# Radar Detectors



## Scruffy (Feb 8, 2016)

Pros/Cons? The best?

Personal anecdotes?


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 8, 2016)

With police switching over to instant-on laser guns, IMHO radar detectors are a waste of money.


----------



## wa-loaf (Feb 8, 2016)

I find Waze, at least in high traffic areas, pretty good at giving me a heads up about speed traps.


----------



## Smellytele (Feb 8, 2016)

I try to not go more than 10mph over the speed limit on highways. On back roads. try going 35 in 35 zones and 50 in 45's and no more than 59 in a 50. It has worked out well at least in New England.

have used Waze as well while on long trips


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 8, 2016)

Used to run a detector on my bike and car. Really just told you when they had you. Now a days they use laser that is instant on. A detector just tells you to pull over.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 8, 2016)

Waze is great... 

RADAR detectors are best on back roads.. Saves me all the time here in Hunter where you could get a ticket for going 5 over..  
Mine has GPS so I mark the spots where cops hide and it warns me.  
My RADAR detector seems to be set off by random cars - they must use it for safety stuff - like checking a lane before switching..  
Like anything else RADAR detectors are changing and adding functionality... To not JUST check radar and laser... but do other stuff..


----------



## dlague (Feb 8, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> I try to not go more than 10mph over the speed limit on highways. On back roads. try going 35 in 35 zones and 50 in 45's and no more than 59 in a 50. It has worked out well at least in New England.
> 
> have used Waze as well while on long trips



I have a similar approach!  In NH where it is 70 mph I keep it below 80,  where it is 65 I keep it below 75 etc.  Exception is when I go to Killington where the speed drops to 25 in a couple places then I go 25.  They are nuts over there!

Back to the OP - I had a radar detector and got nabbed by aircraft.  I think it is a waste of $'s  Spend it on a skiing!


----------



## 180 (Feb 8, 2016)

10 plus the speed limit seems to be safe most places


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 8, 2016)

Funky_Catskills said:


> My RADAR detector seems to be set off by random cars - they must use it for safety stuff - like checking a lane before switching..


That's correct.  Cars now use radar for blind spot warning, adaptive cruise control, and other things.


----------



## dlague (Feb 8, 2016)

Oh and if you do have one and they catch you in Canada - they will take it and smash it!


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 8, 2016)

dlague said:


> Oh and if you do have one and they catch you in Canada - they will take it and smash it!



Good point (for most provinces, at least).  And if it's powered on, just about every detector can be detected by the police.  They use spectre radar-detector-detectors.  

Talk about a cat and mouse game!


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 8, 2016)

180 said:


> 10 plus the speed limit seems to be safe most places



Not on local roads..  Friends that are cops say 74mph on the highway is ok...
If I did 35mph in a 25mph - I'd get a ticket in my town..


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 8, 2016)

dlague said:


> Oh and if you do have one and they catch you in Canada - they will take it and smash it!



In the us we feel it's our right to know when we are being observed..
Only illegal in VA as far as I know now..


----------



## wa-loaf (Feb 8, 2016)

Funky_Catskills said:


> In the us we feel it's our right to know when we are being observed..
> Only illegal in VA as far as I know now..



CT too, or at least they used to be.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Feb 8, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> With police switching over to instant-on laser guns, IMHO radar detectors are a waste of money.



Correct me if im wrong but the hope with a detector is that it picks up the laser hit on another vehicle to warn you before they get your vehicle.


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 8, 2016)

ALLSKIING said:


> Correct me if im wrong but the hope with a detector is that it picks up the laser hit on another vehicle to warn you before they get your vehicle.



That's the theory. It doesn't work well in reality.  And it assumes that there is someone ahead of you.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Feb 8, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> That's the theory. It doesn't work well in reality.  And it assumes that there is someone ahead of you.



I don't know but mine has got me out  of a bunch of tickets with advanced warnings. I also spent over $400 on mine so it's probably a wash coin wise lol.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 8, 2016)

wa-loaf said:


> CT too, or at least they used to be.



Legal in CT now


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Feb 8, 2016)

ALLSKIING said:


> I don't know but mine has got me out  of a bunch of tickets with advanced warnings. I also spent over $400 on mine so it's probably a wash coin wise lol.



Same here, although I don't use it as much as I used to. The object is to NOT be the first one in line, and let the detector see the "splash-over" signal.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 8, 2016)

ALLSKIING said:


> I don't know but mine has got me out  of a bunch of tickets with advanced warnings. I also spent over $400 on mine so it's probably a wash coin wise lol.



Same - It saves me all the time..

I catch the RADAR signals WAY in advance..
RADAR is about 90% of the warnings i get.
Laser not so much..Rain - Fog - Snow - reflections render them useless.  And they need a clear shot to prove it in court..


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 8, 2016)

But all this is just real life stuff - I can't comment on what people are reading...


----------



## HowieT2 (Feb 8, 2016)

dlague said:


> I have a similar approach!  In NH where it is 70 mph I keep it below 80,  where it is 65 I keep it below 75 etc.  Exception is when I go to Killington where the speed drops to 25 in a couple places then I go 25.  They are nuts over there!
> 
> Back to the OP - I had a radar detector and got nabbed by aircraft.  I think it is a waste of $'s  Spend it on a skiing!



me too.  I set the cruise control at 68 in 55s.  try to keep it 10 over in 40-50s, but 5 over in 30-35s.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 8, 2016)

Scruffy said:


> Pros/Cons? The best?
> 
> Personal anecdotes?



I have used Escort Solo models for about 20 years now, they are one of the best on the market and have saved me the GDP of a small nation by now.   If you want the best range, go with a wired model, but I personally like cordless and don't feel the slightly under-powered range hinders my reaction speed much.  I also like the fact that my model can independently track up to 6 police cars at once.  That may sound like ridiculous overkill (and it is a bit), but where it REALLY comes in handy is when you're going by those "You're Going Xmph" signs will built-in radar.  Also helps when cops are working sections of highway in teams.



VTKilarney said:


> *With police switching over to instant-on laser guns, IMHO radar detectors are a waste of money.*



This is mostly not the case.   If you happen to be that instant-on guinea pig, then yes that is correct and you likely have no time.  But the reality is often someone up ahead of you has already been triggered, and that's all you need to know to slow down.  

 Secondly, it's a fallacy that radar detectors are solely to prevent you from getting triggered.  

Sure, that's the #1 point, but it's also CRITICALLY important to know WHEN you've "been nailed".  I cannot tell you the number of times a cop busted me for sure, but my radar detector TOLD ME I was nailed, and so I had plenty of time to get off at the next exit, while the cop went screaming by looking for me on the highway.  




VTKilarney said:


> Good point (for most provinces, at least).  And if it's powered on, *just about every detector can be detected by the police.  They use spectre radar-detector-detectors.  *Talk about a cat and mouse game!



Which is why the best radar detectors on the market have anti radar-detector-detector features!  Mine, for instance, lets out a piercing noise and automatically shuts itself off.  The purpose is two-fold, one, it lets you know there's a cop nearby, and two, by shutting itself off it cannot be detected.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 8, 2016)

Got really lucky yesterday coming home from Crotched.  I was going about 53 in a 40.  The 40 limit in that area was pretty arbitrary as much of the road the limit is 50.  Cop was coming in the other direction and turns around to come follow.  Xwhaler and I for sure we were going to get the blue lights, but he just kept following me for a stretch.  I don't know if was running my plates or what.  Either way, someone in oncoming traffic must have been going well over the limit as he flipped on his lights and immediately went after the other guy.  

Weirdest part about it was I was following a Prius.  They must be the only Prius driver in the world that travels 13 mph over the limit!!

Haven't had a speeding ticket since 2001.  I don't have a radar detector.  Guess I don't need one.


----------



## wa-loaf (Feb 8, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Haven't had a speeding ticket since 2001.  I don't have a radar detector.  Guess I don't need one.



You've just guaranteed yourself a ticket ...


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 8, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Weirdest part about it was I was following a Prius.  They must be the only Prius driver in the world that travels 13 mph over the limit!!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 8, 2016)

I thought it extremely telling Toyota had to coin-up for a Superbowl add for Prius (not exactly a new release).

Sales must be getting absolutely hammered with the low price of gasoline.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Feb 8, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Got really lucky yesterday coming home from Crotched.  I was going about 53 in a 40.  The 40 limit in that area was pretty arbitrary as much of the road the limit is 50.  Cop was coming in the other direction and turns around to come follow.  Xwhaler and I for sure we were going to get the blue lights, but he just kept following me for a stretch.  I don't know if was running my plates or what.  Either way, someone in oncoming traffic must have been going well over the limit as he flipped on his lights and immediately went after the other guy.
> 
> Weirdest part about it was I was following a Prius.  They must be the only Prius driver in the world that travels 13 mph over the limit!!
> 
> Haven't had a speeding ticket since 2001.  I don't have a radar detector.  Guess I don't need one.



One of my cars is a Prius....I've had it over 115mph....lol


----------



## Brad J (Feb 8, 2016)

well I have a new ride that looks like it going 90 in my garage, so I take it slow , 10+ on highway, 7+ on 2 lane roads and 35 in the few go slow zones on RT 16 . this has worked for a long time for me.


----------



## Tin (Feb 8, 2016)




----------



## bdfreetuna (Feb 9, 2016)

Cops don't really care in most states as long as you're not speeding. Go for it.


----------



## braciole (Feb 9, 2016)

Radar detectors...lol...what is it 1993 ?  Waze is all you need anytime, anywhere.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 9, 2016)

braciole said:


> Radar detectors...lol...what is it 1993 ?  Waze is all you need anytime, anywhere.



