are all read and kept for reference.
A note for our Russian readers: "note: if you can't read it, start from the home page http://auto.msk.ru/ to choose the charset suitable for you". The problem is that at least five character set encodings are used to represent Russian, one for each of five popular platforms.
One last thing, if you get zapped with instant on radar, nothing in the world will save you. If you get a speeding ticket, and your detector didn't warn you, don't blame me - it's illegal and you should be doing it anyway, so there.
Geoff
As before, any experiences with any brand of detector or jammer received with interest (anon OK if you are doing something naughty). I am especially interested in performance against photo radar and laser
If anyone has them or any other info, could they email me (geoff.m@bigfoot.com), snail
mail or fax them to me.
Ph/Fax +64-9-5284471 (remember the time differences...)
Snail mail:
Geoff Merryweather 5 Cullwick Road Mission Bay Auckland New Zealand geoff.m@bigfoot.comemail me Any comments or improvements, please let me know. - Geoffrey Merryweather Version history 1.0 original version - basically a collection of reviews and net opinions, now obsolete 1.1. Current version and a complete rewrite. The first one officially on the WWW. 1.2. Added links to escort and a couple of new tests published 1.3 Added a review of the V1 and a link to some reviews of photo radar effectiveness. 1.a Fixed a couple of broken links, added K40 and Uniden to the links section 1.3b added another couple of Links. Still to come - the latest Automobile test 1.3c added a link to a laser jammer, updated Escort's woes and added the Automobile test 1.3d update again on Escort (out of ch. 11) 1.4 Added my own reviews of the new Valentine and the Whistler 1490, added Car and driver test, MCN jammer test, a photo radar report and a link to the Russian translation (!) 1.41 Added some more links (Valentine, books on radar, some resellers) and since this is my pet, a little bit of a spew about photo radar. 1.41a fixed broken link to LIDAR FAQ.Updated link to laserjam (was Blinder), fixed a typo 1.42a: removed a couple of dead links. Added some more. Added a link to the excellent Photocop photo radar page 1.42b: added review of Dec99 version of Valentine 1 1.43 Changed layout to make for easier navigation
Almost all the world's police forces use radar for measuring speed, enforcing speeding limits and collecting revenue. Ever since it was invented, anti radar measures have followed close behind. Unfortunately, the police operate with 2 aces - they can pick the time and location to make the most of the hunter's advantage of surprise ( and increase the kill ratio by choosing places most people speed, whether or not it is dangerous) and the most effective active countermeasures such as jamming and anti radar missiles are illegal. Radar works by sending out pulse or a continuous signal of radio waves and listening for the reflection. When the pulse hits a moving object, it's frequency changes, the exact amount of change depends on the speed of the object and the direction it is travelling in. There is also a new system out that uses laser light to measure speed. There are 3 main frequency areas that police radar works in, generically known as X band (11 GHz), K band (24 GHz) and Ka band (32- 36 GHz). All a radar detector does is listen to those frequencies and beep, chirp and flash when it receives a signal. The more sensitive it is, the earlier it will warn you. Unfortunately, the 3 frequency bands are also shared by garage door openers, burglar alarms, leakage from other radar detectors and natural radiation. This raises the second part of the equation - a radar detector that falses more than it warns is useless. Unfortunately, the two parts are incompatible to a large extent and this is the major difference between the el cheapo special and the top of the range model, apart from the number of LED's that they come equipped with.
LIDAR - THE NEW ENEMY
LIDAR is different from conventional radar in that it uses laser light (frequency around 900 nm) to detect the vehicle speed and measures the distance from the gun to the target several times. From the change in distance, it can calculate the speed. As it measures distance, it is important that the gun is held very steady to get an accurate reading, and the usual target in this case is the number plate which is easy to see and a good reflector. This is important because the gun relies on the reflections from the target to calculate the speed. From the drivers point of view, what makes it different from radar is that it is very hard to detect. The beam width is only around 4 feet wide at half a mile and there is very little scatter for the detector to pick up. All LIDAR guns are also "instant on" where it locks on (almost) instantly on the target when the trigger is pulled and is not left running constantly like some radar guns. You might want to check out the LIDAR FAQ.
