What Radar / Laser speed measuring
devices are used in NT?
Firstly, it needs to be
explained that there are four different RADAR bands (frequencies)
used throughout the world plus LASER (which is
completely different to radar).
The four radar bands include:
X-Band (10.275GHz up to
10.775GHz) - not used anywhere in Australia
K-Band (24.050GHz up to
24.250GHz)
Ka-Band (33.400GHz up to
36.000GHz)
Ku-Band (13.175GHz to
13.675GHz) - not used anywhere in Australia
Radar (short for radio and ranging) works by transmitting a pulse of
electromagnetic (EM) energy, also referred to as RF energy at a moving object.
Using the Doppler principle the radar
gun ‘listens’ to the change in pitch of the radio waves
as they reflect off the moving vehicle and thus determines the speed.
Similarly, when a train blows its whistle as it passes you – you can hear
the change in pitch of the whistle, as the train moves past.
The radar beam starts out as a
small diameter pulse when it leaves the radar gun, but grows quite rapidly
as the distance increases from the gun. At a distance of 300 metres, the radar beam is now 100 metres tall and 200 metres wide! If
6 cars were simultaneously hit by a radar beam (six vehicles driving down the
freeway), 6 pulses would come back to the radar gun, and the radar gun would
detect (and report the speed of) the largest signal of the 6 signals
present. To overcome this shortfall, the latest radar units with Digital
Signal Processing (DSP) can identify the strongest and the fastest targets to try and help the police officer identify which vehicle's speed is being displayed on the radar gun.
Because the radar beam is so large when traveling down the road, a radar
detector can be located almost anywhere in or on the vehicle, and it will
detect the radar signal. Radar will penetrate glass, plastic, even
people, but is reflected by metal and metallic objects. Radio waves
will only travel in a straight line, so you are relying on reflections of
other objects to give you advanced warning if you do not have a line of sight
with the radar gun.
Traffic radar uses a radar beam to measure speed. Think of the beam as a
searchlight. It’s invisible because it’s made of microwaves instead of
light, but otherwise it acts very much like a light beam. It travels in
straight lines. It’s easily reflected. It scatters as it is passed through
dust and moisture in the air. And — this is essential — it has to hit your
car before it can determine your speed. Radar can’t see around corners or
through hills. It can’t see you when you are behind another vehicle. When in
the clear, how strongly your vehicle reflects determines at what distance the radar
can detect your speed. Generally, larger vehicles reflect more strongly than
smaller vehicles. Trucks are more “visible” at further distances than cars. The
principle on which radar operates is absolutely reliable. Radar equipment,
on the other hand, is only as good as the quality of its design and
manufacture. Traffic radars tend to be unreliable. They’re cheaply made and
therefore vulnerable to many interferences that cause false readings. And,
compared to the military and weather radar which have rotating antennas,
traffic radars are vastly simplified. This simplification means that traffic
radar cannot tell one car from another. The operator has to do that, and
since the operator can’t see an invisible beam any better than you can, he
frequently doesn’t know which vehicle’s speed is being read. This is a
source of many undeserved tickets.
As a defense against
radar detectors, many police radar units can be
operated in the Instant-on mode, also called the Pulse
mode. This means the radar is in position, but it is not
transmitting a beam. So it cannot be detected. When the
target is within range, the radar operator switches on the
beam and the radar calculates the speed, usually in less
than a second. This calculation happens too quickly for
the target (you) to respond in time. Still, you can defend against
Instant-on by recognizing it when the operator zaps traffic ahead of you.
As well as radar, there is also LASER (also known as LIDAR, - LIght Detection And Ranging), which operates at a frequency of 904nm ‡ 33MHz. A police laser (LIDAR) gun emits a
highly focused beam of invisible light, in the near infrared region of
light, at 904nm of wavelength, with the beam being around 50cm in diameter
at a distance of 300m from the laser gun. Unlike RADAR which determines a
vehicle's speed by measuring its
Doppler shift, police laser (lidar) calculates speed by observing the
changing amount of time is takes to "see" reflected pulses of light over a
discreet amount of time.
Because the laser beam's diameter is so narrow, if a laser gun is aimed at
the license plate, the beam is so small, that most times, none of the
laser signal would actually “spill over” up to the windshield, where your
detector is mounted. Thus, a radar detector with laser detector mounted on
the windscreen would not even detect the laser beam targeted on the license
plate (or headlights or bumper for that matter). This means the beam of a
laser gun is accurate enough to target a single vehicle out of, let’s say,
six vehicles driving down the freeway. The laser gun can target and detect
that single vehicle in less than ½ second after the trigger is pulled, while
the surrounding vehicles would not detect the laser beam as it passed
right beside their vehicle!