How well does the Waze app interface with Bluetooth in most cars?

The issue now is the hands-free laws.  Probably get a heavier fine for using a cellphone than a radar detector these days.


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 9, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> How well does the Waze app interface with Bluetooth in most cars?
> 
> The issue now is the hands-free laws.  Probably get a heavier fine for using a cellphone than a radar detector these days.



personally i hate the bluetooth integration but it works.  what i don't like is the music pausing every time waze wants to tell me something. personally i just use the phone speaker for WAZE and stereo for audio.  of course this doesn't work when streaming from same phone waze is on but in my car that usually isn't a problem.  either my daughter has taken over the audio or i am listening to satellite radio

a cool feature of the WAZE is you can wave your hand in front of the phone* and use basic voice commands to report traffic and or cops.

* at least on an iphone when it is positioned vertically.


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 9, 2016)

Does Waze still report every time that a car is in the breakdown lane?  This is why I stopped using Waze.  It drove me crazy.  Cops I care about.  Cars well off into the breakdown lane I don't.


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 9, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> Does Waze still report every time that a car is in the breakdown lane?  This is why I stopped using Waze.  It drove me crazy.  Cops I care about.  Cars well off into the breakdown lane I don't.



yes and they've add fun stuff like weather and road kill.  i've never checked but wonder if there is a sensitivity to types of events that get broadcast??


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 9, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> yes and they've add fun stuff like weather and road kill.  i've never checked but wonder if there is a sensitivity to types of events that get broadcast??



I just wish that you could select which notifications that you want to receive.  Unless it's been updated, I don't believe that you can do so.  It's a HUGE shortcoming in an otherwise great app.


----------



## braciole (Feb 9, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> How well does the Waze app interface with Bluetooth in most cars?
> 
> The issue now is the hands-free laws.  Probably get a heavier fine for using a cellphone than a radar detector these days.



Its clipped to my dash (galaxy note) , hardly ever touch the screen except to report traffic, cops, etc and its not in my hand, the interaction is akin to changing tracks, climate control, etc on your touch screen head unit if you had one in your car.


----------



## Domeskier (Feb 9, 2016)

Does Waze report traffic cameras?  That could be useful in some areas.


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 9, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> Does Waze report traffic cameras?  That could be useful in some areas.



yes


----------



## Domeskier (Feb 9, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> yes



Cool.  If I owned a car and had a smartphone, I would probably download it.


----------



## Smellytele (Feb 9, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> How well does the Waze app interface with Bluetooth in most cars?
> 
> The issue now is the hands-free laws.  Probably get a heavier fine for using a cellphone than a radar detector these days.



You never have to touch your phone once it is on and it just comes out across the bluetooth like any phone call would. I have a separate blue tooth device not integrated stock in-car.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 9, 2016)

Waze is only as good as the people inputing data...

I use all my tools...Waze - Radar detector and GPS..
Waze and RADAR detector saved me this morning on 84...
And then RADAR Detector saved me on local streets - i was doing like 20 over on High ridge Road..


----------



## Edd (Feb 9, 2016)

Seems like folks use Waze on their daily commutes but I feel like you'd have to have unlimited data. I get by on 2 GB/month. Don't think I can use Waze with that.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Feb 9, 2016)

Waze can be incredibly distracting to those that dont know how to drive without using their smarthphone.It certainly does zero good if police car has just setup and nobody has chimed in yet.And in many roads in ski country cell service can be spotty which means no data.A detector is more consistently reliable and virtually distraction free.Thats how I see it.


----------



## Cannonball (Feb 9, 2016)

This thread is an eye opener!!  I haven't seen, or heard of, a radar detector since the 80's.  I had no idea they even still existed never mind people using them.  Wow, who knew!  Are CBs still a thing too?


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 9, 2016)

Waze has voice control... It's cool...

CBs are still a thing too..  I'm thinking of getting one actually..  Truckers got it all down...  
Breaker 19..


----------



## Domeskier (Feb 9, 2016)

Cannonball said:


> Are CBs still a thing too?



How else are you going to know if smokies are taking pictures?


----------



## Cannonball (Feb 9, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> How else are you going to know if smokies are taking pictures?



I really feel like this is the Cannonball Run thread. I guess I should feel right at home.


----------



## Tin (Feb 9, 2016)

Funky_Catskills said:


> CBs are still a thing too..  I'm thinking of getting one actually..  Truckers got it all down...
> Breaker 19..




They are quite fun. And more reliable than a radar detector when trying to figure out where the smokey is.


----------



## Domeskier (Feb 9, 2016)

Cannonball said:


> I really feel like this is the Cannonball Run thread. I guess I should feel right at home.



Ha!  I hear 8 tracks are making a comeback too.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 9, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> Ha!  I hear 8 tracks are making a comeback too.



Good thing Dome skiing is not...

that ship has sailed...


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 9, 2016)

Tin said:


> They are quite fun. And more reliable than a radar detector when trying to figure out where the smokey is.



Radar detectors - CB radios - Smart Phones all work to help us not get tickets..  That's a fact...

funny how the op is asking for info and the people that don't use the devices are just trying to sound so cool because they don't use the devices...  Kind of par for the course here(see manual transmission threads)...  Surrounded by people that are just so cool... wow..  hahahahaa...


----------



## Domeskier (Feb 9, 2016)

Funky_Catskills said:


> Good thing Dome skiing is not...
> 
> that ship has sailed...



I can't say it doesn't make me a little sad, but I fear the future of skiing might now be simulators and virtual reality helmets.


----------



## Cannonball (Feb 9, 2016)

Funky_Catskills said:


> Radar detectors - CB radios - Smart Phones all work to help us not get tickets..  That's a fact...
> 
> funny how the op is asking for info and the people that don't use the devices are just trying to sound so cool because they don't use the devices...  Kind of par for the course here(see manual transmission threads)...  Surrounded by people that are just so cool... wow..  hahahahaa...



I don't feel cool for not using one, I just don't speed.  Non issue for me. I guess that's why I didn't know they were still a thing. 

I got pulled over last summer for speeding.  I told the cop "It wasn't me.  I was driving the right lane.  Your radar must have picked up a different car."  Cop said "Oh. Really. Sorry. Have a nice day."


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 9, 2016)

braciole said:


> *Radar detectors...lol...what is it 1993 ?*



I'm really surprised to hear this is a perception.  I can assure you they still save your azz quite effectively in 2016, as they did in 1993.




braciole said:


> *Waze is all you need anytime, anywhere.*



Tried Waze for the first time on the way back from Florida last month.  I found Waze to be decent for traffic (not as good as GOOG though), and terrible as an anti police method.  

Often the cops weren't even on Waze because nobody entered them, so my radar detector went off, but nothing from Waze.  But even worse was that I found that the GPS signal on Waze often *slightly *lagged the cops actual position, and it does no good if Waze alerts you to a police officer you just passed 100 yards back.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 9, 2016)

Waze now uses Google maps


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 9, 2016)

Funky_Catskills said:


> Waze now uses Google maps



Actually I was told that and I haven't checked it out...


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 9, 2016)

Funky_Catskills said:


> Waze now uses Google maps



But is the routing algorithm the same?


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 9, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'm really surprised to hear this is a perception.  I can assure you they still save your azz quite effectively in 2016, as they did in 1993.


Are they actually effective against LIDAR?  I see all sorts of claims both ways, but can't find an actual study.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 9, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> Are they actually effective against LIDAR?  I see all sorts of claims both ways, but can't find an actual study.



Depends..   But I wouldn't count on it..  When it's a nice day - I'm always on the lookout for laser traps..
Waze helps... and marking the spots on my RADAR detector warns me..  

Use all my tools...


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 9, 2016)

Funky_Catskills said:


> Waze now uses Google maps





Funky_Catskills said:


> Actually I was told that and I haven't checked it out...



google owns them so there is a link. you can see waze data on google maps.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 9, 2016)

thats awesome


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 9, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> *Are they actually effective against LIDAR?*  I see all sorts of claims both ways, but can't find an actual study.



IMO, yes.  

 If it goes off, you're almost certainly too late, but from my prior post, if that's the only way you think about the benefits of a radar detector, then you're not using it properly to begin with.

 Laser is used from a stationary position.  By the time that cop puts the unit down next to him, rolls up his window, is able to enter the highway (hopefully there's some traffic), I've already got a good head start and am looking for the next exit or a side road.    The unit has done its' job, it has alerted me that I've been nailed and I need to take evasive action!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 9, 2016)

Other things to take into consideration are the fact that laser cant  be used in rain, snow, sleet, fog, etc... and the fact that most places police  don't have them to begin with.


----------



## HowieT2 (Feb 9, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> I just wish that you could select which notifications that you want to receive.  Unless it's been updated, I don't believe that you can do so.  It's a HUGE shortcoming in an otherwise great app.



Not sure but I think you can do this by going to settings, display settings, show on map where you can choose to turn off road hazards and anything else.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 9, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> IMO, yes.
> 
> If it goes off, you're almost certainly too late, but from my prior post, if that's the only way you think about the benefits of a radar detector, then you're not using it properly to begin with.
> 
> Laser is used from a stationary position.  By the time that cop puts the unit down next to him, rolls up his window, is able to enter the highway (hopefully there's some traffic), I've already got a good head start and am looking for the next exit or a side road.    The unit has done its' job, it has alerted me that I've been nailed and I need to take evasive action!



Start stashing shti...