I had a play with one of these a little while ago. Although I had never used one before, I could clock vehicles at 500m with a lock on inside half a second or so. It has to be held very steady, and heavy traffic can make it difficult to pick out an individual at long range. At 300m or less, it was like shooting fish in a barrel...
Photo radar - an easy way to raise some funds
The latest twist on the speed detection is photo radar, where you don't know you have been clocked until you get a tax invoice in the mail. These have either a low powered radar unit or detection loops (like those used on traffic lights) to detect the vehicles speed and it then takes a photo of the car and the registered owner gets the bill, and either has to pay or say who was driving at the time. Innocence until guilt is proven is not a major issue with these units, as the machine cannot lie :-) The radar guided units have the radar angled across the road so that it is harder to detect and reduces the chance of multiple echoes and false readings. The radar is very low powered as the target is usually only 30 -50 metres away. Again this makes it very hard to pick up with a radar detector as you are relying on scatter from the radar beam off other vehicles or buildings. There are a number of different units around; Australia uses the Fairy slant radar system which has a K band radar at 45 degrees across the road. They also use other units but I have no information on them. New Zealand and some parts of Canada use the Auto patrol PR100 Ka photo radar unit and it is deadly. It uses a low power 34.6 GHz unit angled at 22.5 degrees across the road and can take photos of cars going in both directions. It doesn't take a photo if it detects multiple vehicles in order to save film. The frequency is deliberately chosen to be the third harmonic of the X band, an area where most radar detectors reduce their sensitivity to avoid false alarms from X band sources, and some detectors don't pick up this system at all for this reason. The latest twist is to use laser instead of radar to make an undetectable mobile camera.
The other system operating in NZ is a fixed pole mounted camera by Autopatrol. There are more poles than cameras and the police play the shell game moving the cameras between the poles to keep everyone guessing. These use underground detection loops to positively identify which car is being snapped, and there are no radar transmissions to pick up. There have been some cases of public spirited citizens painting over the lenses recently. Britain uses the Dutch Gatso fixed cameras similar to the above system.
Latest moves are to use laser instead of radar to make an effectively undetectable system.
A must read site is the The PhotoCop page, which covers photo radar and read light cameras in some depth.
Vascar
This is not a radar system, rather it is a glorified stopwatch that relies on the policeman's honesty (scary thought). They are mounted in the police car and are often used when following the target. When the target car goes past a landmark, the timer is started and when it goes past the second landmark, the timer is stopped. It is hooked up to the speedo to give a speed reading. It relies on the button being pushed at the right time and the pacing distance to be long enough to overcome any timing errors. The only countermeasure is careful observation.
Since the Gulf War, electronic countermeasures have become popular. As far as the civilian population is concerned, radar jamming has a number of serious disadvantages. Firstly, jammers seem very expensive for what you get, because they either don't work or they are illegal. The exact regulations vary from country to country. In the USA, it is covered by the FCC regs regarding interference of a radio transmitter (the radar gun) and it is also usually covered by a catch - all phrase such as "interfering with an officer in the course of his duties". This usually has a jail sentence attached to it - at least with a speeding ticket, you can still get out and walk. The other point is that the cop can still estimate your speed and probably make it stick. If you blow past him at 100 mph while his radar unit stays mute, he will be suspicious...
Having got the legal stuff out of the way, what about the jammers you see advertised? Jammers usually come in 2 flavours, passive and active. The passive variety are those sold by Rocky Mountain Radar and others under the Spirit or Eclipse brands. These are supposed to get the incoming radar signal, scramble it up and retransmit back to the radar gun (without amplifying it further). The problem with this theory is that the antennae is about 1 inch square, which is minuscule compared with the frontal area of the car. Any signal sent out by the jammer would be drowned out by the reflections from the car and rejected by the noise cancelling software of the radar gun. A test published on the Net by John deArmond, one in Automobile, one by Speed labs and another test in Car and Driver (not surprisingly) found that these only make your bank balance invisible and not your car invisible. Another test in the at Troubleshooter News also found the Phantom and Rocky Mountain Radar jammers are a fraud. I have NEVER heard of a single case where these things work.
