hacker-pschorr

In order for that to mean anything you need to know what it peaked at. I see cars all the time with radar detectors, almost never see a V1. Radio Shack, Circuit City, Best Buy etc... sell a ton of $50 detectors that figure into this ratio.

How much market share does Lamborghini have vs. Toyota?

SharkSkin

Read further -- I believe that is an incorrect interpretation. The V1 has a discriminator circuit that identifies the unique "signature" of different radar sources. This is what is used to determine how many bogeys there are. They say it is specifically designed to avoid counting reflections(though nothing is perfect).

Art_Z

i love my V1, however I know for a FACT that reflections count as multiple bogeys in some cases. on 78 by Allentown we have one of those big LED signs on the road with a radar gun, X band, hung underneath it. i guess its used to slow down people with radar detectors thinking there is a cop around the bend, or whatever. In any case, there are times when I register two warnings from that same gun. there are no other sources of radar in the area, but there are alot of concrete barriers for sound protection which i imagine causes the reflections to really scatter around.

Ron_H

Dave, to answer your question, though X banduse by the police has diminished,
I wouldn't ignore it when it came up. In fact though, I frequently do give it less atention. All it takes is one hit to ruin your day. Maybe some hungry bear in some spot in the road rural town. The advice I have is to run the V-1 on little "L" mode to filter out the bogeys from the serious threats.

As for preferences, to each his own. I prefer Valentine. I would say on a long road trip, it pays for itself at least 3 or 4 times each day. If Heinrich's preference is for the Escort, and it works well for him, so be it. As more laser use becomes evident in California, perhaps we'll see more Escorts and jammers. I know someone who has a jammer on his car. It hasn't been used in three years. I do get laser hits in California, but so far have been able to deal with them.

The bigger objective is summed up in the trite expression: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". We want to end this idiocy of cat and mouse which began in the days of the 55 mph limit. When police departments were given the sales pitch by zealous radar gun salespeople that a radar gun purchase would pay for itself within one month. This whole farce is an insult to our intelligence and safety. We want to rid ourselves of our detectors altogether and use our machines the way they were designed to be used. How about this proposal? Every time you get a hit and your detector saves you another fine, send $50 to the Best Highway Safety Practices Institute? We could accelerate our objectives in one month.

GT Jackson

Not me man, just the facts as published by more authorative sources.

SharkSkin

Interesting that Roy is still posting comments about version 1.8 that were made in 2004. Current version is 3.826(perhaps higher, I haven't checked in months). Think maybe Roy is sore that Mike won't let him resell his product?

fabric

These guys need to do something about this web page if they expect anybody to give them money:

http://www.bhspi.org/

Only link on the left that works is to join and give them money. I can't actually find out what the best practices are.

Ron_H

OK, try this: http://www.hwysafety.com/
That should answer your questions, barring esoterica.

Funding is a problem hampering the development of the other website. Much time is spent helping unfortunate people who are caught in this frenzy of highway robbery. I have spent personally uncountable hours doing that, and others in this group have donated unimaginable hours doing so, including appearing in court for cases which are won. In one case, this involved traveling 500 + miles for gas money.....twice. (we won). Just last month a new first: the state of Washington practice was dealt a setback when it agreed with the assertion that the speed limit on a particular roadway was illegally set because the sign was not supported by a proper engineering study. The Washington residents won, even if they don't realize it yet.

"Best practices" are those practices that have been proven by field research to
support the hypothesis that gave rise to their proposal, and are supported by peer review. They then become vetted practices. As with any scientific process, which demands proof by accepted methods, not capriciousness or subjectivity. Arbitrary is not in an acceptable attitude when applying best practices, as proven in Montana.

The intent is that what is proposed is not likely to produce unintended consequences. (less safety, more deaths). The intent is to return highway safety and administration to the professional traffic engineer to avoid the proliferating practice of producing more revenue and less safety which is the increasing mode of operation currently in this country. In fact, many traffic engineers are not taught how to perform some of the required studies and safety audits recognized as necessary to objectively establish safe highways and road ways, because the current rush to capitalize on this revenue stream is compromising the judgement of the administrators of their training. Engineering studies are not performed properly and requirements for even performing them are ignored or written out of the local jurisdictional law. Result: more deaths and less safety. If you want to know the details it would take a course in highway engineering to detail the practices which lead to safety as opposed to those that don't.

There are parallels to other aspects of life in these United States, like Big Pharma and the stranglehold on education, government and schooling of medical professionals to the detriment of great segments of this country's population. Truth is displaced in favor of profit. Don't ask to argue; I won't waste my time defending that statement because it is so evident and pervasive.