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 9, 2016)

Funky_Catskills said:


> marking the spots on my RADAR detector warns me..
> 
> Use all my tools...



What brand/model do you have?


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 9, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> IMO, yes.
> 
> If it goes off, you're almost certainly too late, but from my prior post, if that's the only way you think about the benefits of a radar detector, then you're not using it properly to begin with.
> 
> Laser is used from a stationary position.  By the time that cop puts the unit down next to him, rolls up his window, is able to enter the highway (hopefully there's some traffic), I've already got a good head start and am looking for the next exit or a side road.    The unit has done its' job, it has alerted me that I've been nailed and I need to take evasive action!



Be very careful with that. You are very close to "running from the police".


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 9, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> What brand/model do you have?



Escort Passport 9500ix Radar/Laser Detector (Blue Display)

I may get a Valentine next...


----------



## Scruffy (Feb 9, 2016)

braciole said:


> Radar detectors...lol...what is it 1993 ?  Waze is all you need anytime, anywhere.



Waze police alert is crowdsourced, it wouldn't have helped in this situation. Cop was on the move in a small town, not a stationary trap others would have reported.


----------



## The Sneak (Feb 9, 2016)

I have one o them new GTIs and it's a pretty quick car. It also, like many modern cars, has very little sensation of speed so you think you are going 60 and look at the speedo and you are going 85. It's just too easy to cruise at inappropriate speeds.

One thing I've noticed is that drivers of sh!tbox pickups like to blow by you in the passing line, even if you are going 90. This happened yet again on 89S, coming home from Sunapee recently. 

Then again, I was driving home from BW last month and some young, ahem 'dubber' in a visibly modified older VW GTI (license plate 'MCDUBN') pulled the same maneuver. Only he sped up and slowed down repeatedly, trying to..get my attention? Challenge me to a duel? I dunno. But he surely should not have been going 100+ on those retarded cambered wheels.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Feb 9, 2016)

Wish I had my radar detector last week. Got a ticket for going 75 in a 55. What sucks most is that this puts me in the "20-39 mph over" bracket which is a 6 point violation. Had it been 19 over it would've only been a 3 point violation. My first ticket since 2007 when I got a ticket for going 97 in an 80. That ticket was eventually conditionally dismissed (as long as I didn't get another ticket in one year in Texas, which I didn't). So now I'm thinking of getting a traffic lawyer to fight it, doubt it'll get thrown out but I'd at least like the be in the next lower bracket.

(Sorry for the threadjack)


----------



## dlague (Feb 9, 2016)

skiNEwhere said:


> Wish I had my radar detector last week. Got a ticket for going 75 in a 55. What sucks most is that this puts me in the "20-39 mph over" bracket which is a 6 point violation. Had it been 19 over it would've only been a 3 point violation. My first ticket since 2007 when I got a ticket for going 97 in an 80. That ticket was eventually conditionally dismissed (as long as I didn't get another ticket in one year in Texas, which I didn't). So now I'm thinking of getting a traffic lawyer to fight it, doubt it'll get thrown out but I'd at least like the be in the next lower bracket.
> 
> (Sorry for the threadjack)



Take it to court!  Plea Not Guilty and show up for hearing date.  No officer no ticket.  If there is an officer then play dumb and get it knocked down to a three pointer.  Speaking from experience!


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## braciole (Feb 9, 2016)

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY makes Sheriff Buford T. Justice look like a possum's pecker.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 10, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> Be very careful with that. *You are very close to "running from the police"*.



Not really.   You're speeding to begin with.   The cop cant prove the reason you got off at Exit 57 and got into the Burger King drive through line or stopped at Exxon wasn't because you're hungry or needed to fill up.  Quite a different thing from a high-speed OJ chase.



dlague said:


> *Take it to court!  Plea Not Guilty and show up for hearing date.  No officer no ticket. * If there is an officer then play dumb and get it knocked down to a three pointer.  Speaking from experience!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## ScottySkis (Feb 10, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Not really.   You're speeding to begin with.   The cop cant prove the reason you got off at Exit 57 and got into the Burger King drive through line or stopped at Exxon wasn't because you're hungry or needed to fill up.  Quite a different thing from a high-speed OJ chase.


+1/I did that bunch of times. Cops didn't have lights on your free to travel to tehy  put on the lights. I had them follow me so I went to deli I was going to anyway ate watch them run my plates and came out when I was done eating and they were gone.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Abominable (Feb 10, 2016)

Valentine One - I don't leave home without it.

Despite driving a 30 year old truck that may have had 140hp when new, it has saved me more than a few times.  It's true that the use of lane departure / radar guided cruise control / proximity warnings have increased exponentially over the past few years, and it can be an annoyance.  On the V1 you can adjust that sensitivity or turn of K band altogether.  Some of the little ski town sheriffs still use the K band though, so I keep it on.

It's good for situational awareness outside of just the speeding factor too.  Good to know when cops are around, coming up behind you, two blocks away when you're contemplating rolling that stop sign to beat the line of ten cars stuck behind a truck going up a hill, etc.  The big advantage of the V1 over other detectors is that it shows you where the signal is coming from.

Re: laser scatter, it's definitely a factor, and I've been saved at least once by this.  The way the police enforce road rules these days makes it better to "push it" only when there are some other vehicles on the road.  If you're the only guy out there, you're the only laser target.  Most NY staties are on the KA band all the time, and you'll get a mile or more of advance warning on the highways and parkways.  If you drive the same route frequently, the radar will reinforce your memory as to where the usual cops are.

SkiNEwhere - not sure about CO, but here in NY the best thing to do (from my experience) is sign up for a defensive driving course, plead not guilty and go to court.  Before court you'll generally get a meeting with the prosecutor where he'll offer a plea, one level down (so if you're caught at 10+, he might offer a 0-10 over type violation).  You can negotiate - in my case I said I have a clean driving record (bring official DMV copy), have signed up for the course, and negotiated down to an equipment violation (two levels down, so to speak).  In my case it was important that I signed up for, but did not complete, the course (online), because you have to complete the course _after_ the ruling, and send in evidence.  No point in taking it twice.  Just one bit of anecdotal evidence for you - do some googling and you'll find a good strategy for the specific department you'll be dealing with.  DEFINITELY plea not guilty though.  They might even offer you a plea by mail.  Save some points and insurance money.

Re: CBs, I ran one in my truck for years.  The usage has definitely gone down in the past 10 years, mainly due to the fact that most truckers are now on their phones instead, and with GPS and stuff they don't need to monitor the CB for traffic and whatnot.  Furthermore, about half the truckers these days are transmitido on a different channel, en espanol.  But they're still useful and entertaining, especially south of the mason dixon.

I don't use Waze, but google maps traffic is invaluable.

Have fun out there and be safe.

EDIT: totally unrelated, but did we lose Tuna's trip report from Kton?  Was it that antagonistic?


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 10, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Not really.   You're speeding to begin with.   The cop cant prove the reason you got off at Exit 57 and got into the Burger King drive through line or stopped at Exxon wasn't because you're hungry or needed to fill up.  Quite a different thing from a high-speed OJ chase.



I did not say that you WERE running. Just to be very careful as you are very close to that line. 
Cops are not as dumb as you think they are. You are jot the first person to come up with that strategy.


----------



## makimono (Feb 10, 2016)

Scruffy said:


> Pros/Cons? The best?
> 
> Personal anecdotes?



I used to use radar detectors and regularly drive 20+ over and I got tickets all the time. 

Past  10 years I haven't used a radar detector and regularly drive 10- over  (except on motorcycle) and haven't had a single ticket (except on  motorcycle).


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 10, 2016)

makimono said:


> I used to use radar detectors and regularly drive 20+ over and I got tickets all the time.
> 
> Past  10 years I haven't used a radar detector and regularly drive 10- over  (except on motorcycle) and haven't had a single ticket (except on  motorcycle).



Well said.  One flaw in the pro-detector argument is the assumption that you would drive the same speed even if you didn't have a radar detector.  The way I see it, a radar detector is only useful if you drive at a speed that would lead to you being pulled over.  And if you drive at those speeds a radar detector is not 100% effective.  So there is inherent risk.  For me, the risk is not worth it.

I suppose an argument could be made that it is useful for those rare instances when you fail to keep track of your speed.  But I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that most radar detector owners aren't using one just for those rare instances.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 10, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> *  The way I see it, a radar detector is only useful if you drive at a speed that would lead to you being pulled over.*



Yeah, that's kind of the idea.


----------



## makimono (Feb 10, 2016)

From my vast experience of getting pulled over with a radar detector...if you are going to use one you need to react rapidly and definitively when it goes off. Don't just ease off the gas, you need to hit the brakes and drop 20mph in about a second. Don't worry about the cop seeing you slamming on the brakes, just worry about the read-out on his gun.

One little story of when a radar detector saved me a ticket, going along with light traffic about 85 in a 55 on a PA turnpike. Detector lights off and I slammed on the brakes. A volvo behind me came flying up on me, almost rear-ending me just as we passed by the PA statey in the median. He lit up and pulled over the volvo while I hi-fived my Passport 5000 and kept on my way.


----------



## Domeskier (Feb 10, 2016)

makimono said:


> Don't just ease off the gas, you need to hit the brakes and drop 20mph in about a second.



Are you worried about getting a reckless driving charge doing that?


----------



## Abominable (Feb 10, 2016)

Also, if you get pulled over while using one, assuming you have the usual 'suction cup' setup, best to pull it down before the cop sees it.