Active jammers are the more interesting (and illegal) ones. In this case, the unit sends out a strong signal to drown out the reflections from the car. The only unit for which I have seen independent test results is the VCDD Stealth, which sells for around $US700! I have had mixed reviews on this unit from owners, and it is no longer available in any case. Reliability seemed to be a problem. After a few problems with the FCC, this Jammer has disappeared from the market, but surfaced again under a different name. This works by combining a low quality radar detector with the transmitter, When it detects a signal, it transmits in that frequency range. Both Car and Driver and NZ Autonews did tests on and it works with some serious provisios: I have had 2 people say that the Advanced Radar Components Interceptor also worked, but it too, seems to have vanished.
The makers claim it is legal, but do you want to be a test case to find out? The FCC (who look after the radio licensing in the US) in the US certainly say that it is not, contrary to what the manufacturers may tell you. It is summarised in this ruling.
Given these faults, the high price and the likelihood of it being illegal or made illegal, I don't think it can be justified. . I have not had anything to do with this jammer or the ARC interceptor and would like some more info if anyone gets one. Despite their claims for legality, I still have my concerns as listed above.
There is little "Stealth" material available regarding cars, and the trick radar absorbing materials used on the USAF planes is not yet available at the local surplus store.... Car shape has the biggest effect. Driving a car like a Mazda RX7 with a low profile and fold down headlights and the motor at the back is a lot better than a minivan or semitrailer. There have been some car- bras advertised in past years which are supposed to lower radar profiles. I have not seen any formal tests on these, but the feedback I got was that they were ineffective for this.
Unlike radar, LIDAR is just light, and hence jamming is easier and (quasi) legal, or at least it is impossible to prove that was your intention. Car and Driver magazine (April 94) had a good article on this which concluded that a pair of high power spotlights can reduce the range the radar gun can pick you up by half, and may make that LIDAR detector vaguely useful as it gives you a couple of seconds more warning. Robert Weverka, who looks after the LIDAR FAQ, and an article by Craig Peterson (Autotronics, March 95, p36) shows that this cannot work. This doesn't explain why C&D got their positive reults.Iin a more recent test, they stated that the Marksman LIDAR gun could no longer be jammed by this method, showing what 3 years advances in techology can do. In any case, driving lights are always a good thing to have, so it cannot do any harm. Robert also has a test of a LIDAR jammer on his web site. Lidartek make one that has had good reviews, but is horrendously expensive.
LIDAR works on reflection off the target by light, so the best means for stealth with LIDAR is to have a low profile, filthy matt black car without a numberplate or chrome trim. Whether you would want to be driving a car like that anyway... There have been covers to go over number plates to reduce the reflection. I have seen no tests on these at present, except for the one onn the Lidar FAQ.
A radar detector is essentially a radio receiver that whistles, beeps and chirps when it gets a signal on the same frequency as the radar band. Besides flashing lights, the main differences between the various models is sensitivity and false alarm rejection. The two are mutually exclusive to a large extent.
Legality
The legality of detectors varies around the world - this site can help. Jammers (that worked) are almost guaranteed to be illegal, under the various telecommunications laws if nothing else, as they interfere with the operation of another (legal) device.
The detector manufacturers are coming out with new models all the time, and it is hard to keep up with the changes. Price is not always an indication of quality, as the Uniden LRD2200 has had good results against Ka photo radar (NZ Autonews) yet it is the cheapest detector in the range.
The following section covers a variety of opinions and tests, both ones I have done and ones conducted by others.
One of the problems is that detector tests seem to be unfashionable in the magazines, hence many of the articles listed below are getting elderly.
Odds and ends
December 1994
6/ Cobra RD 306 ( a re badged Passport) (39 points)
December 1995, pages 67-74
There were some concerns raised at the time about the impartiality of this article, as the author was an ex employee of Bel. Mike Valentine replies in this article...
January 1997 Pg 79-85.I actually bought a Whistler 1490 to test against my Valentine as a result of this test, because the results were so much at odds with all the other information I had. My opinions were somewhat different to Mr. Peterson's...
Automobile Mag radar jammers test - a must read
(sorry, don't have the issue here) - Test was against Ka photo radar only
Car and Driver April 1994 November 1996
This was a test of a laser jammer (the Lidatek Laser Echo) and a plate cover (T3 Technologies ). Having a front license plate makes a huge difference to the abilities of LIDAR to pick up the vehicle - around 2600 feet. The laser Echo ws quite effective in reducing the range of the LIDAR gun, although it depended on the vehicle. Chrome trim is a problem, as it reflects the laser very well.