If anyone wants specifics, we would need to write volumes detailing practices and legal theory. Stand along a highway and ask yourself if what smokey is telling you about what you just are alleged to have done is resulting in death and accidents galore, though behind his butt you witness literally 3/4s of the motorists doing it as he is speaking....without incident. You must be devoid of grey matter if you believe that crap. If you're the type that prefers to not question "authority" and lower your head in subservient shame, click the red box at the upper right corner of your screen and go to the drugstore and stock up on preparation H. But if you want to help end this assault on your safety and your wallet, join us. If you want to be allowed to take responsibility for your actions and life, as opposed to deferring to someone else, join us.

When these practices are utilized, traffic flows, lives are spared, accidents are reduced, and time is saved. Some people will lose their jobs though. Actually, many people will. So which way shall we move? I thought that question was anwered by the end of the Medieval Period in our history.

John Welch

Quoting ANYTHING from radartest.com is like saying that wikipedia is an accurate reference.

The guy that runs the site is more than a little biased...

Ron_H

Chris, I thought about my lengthy post. Let me use an example of a best practice vs. common practice. Letting the 85th percentile of drivers under free flowing conditions determine the speed limit on a particular section of roadway, rather than the 55 percentile of drivers under less than free flowing conditons, as is done routinely, is a best practice. There are requirements for adjusting this number related to conditions unknown to drivers, accident history, visibility of factors affecting driver's behaviour like regulating signs, police, workmen, etc., alignment of roadway. Examine an "engineering study" and the raw data gathered to produce it and you will be amazed at what passes for "engineering practices". Another is the procedure for setting yellow light timing, which is supposed to be done by engineers, not vendors of red light cameras. There are others, but those two are of great concern since they are violated so blatantly to build revenue.

Hey, the Earth is round. We know that now. Let's move on.

GT Jackson

Not trying to start a pissin' match, just given you something to chew on. I had a chance to try a V1 in my hood where I've been driven for 20 years. The thing was poppin' off like spit on a griddle. I kept my Escort.

Here's more off the net . . . Incoming!!!!


Best radar detector overall.Three models co-exist as the top radar detector in reviews. In addition to the Escort Passport 8500 X50, the Bel Pro RX65 and Valentine One also receive the highest scores in reviews. But the Bel Pro is only available in high-end auto electronics stores, and the Valentine One costs $100 more. The Escort radar detector sniffs out X, K and Ka-band radar guns from at least two miles away, and is especially good at tracking Ka-band guns in dangerous POP mode. Although the Valentine One is better at detecting laser guns, reviews say this aspect is of dubious value, since by the time the alarm sounds, it's already too late to avoid a ticket.
• Valentine One
(*est. $400)

>> Where to buy Best laser detection.The Valentine One took a lot of criticism in last year's reviews for its inability to detect radar guns in POP mode, which operates in hard-to-detect spurts. But Valentine has now added this feature, and aside from a high rate of false alarms, reviews say it works very well. The Valentine One is also great at detecting beams from laser speed guns, but once a laser has locked onto your vehicle, it's generally too late to avoid a ticket. Although the Valentine One is an excellent all-around radar detector, some reviews say its design and features are behind the times, and that it is too expensive, especially when the Escort Passport 8500 X50 is just as effective.

SharkSkin

I just took a leak, so I'll pass on the pissing match. But I wanted to share something that I just found today -- this discussion inspired a bit of radar-detector surfing on my part today -- and looky what I found. in a radardetector.net thread... Looks like a terrific enhancement. The guy is in San Jose, I'll be hooking up with him soon.

hacker-pschorr

On a recent fun run (not Porsche related) the lead guy had a V1, back in the pack was a new Escort.

Funny thing is, the Escort owner made a comment that a few times the lead guy hit the brakes, then we all saw a cop down the road his escort didn't go off until the last second (cop was already in view, worthless warning).

Maybe your V1 was broken?

pmotts

I have heard many story's like this, one involving a PNW'er who has critiqued V1 relentlessly.
I run my V1 in Logic Mode and get very few false reads.

Nicole

Whoa - colored LEDs??? That's a big leap ahead! I've been wondering why they don't differentiate the different types of radar sources better, because if it's an X-Band I can usually ignore it, K-Band deserves some attention, but it's the Ka and Laser that are dangerous. If I drive at night and see a red LED flashing - what does that tell me???

But I have a sophisitcated display always telling me "L" (for Logic). Well, I know that after I turned the thing on - no need to constantly remind me more prominently than what the source of the current attack is!

Somehow the guys at Valentine are missing a very basic ergonomics issue here... I emaled the guy.