----------



## makimono (Feb 10, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> Are you worried about getting a reckless driving charge doing that?



well you don't want to lock up your brakes and lose control, you need to know your vehicle. It's just something I've learned because there were several times I was alerted and just eased off the gas instead of really dropping speed and still got pulled over and ticketed. And then there's the example I gave above where I probably could have gotten a reckless driving citaiton but the statey went after the speeder instead.

At the risk of pissing someone off...IMO most state troopers aren't out there for public safety, they're out there for revenue generation. Speeding tickets are a $6 Billion a year industry.


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 10, 2016)

makimono said:


> At the risk of pissing someone off...IMO most state troopers aren't out there for public safety, they're out there for revenue generation. Speeding tickets are a $6 Billion a year industry.


No doubt there are components of both.

As for the slamming on the brakes, radar detectors lock in the speed.  Perhaps if you slam the brakes on right as you are being tagged the speed that is locked in is lower than your original speed.


----------



## makimono (Feb 10, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> No doubt there are components of both.
> 
> As for the slamming on the brakes, radar detectors lock in the speed.  Perhaps if you slam the brakes on right as you are being tagged the speed that is locked in is lower than your original speed.



Yes, no doubt. And I don't want to turn this into an anti-police thread and get it locked.

With modern LIDAR you just don't have much time. As I said I haven't used modern detectors so I don't know how effective they are, but one of the reasons why I stopped buying new detectors is they just weren't very effective against instant-on radar and LIDAR when it first came out. You're only chance was if the detector happened to pick up on it reading someone in front of you, but if you were traveling alone by the time the detector alerts it was too late.

A much more effective deterrent is experience. I used to do the reverse commute from Boston to Metro-West on the MassPike daily and there were only 4 places that statey's ever used to do speed control. So I could do 90 mph on the straight aways and just drop speed when approaching those 4 spots. Being closed access divided highway with no median you didn't have to worry about getting lit up from the opposite direction.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 10, 2016)

I guess if you're really concerned about LIDAR you could buy a laser jammer.  A bit overkill I think.  Heck you can even buy stuff that prevents a picture from being taken of your license plate.


----------



## Abominable (Feb 10, 2016)

makimono said:


> With modern LIDAR you just don't have much time...they just weren't very effective against instant-on radar and LIDAR when it first came out.



This is true, but the majority of speed traps are still radar, and of course when a cop is moving it's only radar.  So an RD is very effective 90% of the time you'll come across a cop where he's in a position to give you a ticket.

And even with a laser they generally like to zap you a couple times.  It's good to know when you've been zapped.

Really, the only argument I can see against having a radar detector is cost.


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 10, 2016)

Abominable said:


> Really, the only argument I can see against having a radar detector is cost.


they were illegal in some states back in the day, is that still an issue?


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 10, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> they were illegal in some states back in the day, is that still an issue?



let me google that for myself....

so Viginia and DC look to still have it illegal, assuming this web site is updated and legit

http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/radar-detectors/


----------



## Abominable (Feb 10, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> let me google that for myself....
> 
> so Viginia and DC look to still have it illegal, assuming this web site is updated and legit
> 
> http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/radar-detectors/



Right, only those two, and the entire Canada.  Seriously, don't even bring it across in your glove box or luggage.

An additional thought, these are generally pretty effective against the radar type speed cameras as well, which are the type you see in construction zones on I-95, for example.  Anywhere there's a mobile camera trap (vs. the in-road, permanent varieties).

These things are all over the place; you'll notice a lot more now that you have a detector.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 10, 2016)

Abominable said:


> This is true, but *the majority of speed traps are still radar*, and of course when a cop is moving it's only radar.  *So an RD is very effective 90% of the time *you'll come across a cop where he's in a position to give you a ticket.



I'll take the Over.  I'd guess it's something like 95% or more.  It's very rare I see police using laser, even when they own that tech.  I imagine it must be a PITA for them to use, because I don't understand why I so rarely see it.




Abominable said:


> R
> 
> An additional thought, these are generally pretty effective against the *radar type speed cameras as well*, which are the type you see in construction zones on I-95, for example.  Anywhere there's a mobile camera trap (vs. the in-road, permanent varieties).
> 
> *These things are all over the place*; you'll notice a lot more now that you have a detector.



Where is that?    I'm gonna' go out on a limb and say some place like Allyourmoneyisourssachusetts?

We got those booted out of Jersey about a year ago.  One of the first times I call recall New Jerseyans in angry open revolt. The politicians became scared. We need to do that more.


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 10, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'll take the Over.  I'd guess it's something like 95% or more.  It's very rare I see police using laser, even when they own that tech.  I imagine it must be a PITA for them to use, because I don't understand why I so rarely see it.


It's a money issue.  Most of the LIDAR units are supplied through federal grants, and nobody wants to spend their own money on them if they can just wait a while for the federal gravy train to come in.  They also take more effort to use.  You have to actually have to aim them with a degree of precision.  Sometimes that means that you have to get out of your cruiser.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 10, 2016)

dlague said:


> Take it to court!  Plea Not Guilty and show up for hearing date.  No officer no ticket.  If there is an officer then play dumb and get it knocked down to a three pointer.  Speaking from experience!



Most of this can get taken care of in pre-trial..  
I got nailed doing 95 on the NYS Thruway - sunny day - laser - was pissed and rushing around like an idiot..
Showed up for court - cop wasn't there.  They reduced it to "Failure to observe posted signs"  which is still a moving violation but not nearly as bad as doing 95mph in a 65mph...
If I didn't take the reduced ticket - the cop probably would've had to be present...


----------



## x10003q (Feb 10, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> It's a money issue.  Most of the LIDAR units are supplied through federal grants, and nobody wants to spend their own money on them if they can just wait a while for the federal gravy train to come in.  They also take more effort to use.  You have to actually have to aim them with a degree of precision.  Sometimes that means that you have to get out of your cruiser.



Cops have to have a clear, unobstructed view of traffic to use laser. That means leaving the window open in your cruiser. That also means very rare usage in cold weather states, especially at night during ski season (and as mentioned it is not accurate when raining or snowing).  You also have to aim it at the exact vehicle. With a radar unit, you just set it for the speed you want to be alerted and you can look up to see which driver is going to have a lucky day.

I have been using a Valentine for the last 18 years and have no tickets in that time frame. Before that I had a built in Bel and it was not as good as the Valentine. 

I generally move at the upper end of what traffic is moving at and never play the rabbit. If there is no rabbit then I am going about 10 over the speed limit.

If speeding tickets were about safety and not money, cops would always be patrolling at the speed limit, not hiding behind berms, trees, around curves and hiding at the bottom of hills. I cannot remember the last time I saw a cop moving at the speed limit on a highway.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 10, 2016)

My next one will be a Valentine....  Things are awesome..
I love knowing where the signal is coming from..


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 10, 2016)

Funky_Catskills said:


> My next one will be a Valentine....  Things are awesome..
> I love knowing where the signal is coming from..



Better than Escort?   I have 20 years brand loyalty there. Plus I like the fact they can track numerous radar signals simultaneously, which i think is an invaluable feature.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 10, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Better than Escort?   I have 20 years brand loyalty there. Plus I like the fact they can track numerous radar signals simultaneously, which i think is an invaluable feature.



This was checking into them a while ago..
I need to weigh it out again..  But I LOVE knowing what direction the signal is coming from..


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 10, 2016)

And me too - been using Cincinnati Microwave for years....  

Had the original Escort... Giant box thing... hahaha


----------



## Abominable (Feb 10, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Where is that?    I'm gonna' go out on a limb and say some place like Allyourmoneyisourssachusetts?
> 
> We got those booted out of Jersey about a year ago.  One of the first times I call recall New Jerseyans in angry open revolt. The politicians became scared. We need to do that more.



That's just a picture I took off the internet.  The place I see them the most is in construction zones, particularly down in MD on I-95.  I drive NY to DC/VA a couple times a year.


----------



## Abominable (Feb 10, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Better than Escort?   I have 20 years brand loyalty there. Plus I like the fact they can track numerous radar signals simultaneously, which i think is an invaluable feature.



The V1 also has a "bogey counter" and, with the directional indicator, you get a pretty clear picture of what's going on around you.  I've had mine for a long time too though.  If I was buying one today I'd do more research - there's been a lot of advancements in GPS / Bluetooth compatibility and stuff like that.  Radardetector.net is a good site.


----------



## asnowmobiler (Feb 11, 2016)

My V1 has saved me way too many times to count, but it's technology is starting to lag behind some of the other units. The false alarms are getting out of hand, this even after sending back to be updated a few months ago. I'm strongly looking into getting the Escort Max 360, it has a counter and direction indicator along with GPS and many other new technologies that the V1 does not.
Another option is the Stinger VIP, but $3k for a radar/laser is crazy.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 11, 2016)

asnowmobiler said:


> *I'm strongly looking into getting the Escort Max 360*, it has a counter and direction indicator along with GPS and many other new technologies that the V1 does not.
> Another option is the Stinger VIP, but $3k for a radar/laser is crazy.



I cant justify that either, $600 for a radar detector, what's the point?  It's paid for itself after I get out of the 5th ticket?  Pass.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Feb 11, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> I cant justify that either, $600 for a radar detector, what's the point?  It's paid for itself after I get out of the 5th ticket?  Pass.