April 1997
Cordless detector test by Don Shroeder, Cordless detection might be convenient, but there's a price to be paid.
MCN in the UK did a test on jammers, which wasn't very complementary
Speed labs is a company in Texas that does jamemr and detector tests. They sell video tapes of their results. Definitely worth a look, although they don't have an e-mail address listed on their web page (dumb!) and have an allergy to returning fax inquiries as well.
While there are plenty of books on radar, most are aimed at electronics designers (in which case there isn't anything I can tell you that is new) or military applications. Books on traffic radar are pretty rare. The few that I could find included:
The traffic radar handbook, a comprehensive guide to speed measuring systems by Donald Sawicki, Grove Enterprises, 1993. This is the only one I have bought at present. It is packed with good solid information, and well worth reading if you are interested in this area. there is not much on detectors, but a ood section on interference sources and the operating principles.
Beating the Radar Rap : Tested Techniques for Fighting Electronic Speed Entrapment, and Winning, by John Tomerlin, Dale T. Smith.
How to Use Radar by H. S. Strepp, H. G. Strepp
If you know of any more, please let me know.
CompareNet can help search for features, but apart from that, things to check are:
Generally the best place to mount a detector is up high, by the rear vision mirror. This allows it to get the best view of the road and gives the maximum range. There is also another reason to put it up high. Lowlife thieves can't see it and break in and steal it (happened to me), and if you do get pulled over, there is less chance of a cop seeing it. If a cop sees a radar detector, forget any chance of talking your way out of the ticket. The only thing to watch is some cars have a metal film tint along the top of the windscreen and this can block the radar and LIDAR which reduces the effectiveness.
A US NSX club member has a neat way to mount his Valentine.
Make sure you take your radar detector with you every time you leave your car - they are hot property to be stolen. If you buy a second hand Valentine, call Valentine Research with the serail number to see who it is registered to (compared with the name of the person selling it...)
Motorcycles pose special problems for radar detectors. You need one with an earphone jack so you can hear it, and only a few makes make them as standard. Valentine have an adapter for their V1 which takes an earphone, and Bel now have a model specifically for motorcycle use. Escort and Whistler also do models with earphone jacks. Nady also had a motorcycle specific detector, but it doesn't have Ka band and isn't very sensitive. I had one of these and would not recommend it now, due to the increasing use of Ka band. Vibration is also a problem for motorcycle use and little can be done about this. Mountings for motorcycles can either be the suction cup fittings onto the fairing blade or in the top of a tank bag.
Some countries or states have banned the use of radar detectors, and the usual weapon against detectors is the Canadian VG2 detector detector. Most radar detectors work on the superhetrodyne principle where the incoming signal is mixed with that from an oscillator inside the detector to help eliminate noise and improve sampling sensitivity. Unfortunately, the oscillator also "leaks" and this is what the VG2 (and other detectors on the road that false alarm) pick up. Most detector makers have come out with a "stealth' model that the VG2 cannot pick up, with the best in this area seem to be the top Bels and the Valentine One. To raise the stakes even further, Whistler have now included a VG2 detector - detector - detector in some of their models which shuts down the unit when it detects the VG2 nearby. Don't forget also that the police can rely on the Mark 1 eyeball. If you are going to use a detector in a VG2 infested area, I would buy one of the under bonnet models , so it cannot be seen, but make sure it is truely "stealthy".
The term "stealth" and "undetectable" seem
to have a fairly broad definition by many radar detector manufacturers,
where their detectors are indeed able to be found by the VG2,
or even an ordinary radar detector. Unidens and Escort are
the worst for leakage and causing false alarms in other detectors
IMO.
As this is the Internet, no article would be complete without some links to other sources:
If you want to know more than the brief overview I have given here, all the details are in the LIDAR FAQ. A highly recommended site.
Manufacturers
Escort have some great links on their library. Worth a look. Escort went through some financial problems at the beginning of 1997, but new owners have taken over the detector side, so these problems now should have been permanantly solved.
I haven't had dealings with these people, so any feedback would be appreciated.
Yup, even the cops are here...