While tix may only be a hundred or so bucks, the hike in insurance premiums averages out to 10%. So more like 1-2 tickets. So if you're the kind of person with a heavy foot who knows he's gonna get tickets unless he uses all possible mitigating factors, I could see the benefit even if the detector does cost $600


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 11, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> I cant justify that either, $600 for a radar detector, what's the point?  It's paid for itself after I get out of the 5th ticket?  Pass.





skiNEwhere said:


> While tix may only be a hundred or so bucks, the hike in insurance premiums averages out to 10%. So more like 1-2 tickets. So if you're the kind of person with a heavy foot who knows he's gonna get tickets unless he uses all possible mitigating factors, I could see the benefit even if the detector does cost $600



When was the last time you got speeding tickets? 
Last speeding ticket I got was 15-20 mph over I would guess. It got talked down to 5mph over, but with the ticket fine and court surchages and fees it was around $400. And that's before insurance gets involved.

I have never gotten out of a court room for under $200 no matter how minor I plead it down to.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 11, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> *When was the last time you got speeding tickets? *



I've only received two speeding tickets in my life (if you knew me, you'd think this is a feat nearly as impressive as Michael Phelps' 18 gold medals), both of them in Vermont, where speeding tickets are sadly and pathetically viewed as key sources of revenue, rather than as a safety measure.  

My radar detectors have saved me from many tickets over the years, but I've bought them used for about $150'ish on EBAY (new cost ~$400).



Hawkshot99 said:


> Last speeding ticket I got was 15-20 mph over I would guess. It got talked down to 5mph over, but with the ticket fine and court surchages and fees* it was around $400*. And that's before insurance gets involved.



Where the hades was that?  Granted, as I said I've only received 2, but I never paid anything remotely close to that in total, and neither time I received a ticket did my insurance go up.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 11, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> When was the last time you got speeding tickets?
> Last speeding ticket I got was 15-20 mph over I would guess. It got talked down to 5mph over, but with the ticket fine and court surchages and fees it was around $400. And that's before insurance gets involved.
> 
> I have never gotten out of a court room for under $200 no matter how minor I plead it down to.



yup...  I had a speeding ticket reduced to a seatbelt violation... HOLY F**K...   The surcharges were rolling in..  Cost me more than a speeding ticket... But no points..

Got pulled over driving my Moms car in NJ.. Was doing like 88 in her minvan on Easter Sunday..  .  
Actually got a lawyer because it's NJ and it was 20 over..  Was reduced to something stupid.  There were a ton of people in court - everyone got reduced to the same charge.  BUT people in state(NJ) had to pay and EXTRA surcharge - we New Yorkers were stoked...

Whole thing is fu**ed


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 11, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> I've only received two speeding tickets in my life, both of them in Vermont, where speeding tickets are viewed as key sources of revenue, rather than safety measure.
> 
> My radar detectors have saved me from many tickets over the years, but I've bought them used for about $150'ish on EBAY (new cost ~$400).
> 
> ...



I believe all of my tickets have been In Dutchess County NY, or Renselier County NY. Dutchess is middle of Hudson valley, Renselier is near Albany.

Any ticket I have recieved and gotten points for (moving violations) my insurance has gone up.

I have never been found guilty of any ticket worse than 5mph over. Been written tickets for 26 over, and pulled over for 70 mph over.......


----------



## Domeskier (Feb 11, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> pulled over for 70 mph over.......



Wow.  How did you get out of that one?


----------



## Funky_Catskills (Feb 11, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> Wow.  How did you get out of that one?



Keep it clean...  hahaha


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 11, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> Wow.  How did you get out of that one?



Was pulled over on my motorcycle going up to Americade motorcycle rally. Was accused of doing 120 in a 55. It was not my group, but we had a Kawasaki green bike in our group (it was carrying 2 people). The bike the trooper was looking for was a kawasaki green bike (but only a driver) that did pass us at the accused 120. 
After convincing him we were ONLY doing 90 he let us go as we pointed out every green bike that rode by.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Feb 11, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> *When was the last time you got speeding tickets? *
> Last speeding ticket I got was 15-20 mph over I would guess. It got talked down to 5mph over, but with the ticket fine and court surchages and fees it was around $400. And that's before insurance gets involved.
> 
> I have never gotten out of a court room for under $200 no matter how minor I plead it down to.



2 weeks ago. $120 fine for going 75 in a 55


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 11, 2016)

skiNEwhere said:


> 2 weeks ago. $120 fine for going 75 in a 55



Dammmm... that's not fair. All the more reason I want to move away from here.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 11, 2016)

skiNEwhere said:


> 2 weeks ago. *$120 fine for going 75 in a 55*



And I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you weren't being a danger to yourself or innocents?

 55mph speed limits are a joke.  It was a response to record oil shortages and had NOTHING to do with safety.  It remains only in areas that which to pilfer their citizenry of its' hard-earned money.


----------



## Domeskier (Feb 12, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> Was pulled over on my motorcycle going up to Americade motorcycle rally. Was accused of doing 120 in a 55. It was not my group, but we had a Kawasaki green bike in our group (it was carrying 2 people). The bike the trooper was looking for was a kawasaki green bike (but only a driver) that did pass us at the accused 120.
> After convincing him we were ONLY doing 90 he let us go as we pointed out every green bike that rode by.



Ha.  Getting off for 35 mph over the limit is not bad either.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 12, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> Ha.  Getting off for 35 mph over the limit is not bad either.



Its amazing what happens when you are on a motorcycle capaple of looseing the cop easily, but you pull over no problem and act cool with them and give them no attitude.
I have been thanked many times for actually pulling over.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Feb 12, 2016)

Love the 75mph speed limit up here. Cruise at 80-85 and the troopers just wave as they pass ya.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 12, 2016)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> Love the 75mph speed limit up here. Cruise at 80-85 and the troopers just wave as they pass ya.



I was cruising to Houlton from Bangor last fall at 85 and had a sparrow fly out and meet his demise on my side mirror.  The bird literally exploded all over the side of my car. Blood, feathers and guts everywhere.  Found a car wash in Lincoln and it took four trips through to clean the carnage off.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Feb 13, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> I was cruising to Houlton from Bangor last fall at 85 and had a sparrow fly out and meet his demise on my side mirror.  The bird literally exploded all over the side of my car. Blood, feathers and guts everywhere.  Found a car wash in Lincoln and it took four trips through to clean the carnage off.



I've dug a couple out of my grill over the years, luckily nothing ever reached the oil coolers or radiator. What you really want to watch for is the Turkeys... I've seen some do some serious damage to vehicles at those speeds.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Feb 14, 2016)

Radar detectors are still useful since LIDAR can't be used from a moving vehicle and usually requires 2 people (one to operate the gun and the other to flag or chase down the driver. If an officer gets you with LIDAR don't even bother trying to fight it.


----------



## Jcb890 (Feb 15, 2016)

Somewhat related...

I don't have a radar detector or anything like that, but I like the feature as part of Waze where users can notify others if there is a police car somewhere with a speed trap setup.  I always try and update when I see one sitting there and nobody else has sent out a notification on it.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Feb 15, 2016)

If you are seriously intent about not getting a speeding ticket, you could get a laser jammer, which are only illegal in like 10 or so states (none of which are in the northeast)


----------



## john1200c (Feb 15, 2016)

Brad J said:


> well I have a new ride that looks like it going 90 in my garage, so I take it slow , 10+ on highway, 7+ on 2 lane roads and 35 in the few go slow zones on RT 16 . this has worked for a long time for me.



This ^^^   Does not get much worse than the divided part of the Spaulding...seems they are always there..


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 15, 2016)

10% over is my safe rule. Never have I had a problem with that. If that's not fast enough, I should have left earlier.


----------



## freeski (Feb 15, 2016)

Speed kills and I'm the angel of death.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Feb 15, 2016)

skiNEwhere said:


> If you are seriously intent about not getting a speeding ticket, you could get a laser jammer, which are only illegal in like 10 or so states (none of which are in the northeast)



Laser jammer? Never heard of it. The beam does have to be aimed at an object that will reflect back well. Officers are taught to aim at the license plate and headlights. That's why they are almost always operated outside the vehicles. The best thing to do is to get a certain type of headlights that are less reflective. Those license plate covers work really well too.

Not condoning speeding....just sharing information


----------



## skiNEwhere (Apr 21, 2016)

Question for the masses:

So earlier in this thread I mentioned I got a speeding ticket in January for going 75 in a 55, a six point violation. I went to court today and got it reduced to a 2 point, non-moving defective vehicle citation. I took it but I'm still not quite sure what that means, only that it's a lot better than the former charge. 

Anyone get one of these before? Did it make their insurance go up? Does the 2 points count towards the 12 I have to get in two years to lose my license?


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Apr 21, 2016)

I've never had my insurance go up as a result of getting speeding tickets. I have had the same policy for a couple decades though. The points?... Count on them showing up though (hopefully just the 2 from the conviction) I had gotten a couple tickets a few springs ago, and one was all the way down in FL. It took 4-5 months, but the points in FL finally made it to Maine, resulting in a warning letter from Maine that I was on the point threshold and not to get anymore unless I desired a suspension...


----------



## VTKilarney (Apr 21, 2016)

As a general rule, a non-moving violation will not increase your insurance rates.


----------



## cdskier (Apr 21, 2016)

Back in college I had a tailgating ticket in NY (complete BS...barely skidded into another car on an icy stretch of road from blowing snow but the trooper just happened to already be there since another car had gone off the road in this same spot). It was negotiated down to a "failure to obey traffic control device" or something like that which was supposed to be 2 points. I never heard a word about it from NJ or my insurance company though. Not sure if NY never actually transferred the points or what...

This was 15 years ago or so though...


----------



## skifree (Apr 21, 2016)

depends on the state but many tickets moving or non-moving will raise your insurance. (i'm in the biz). The key is not changing to a new company after getting a ticket. Thats when they run your driving history. Big expense running MVR's so if a company doesn't have a reason to run it they won't.


----------



## Scruffy (Apr 21, 2016)

To follow up on my OP. I plead not guilty and I was prepared to plead in court for a reduced charge, hopefully a non-moving violation. The cop did no show so the whole issue got thrown out - happy ending!

Never plead guilty; you never know!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 21, 2016)

skifree said:


> depends on the state but many tickets moving or non-moving will raise your insurance. (i'm in the biz). *The key is not changing to a new company after getting a ticket. Thats when they run your driving history.* Big expense running MVR's so if a company doesn't have a reason to run it they won't.



This is good info.  How long does a speeding ticket or other common ticket remain on your searchable record (that the "new" insurance company might ding you for)?


----------



## skiNEwhere (Apr 22, 2016)

Scruffy said:


> To follow up on my OP. I plead not guilty and I was prepared to plead in court for a reduced charge, hopefully a non-moving violation. The cop did no show so the whole issue got thrown out - happy ending!
> 
> Never plead guilty; you never know!



This was in Idaho Springs, a tiny city (it's classified as such) of ~2,000 people. They only have traffic court once a month. I spoke with a couple lawyers who told me that if the cop didn't shop up, the couple dozen or so other people who showed up would get their ticket dismissed as well. As a result, it's extremely rare that the cop would not show. So I took what I could get. 

A two point non moving violation is a lot better than a 6 point speeding ticket in the "20-39 over the speed limit" bracket that would've definitely raised my insurance. I could've taken it to court but that 6 point violation may have stuck if I were found guilty.


----------



## skifree (Apr 22, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> This is good info.  How long does a speeding ticket or other common ticket remain on your searchable record (that the "new" insurance company might ding you for)?



Most look back 3 years some 5 .


----------



## MadMadWorld (Apr 22, 2016)

skiNEwhere said:


> This was in Idaho Springs, a tiny city (it's classified as such) of ~2,000 people. They only have traffic court once a month. I spoke with a couple lawyers who told me that if the cop didn't shop up, the couple dozen or so other people who showed up would get their ticket dismissed as well. As a result, it's extremely rare that the cop would not show. So I took what I could get.
> 
> A two point non moving violation is a lot better than a 6 point speeding ticket in the "20-39 over the speed limit" bracket that would've definitely raised my insurance. I could've taken it to court but that 6 point violation may have stuck if I were found guilty.



Defective vehicle? Was your speedometer broken? Sounds like bullshit small town shit where all they care about is collecting the fine. If it has a point system attached to it then it will effect your driving record unfortunately since there is not a point system (that I am aware of) for non moving violations.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Apr 22, 2016)

Does Mass use the point system? Can't remember but it may be a little different here


----------



## steamboat1 (Apr 22, 2016)

New York uses a point system & you can get points reduced off your license by taking a defensive driving course (4 points), you also get a 10% reduction on your car insurance for 3 years. In order to continue the insurance savings you need to retake the course every 3 years. Vermont also uses a point system but they don't take any points off for taking a defensive driving course. If your license is suspended or revoked in VT. they may require you to take a defensive driving course to get your license reinstated.


----------



## CoolMike (Apr 26, 2016)

Mr. Heisenberg got pulled over by a cop.  The cop asked, "Do you know how fast you were going?"  Heisenberg says, "No, but I can tell you exactly where I am."


----------



## Domeskier (Apr 26, 2016)

CoolMike said:


> Mr. Heisenberg got pulled over by a cop.  The cop asked, "Do you know how fast you were going?"  Heisenberg says, "No, but I can tell you exactly where I am."



Is the body in the trunk dead or alive?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 28, 2016)

I'm pretty sure that's the first Heisenberg's uncertainty principle joke I've ever heard.


----------



## CoolMike (Apr 28, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> Is the body in the trunk dead or alive?



Haha! Touche!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Apr 28, 2016)

Ohhhh.... didnt get that at first.  A Schrodinger's cat joke?     This place is getting turbo dorky.


----------



## cdskier (Apr 28, 2016)

Oh wow...I missed that too!


----------



## gmcunni (May 6, 2016)

Waze speed limit seems to be state by state at the moment.   Works consistently in CT but does not show u for NY or MA     Not sure if this is a technical or Legal issue.  ??


----------



## yeggous (May 6, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> Waze speed limit seems to be state by state at the moment.   Works consistently in CT but does not show u for NY or MA     Not sure if this is a technical or Legal issue.  ??
> 
> View attachment 20131
> View attachment 20132



Technical. Google does not yet have speed limit data. They're still working on collecting it. You'll need to use a different map provider.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## wa-loaf (May 6, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> Waze speed limit seems to be state by state at the moment.   Works consistently in CT but does not show u for NY or MA     Not sure if this is a technical or Legal issue.  ??



Noticed it for the first time when I was in RI a week or so ago.


----------



## steamboat1 (May 7, 2016)

Hyundai has the speed limits for the road you're on posted right on the gps display. At least the one I rode up to VT. in last week did. It changed in towns & other slow speed zones too. Worked in NJ., NY., VT.


----------



## yeggous (May 8, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> Hyundai has the speed limits for the road you're on posted right on the gps display. At least the one I rode up to VT. in last week did. It changed in towns & other slow speed zones too. Worked in NJ., NY., VT.



Yes, and the maps in the Hyundai system come from a map vendor. There are two of them that have the necessary data.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## gmcunni (May 8, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Technical. Google does not yet have speed limit data. They're still working on collecting it. You'll need to use a different map provider.





yeggous said:


> Yes, and the maps in the Hyundai system come from a map vendor. There are two of them that have the necessary data.




i don't understand your words. Waze(owned by google) has speed limit data for CT and apparently RI.  i assume other states too.


regardless, i don't rely on my GPS for that info.  not like Waze will pay my speeding ticket... tho i anticipate many of those lawsuits coming (if not already in courts)


----------



## gmcunni (May 8, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> i don't understand your words. Waze(owned by google) has speed limit data for CT and apparently RI.  i assume other states too.



unless you mean complete coverage.


----------



## cdskier (May 8, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> unless you mean complete coverage.



I assume that's what he means...especially with his comment that they are working on collecting it.


----------



## gmcunni (May 8, 2016)

cdskier said:


> I assume that's what he means...especially with his comment that they are working on collecting it.



waze says their data is user supplied.. who has time for that!


----------



## Hawkshot99 (May 8, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> waze says their data is user supplied.. who has time for that!



The data of traffic flow, police on side of road, and other ever changing stuff is.
I doubt speed limits are iser supplied. 90% of roads I drive on my TomTom and Garmin GPS' s tell me the speed limit. These devises do not allow user supplied info, except that they track how fast cars are moving to show where traffic jams are.


----------



## yeggous (May 8, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> The data of traffic flow, police on side of road, and other ever changing stuff is.
> I doubt speed limits are iser supplied. 90% of roads I drive on my TomTom and Garmin GPS' s tell me the speed limit. These devises do not allow user supplied info, except that they track how fast cars are moving to show where traffic jams are.



The commercial GPS units use mapping data collected with the automotive navigation market in mind. Google focuses on mobile advertising. Their entire map platform was built to make them more effective at selling target advertising. That is why they never previously collected speed limits. They do have very accurate drive times because they have a much larger data volume of actual road speeds from tracking all the Android phones.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## gmcunni (May 8, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> The data of traffic flow, police on side of road, and other ever changing stuff is.


agreed and as a waze user i contribute that info.  they make it easy with either a hand wave or quick tap of the screen followed by simple voice commands.  but haven't seen an easy way to contribute map edits or speed limits. map editing seemed like a burden the 1 time i tried.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (May 9, 2016)

Crowd sourcing is as accurate as it is wrong..
But I find WAZE mostly correct.. And I support and add to the crowd sourcing...


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 9, 2016)

I experimented with Waze (in concert with my radar detector) on a long trip from FL to NJ back in January.  

I think most folks already realize this, but the results were that Waze was completely and wholly insufficient to use in lieu of a radar detector.  Better suited for things like traffic accidents & info, but even then, I find the green, yellow, red GOOG traffic lines to be sufficient.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (May 9, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> I experimented with Waze (in concert with my radar detector) on a long trip from FL to NJ back in January.
> 
> I think most folks already realize this, but the results were that Waze was completely and wholly insufficient to use in lieu of a radar detector.  Better suited for things like traffic accidents & info, but even then, I find the green, yellow, red GOOG traffic lines to be sufficient.



I find waze to be helpful while also using the radar detector...


----------



## Funky_Catskills (May 9, 2016)

ALthough I used it in NJ going to visit my Mom and you may be right about NJ it wasnt as useful as it seems to be on 87 and 84.....


----------



## steamboat1 (May 9, 2016)

Never use computers when driving. Been driving over 40 years. You guys are nuts. Good luck when the satelites go down. Anyone know how to read a road map anymore?


----------



## Hawkshot99 (May 9, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> Never use computers when driving. Been driving over 40 years. You guys are nuts. Good luck when the satelites go down. Anyone know how to read a road map anymore?


I know how to.  I also know that there are far easier, and more accurate/current methods than a paper map.


----------



## steamboat1 (May 9, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> I know how to.  I also know that there are far easier, and more accurate/current methods than a paper map.


Says the guy driving up the railroad tracks


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 9, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> I know how to.  I also know that there are far easier, and more accurate/current methods than a paper map.



Yup.  Not sure about any logic that somehow sees GPS & paper maps as mutually exclusive capabilities.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (May 9, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> Says the guy driving up the railroad tracks



Huh?


----------



## MadMadWorld (May 9, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> I experimented with Waze (in concert with my radar detector) on a long trip from FL to NJ back in January.
> 
> I think most folks already realize this, but the results were that Waze was completely and wholly insufficient to use in lieu of a radar detector.  Better suited for things like traffic accidents & info, but even then, I find the green, yellow, red GOOG traffic lines to be sufficient.



Radar detectors are useless against LIDAR which is used more and more frequently these days. Waze in conjunction with a radar detector might be helpful though.


----------



## Domeskier (May 10, 2016)

The internet tells me that some state troopers are required to be able to estimate a car's speed within 3 miles per hour as part of their training.  I assume this is mostly a way to help trainees decide which cars to point the radar at, but are there any states in the NE where a visual estimate would hold up in court?


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 10, 2016)

MadMadWorld said:


> Radar detectors are useless against LIDAR *which is used more and more frequently these days.*



I keep hearing people say this, and actually I feel like I've heard people say this for over 10 years now (maybe even longer), and despite the repetition, in my considerable experience with detection, it never seems to be true.

  Most police don't even have it, and of the ones that do sometimes claim it's a P.I.T.A. to use so they don't bother (not to mention, it cant be used during any sort of inclement weather, even light fog).


EDIT:  I'd also argue that it's not entirely "useless" against LIDAR even when in use, so long as you're not the first victim in the given area.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (May 10, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> The internet tells me that some state troopers are required to be able to estimate a car's speed within 3 miles per hour as part of their training.  I assume this is mostly a way to help trainees decide which cars to point the radar at, but are there any states in the NE where a visual estimate would hold up in court?



If the officer has gone and been "calibrated" then yes. Basicaly them taking a bunch of training and testing. The gun would be used just to back up what they have gauged you at.


----------



## Domeskier (May 10, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> If the officer has gone and been "calibrated" then yes. Basicaly them taking a bunch of training and testing. The gun would be used just to back up what they have gauged you at.



Interesting.  I assume it takes an officer longer to estimate a car's speed visually than it does using radar or laser so if you spot them soon enough you can perhaps take "evasive" measures....


----------



## MadMadWorld (May 10, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> The internet tells me that some state troopers are required to be able to estimate a car's speed within 3 miles per hour as part of their training.  I assume this is mostly a way to help trainees decide which cars to point the radar at, but are there any states in the NE where a visual estimate would hold up in court?



There is no hard line number. The officer must visually identify the vehicle, and the generally accepted practice is to estimate the speed limit. If the reading is way off from their estimate they are not supposed to pull the car over because this generally means that the radar needs to be recalibrated or it got the reading from another vehicle. Most officers will not bother to pull you over if they only get a visual estimate because if someone contests it they will have it thrown out or at the very least have it significantly reduced. If you are an asshole to the officer, he will definitely stick it to your ass with other violations like failure to keep right, lane change, or seat belt so be nice!



BenedictGomez said:


> I keep hearing people say this, and actually I feel like I've heard people say this for over 10 years now (maybe even longer), and despite the repetition, in my considerable experience with detection, it never seems to be true.
> 
> Most police don't even have it, and of the ones that do sometimes claim it's a P.I.T.A. to use so they don't bother (not to mention, it cant be used during any sort of inclement weather, even light fog).
> 
> ...



I don't even know where to begin none if what you said is even remotely true. In Massachusetts, each of our barracks has at least 2-3. They are all handheld units because LIDAR can not be used from a moving vehicle since the beam needs to be aimed at the target. 

Your statement about not being able to use LIDAR in bad weather is inaccurate. Radar loses its accuracy with precipitation but the units these days have come a long way and can really be used in most conditions. LIDAR works in any environment....at night, in the rain, underwater. Oceanographers and Navy do some amazing things with the technology. 

And a radar detector is useless vs LIDAR for a number of reasons but you have to understand what causes the radar detector to emit a sound when a officer is using radar in the area. Even if you had something to detect a LIDAR it's a waste of money because a LIDAR gun is only in use when the officer points the gun at the vehicle and squeezes the trigger. If you can react and slow your vehicle down at the speed of light I'm impressed. The Waze app would be more useful in this scenario.

The problem with LIDAR is that although it works just fine through the windshield of a cruiser, it is easier to get a reading from outside. Because of that it usually requires 2 officers to coordinate. If you do get a LIDAR ticket, don't bother fighting it. These things are extremely accurate and I've never heard of one being thrown out.


----------



## Domeskier (May 10, 2016)

MadMadWorld said:


> If you are an asshole to the officer, he will definitely stick it to your ass with other violations like failure to keep right, lane change, or seat belt so be nice!



Uh-oh - I am barely able to suppress my belligerent and confrontational nature when conforming to the heightened standards of decency applicable to anonymous internet interactions.  How bad can jail be, really?


----------



## MadMadWorld (May 10, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> Uh-oh - I am barely able to suppress my belligerent and confrontational nature when conforming to the heightened standards of decency applicable to anonymous internet interactions.  How bad can jail be, really?



I'm sure it's not that bad. But if you get pulled over by a statie in MA don't mention you know MadMadWorld. You might get the Freddie Gray treatment


----------



## Domeskier (May 10, 2016)

MadMadWorld said:


> I'm sure it's not that bad. But if you get pulled over by a statie in MA don't mention you know MadMadWorld. You might get the Freddie Gray treatment



That's the guy from Queen right?  If the treatment comes with a pair of super tight cutoff jean shorts, next year's spring skiing outfit is going to be divine!


----------



## x10003q (May 10, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> The internet tells me that some state troopers are required to be able to estimate a car's speed within 3 miles per hour as part of their training.  I assume this is mostly a way to help trainees decide which cars to point the radar at, but are there any states in the NE where a visual estimate would hold up in court?



This is a joke. There is no way to tell how fast a car is going by your eye. You might be able to tell that a car is slower or faster than the posted limit if you were familiar with the location and perpendicular to the traffic, but no way you can tell the speed. Guessing will not hold up in traffic court.


----------



## x10003q (May 11, 2016)

MadMadWorld said:


> There is no hard line number. The officer must visually identify the vehicle, and the generally accepted practice is to estimate the speed limit. If the reading is way off from their estimate they are not supposed to pull the car over because this generally means that the radar needs to be recalibrated or it got the reading from another vehicle. Most officers will not bother to pull you over if they only get a visual estimate because if someone contests it they will have it thrown out or at the very least have it significantly reduced. If you are an asshole to the officer, he will definitely stick it to your ass with other violations like failure to keep right, lane change, or seat belt so be nice!.


This is nonsense. If you are aiming a lidar unit you can not also be estimating speed. It is also almost impossible to estimate the speed of a car at the shallow angle (as close to straight on) you need to make sure the lidar is accurate due to cosine error. 



MadMadWorld said:


> I don't even know where to begin none if what you said is even remotely true. In Massachusetts, each of our barracks has at least 2-3. They are all handheld units because LIDAR can not be used from a moving vehicle since the beam needs to be aimed at the target.
> 
> Your statement about not being able to use LIDAR in bad weather is inaccurate. Radar loses its accuracy with precipitation but the units these days have come a long way and can really be used in most conditions. LIDAR works in any environment....at night, in the rain, underwater. Oceanographers and Navy do some amazing things with the technology. .


Weather does affect the lidar units. Some have a precipitation setting that shuts off the unit at closer than 250 ft. The next time I  am driving underwater I will keep my detector on.



MadMadWorld said:


> And a radar detector is useless vs LIDAR for a number of reasons but you have to understand what causes the radar detector to emit a sound when a officer is using radar in the area. Even if you had something to detect a LIDAR it's a waste of money because a LIDAR gun is only in use when the officer points the gun at the vehicle and squeezes the trigger. If you can react and slow your vehicle down at the speed of light I'm impressed. The Waze app would be more useful in this scenario..



The width of a beam at 1000 ft is about 4 feet. A small movement by the officer while pulling the trigger can make the beam sweep over multiple lanes giving an inaccurate reading and also setting off the detector.



MadMadWorld said:


> The problem with LIDAR is that although it works just fine through the windshield of a cruiser, it is easier to get a reading from outside. Because of that it usually requires 2 officers to coordinate. If you do get a LIDAR ticket, don't bother fighting it. These things are extremely accurate and I've never heard of one being thrown out.



Most lidar manufacturers do not recommend shooting through windows due to the reduced accuracy (glass refraction, glass coatings, dirt and/or precipitation on the glass). That means most officers will shoot thru an open window. That also means dealing with cold/heat and rain/snow directly due to the open window. While the lidar units themselves work at night, there are no lidar units with night scopes. Aiming and IDing a target at night is very difficult. The cops that I know hate lidar units. It is too much work and too much weather exposure especially when compared to a fixed mount radar unit.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 11, 2016)

MadMadWorld said:


> *I don't even know where to begin none if what you said is even remotely true.*




The irony of the bolded above, is that almost nothing you said is remotely true.

 In fact, you packed a numerically impressive number of incorrect statements into that post, which I'd point out, except I see x10003q has already done so.   


The only minor point I'd add to x1003q's  post, is that LIDAR is rarely used at night in non-urban settings, and when it is, it realistically needs to be used from much shorter distances (eliminating one of its' key advantages over Radar) due to the fact that human beings have human eyes, rather than hawk eyes.

EDIT:  Though reading it again I see that's what he's getting at with scope/aiming, so he actually covered that too.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 11, 2016)

x10003q said:


> *The cops that I know hate lidar units. It is too much work and too much weather exposure especially when compared to a fixed mount radar unit.*



Which is exactly why I think they're not used anywhere near as much as they could be.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2016)

BG, I know there's nothing you like more in life than winning the internet by telling others that they are wrong, but I think most people are going to stick with conventional wisdom and side with the guy who actually works for the state police.


----------



## Funky_Catskills (May 11, 2016)

So I'm in VA right now...  I used WAZE and my detector..
And WAZE doesn't seem to be updated/crowd sourced on 95 as much as it is on my usual 84/87..

People...


----------



## MadMadWorld (May 11, 2016)

x10003q said:


> This is nonsense. If you are aiming a lidar unit you can not also be estimating speed. It is also almost impossible to estimate the speed of a car at the shallow angle (as close to straight on) you need to make sure the lidar is accurate due to cosine error.
> 
> 
> Weather does affect the lidar units. Some have a precipitation setting that shuts off the unit at closer than 250 ft. The next time I  am driving underwater I will keep my detector on.
> ...



With LIDAR you don't need a visual estimate you can get a new reading with every pull of the trigger. I realize you are getting your information from some Internet lawyer but if you go into court arguing cosine effect, you will be interrupted by the magistrate and politely asked to leave. Officers are trained to use these on straightaways and to take at least 2-3 readings. If there was a cosine issue, the officer would see readings all over the place and probably wouldn't bother pulling you over. 

Those weather setting you talk about are only need in severe weather situations where it probably wouldn't be used anyways.

The width of the unit we use is 3 ft but regardless that's 3 football fields and the max range of the unit. Most officers will mark the range of the reading on the ticket. A magistrate might take your side on a reading from 800+ feet but otherwise you have no argument. 

LIDAR world just fine through a windshield but yea some manufacturers say you shouldn't. Mattress manufacturers also tell you not to remove the tag under penalty of law. LIDAR is used to identify the topography of the ocean floor, military uses it to guide missiles with in feet of a target from thousands of feet in the air. Do you really think it has an issue with a little rain, snow, or dust? And yes there is no night scope but radar doesn't either. The officer is required to visually identify the vehicle and then get a reading. They are trained to aim the unit at head lights/tail lights and license plates. So at night those headlights are an easy target.


----------



## MadMadWorld (May 11, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> BG, I know there's nothing you like more in life than winning the internet by telling others that they are wrong, but I think most people are going to stick with conventional wisdom and side with the guy who actually works for the state police.



Shit is entertaining at least. I would love to be in the court room when BG contests a ticket!


----------



## Not Sure (May 11, 2016)

How fast over the limit are you guys going? They just raised the Pa. TPK limit to 70 people are doing 90 -100 . Seems to me that all the authorities have to do is look at time stamps on tickets or EZ pass data , so much for detector use on TPK . 
 Dry conditions ,Ok but this is setting the stage for some major wrecks! A Winter snow squall is going to be a death trap. I speed also but usually not more that 10% over .


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2016)

On highways I typically drive 5-9 over the limit up to 80 MPH. It seems like 9 over is the Magic number. I don't use a radar detector or Waze and the last ticket I got was in 2001.  I also drive a ton (42K miles in the past year).

 I don't purposefully drive above 80.  As an example, the limit on 95  north of Bangor is 75 and I don't think to myself, "okay, I'll drive 84 and not get pulled over."


----------



## Funky_Catskills (May 11, 2016)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Seems to me that all the authorities have to do is look at time stamps on tickets or EZ pass data , so much for detector use on TPK .
> .



If they ever did that - EZ Passes would be sent back in droves...


----------



## Domeskier (May 11, 2016)

x10003q said:


> This is a joke. There is no way to tell how fast a car is going by your eye. You might be able to tell that a car is slower or faster than the posted limit if you were familiar with the location and perpendicular to the traffic, but no way you can tell the speed. Guessing will not hold up in traffic court.



It's simple math to judge speed relative to stationary landmarks.  All you need is time and distance.


----------



## x10003q (May 11, 2016)

Domeskier said:


> It's simple math to judge speed relative to stationary landmarks.  All you need is time and distance.



There is no way to accurately give the speed of a car by looking at a moving car unless you have a calibrated eyeball like Steve Austin.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 11, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> BG, I know there's nothing you like more in life than winning the internet by telling others that they are wrong, but I think most people are going to stick with conventional wisdom and side with the guy who actually works for the state police.



Regardless of whom he works for, virtually everything he said was literally incorrect, as x1003q pointed out in detail (and it the reason for the slight amendments/clarifications, shift changes, and backtracking).

Regardless, my point (i.e. the one I was actually talking about), stand, which, to reiterate --->  is that radars are still quite useful due to the fact LIDAR is not used nearly as much as you'd think, even by the departments own the technology, it's not insignificant limitations, and the fact that that it's a P.I.T.A. that many cops dislike.


----------



## Domeskier (May 11, 2016)

x10003q said:


> There is no way to accurately give the speed of a car by looking at a moving car unless you have a calibrated eyeball like Steve Austin.



Depends on the level of accuracy you want.  By optimizing the distance over which speed is judged, the margin of error could probably be reduced to within limits that are reasonable for purposes of law enforcement.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 11, 2016)

Funky_Catskills said:


> *If they ever did that - EZ Passes would be sent back in droves*...



Which is why government has floated/explored the (awful) idea of mandating it.


----------



## Edd (May 11, 2016)

x10003q said:


> There is no way to accurately give the speed of a car by looking at a moving car unless you have a calibrated eyeball like Steve Austin.



Bionic Man references be dope.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 11, 2016)

I hadn't looked up the cost of laser jammers in several years, so this thread just made me do so..... disappointed to find that they're still outrageously expensive. 

 My favorite radar detector company, for instance, has an integrated model that's $1,600.  WTH is the sense in that?  I'd have to get a slew of tickets before it pays for itself.


----------



## Jully (May 11, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Which is why government has floated/explored the (awful) idea of mandating it.



Toll workers unite!

Wouldn't you run the risk of a cop detecting a LIDAR jammer and pulling you over for that regardless of speeding?


----------



## x10003q (May 11, 2016)

Edd said:


> Bionic Man references be dope.



I was hoping somebody caught that. :-D


----------



## Cannonball (May 11, 2016)




----------



## BenedictGomez (May 11, 2016)

Jully said:


> *Wouldn't you run the risk of a cop detecting a LIDAR jammer and pulling you over for that *regardless of speeding?



It's illegal in something like 10 states or so, and I've heard the fines are very high.


----------



## MadMadWorld (May 11, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Regardless of whom he works for, virtually everything he said was literally incorrect, as x1003q pointed out in detail (and it the reason for the slight amendments/clarifications, shift changes, and backtracking).
> 
> Regardless, my point (i.e. the one I was actually talking about), stand, which, to reiterate --->  is that radars are still quite useful due to the fact LIDAR is not used nearly as much as you'd think, even by the departments own the technology, it's not insignificant limitations, and the fact that that it's a P.I.T.A. that many cops dislike.



Amendments....Shifts....Backtracking? On what stance I'm confused? I can show you an operating manual that would back up everything. This is a ridiculous conversation to even have when you have never used one or had experience with one. 

The technology is amazingly accurate. They are not hard to use at all. It's as easy as looking through the scope, aiming the beam at a reflective object (head lights and license plates), and squeezing the trigger.


----------



## BenedictGomez (May 11, 2016)

MadMadWorld said:


> The technology is amazingly accurate. They are not hard to use at all. It's as easy as looking through the scope, aiming the beam at a reflective object (head lights and license plates), and squeezing the trigger.



Nobody doubts/denies that.  

It's all the other stuff we're disagreeing with you about (e.g. radar detectors are useless because of LIDAR, e.g. bad weather has zero effect on LIDAR, e.g. LIDAR is easy-peasey for police to use at night, e.g. most cops love to use LIDAR, e.g. it's commonly used through the windshield, and other examples I wont bother listing).


----------



## MadMadWorld (May 11, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Nobody doubts/denies that.
> 
> It's all the other stuff we're disagreeing with you about (e.g. radar detectors are useless because of LIDAR, e.g. bad weather has zero effect on LIDAR, e.g. LIDAR is easy-peasey for police to use at night, e.g. most cops love to use LIDAR, e.g. it's commonly used through the windshield, and other examples I wont bother listing).



Lol way to misquote. Talk about shifting. 


When have you ever used a LIDAR unit or tested it's accuracy? Your shtick has always been to act like an expert in things you know nothing about. Come to me when you actually have experience until then, enjoy being an armchair quarterback.


----------



## cdskier (May 12, 2016)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> How fast over the limit are you guys going? They just raised the Pa. TPK limit to 70 people are doing 90 -100 . Seems to me that all the authorities have to do is look at time stamps on tickets or EZ pass data , so much for detector use on TPK .
> Dry conditions ,Ok but this is setting the stage for some major wrecks! A Winter snow squall is going to be a death trap. I speed also but usually not more that 10% over .



I commute 90 miles a day in NJ. I typically drive about 10 over the speed limit (75 in 65 zones which are most of what I'm driving) and people are still flying past me most of the time. It really is getting insane. I've been driving the same route for almost 12 years now and it seems people just keep going faster and faster. Of course on the flip side you also still get idiots doing 55 in the left lane of Route 78 that refuse to move over. When I pass them it often turns out that they are busy texting or talking on a phone.


----------