Other than radar and laser, there are other ways of calculating a vehicle's speed
being:
Vascar - This is not a
radar or laser, system; rather it is a glorified stopwatch that relies
on the policeman's honesty and accuracy. They are mounted in the police
car and are often used when following the target. When the target car
goes past a landmark (usually a white marking across the road), the
timer is started and when the car goes past the second landmark, the
timer is stopped. It is hooked up to the patrol car's speedometer to
give a target speed reading. It relies on the button being pushed at the
right time and the pacing distance to be long enough to overcome any
timing errors. The only countermeasure is careful observation, or a GPS
unit if it's a regularly used Vascar area.
Piezo-electric strips - pressure-sensitive strips embedded in the roadway (a set distance
apart if speed is to be measured - typically 1-3 metres).
Inductive Loops - embedded in the roadway detect the presence of vehicles, and with two loops a set distance apart vehicle speed can be measured.
In Northern Territory, the police use
the following speed measurement devices:
Dash Mounted
radar (aka moving radar) set up in police cars:
The KR10-SP
manufactured by Kustom Signals Inc in the USA was the first dash mounted
K-band radars used by the NT police cars. The KR10 can
be used in stationary and moving mode, and can be used in "instant on" mode
or "constant on" mode. One antenna for front only or two antennas for
front / rear can be used.
NT police cars have been upgraded with a newer dash mounted (moving radar)
for their highway patrol cars, with dual antennas for targeting cars in both
directions. It is unclear whether the latest radars are the Silver
Eagle or Golden Eagle from Kustom, although both models operate on K-band
There are reports from some websites that
NT also uses the Bee III
dash-mounted (moving radar) manufactured by MPH industries in the U.S.
The MPH Bee operates at 33.8GHz (ka-band version) which is outside the ACMA allocation
for Australia, therefore if the MPH Bee is in fact used in Aus, it is likely to be
the K-band version.
Hand-held
laser (aka lidar):
The
Lidar gun used in the Northern Territory is the LTI Ultralyte 100LR.
The LTI Ultralyte 100 LR used in Australia is the 100pps
(pulses per second) model displaying speed and distance
in km/h and km respectively. The LTI Ultralyte
100LR operates at a frequency of 904nm, and as per all
speed lidar guns, has an extremely narrow divergence of
the radar beam, as well as able to acquire a
vehicle's speed in less than one second.
Mobile Speed
Cameras:
For speed cameras, the
NT utilize Lasercam made by Redflex Traffic Systems in Melbourne. It
has a day time range of 5 - 100m and a night time range of 15 - 80 metres.
The NT Speed Camera Unit consists of three speed camera vans located in Darwin
and Alice Springs and are responsible for the detection of speeding
motorists in those locations. The vans are also utilized in
other centres during traffic campaigns and localized traffic operations.
In 2005 there were 40,265 traffic infringement notices
issued by police in the NT, up 59% from 2000. Exceeding the speed limit
remained the most common type of traffic infringement notice in the NT,
accounting for 77% of all traffic infringement notices in 2005, in
comparison to 80% in 2000. Speed camera infringements occur predominantly in
the Darwin City.
What are the
guidelines for use of this equipment?
Contrary to what the government or police would have you believe, the
accuracy of these "speed measuring devices" can be somewhat doubtful,
particularly if the manufacturer's guidelines for use are not strictly followed.
Police officers, and mobile speed camera operators are trained in the proper
use of these devices, but that isn't to say these guidelines are always
followed.
It is estimated that 10% of all LIDAR infringements are incorrect and up to
30% of all moving radar speed readings are also incorrect!
The Australian standards AS 2898.2-2003:
"Radar speed detection - Operational procedures" - can be purchased HERE
What does all this mean? It means that there are requirements for the
correct placement and setup of speed camera devices as well as guidelines
for the use of radar devices. Rules
that must be followed for setup, placement and testing! But are they?
How do
Police Radar, Laser & Speed Cameras make mistakes?
Moving Radar mistakes:
The Texas Department of Public
Safety produced a comprehensive manual based on the Federal tests. It
cautions operators, "...the radar does not generate 'false' readings.
Anytime a reading appears, the radar has sensed a signal. The radar operator
must be familiar with situations that can produce 'error' readings." If the
operator does not detect the error, a ticket will be wrongfully issued.
Here are the radar "errors"
detailed by the Texas manual:
1. Antenna Positioning Error
The radar beam travels in a straight line, neither bending around curves nor
following the contour of hilly terrain. If the antenna is not properly
positioned, it may seem to clock an approaching car when, in fact, it's
clocking another car in the background.
2. Look-Past Error
Even if the operator aims his antenna properly, radar is still subject to
"look-past" error. This is caused by the radar looking past a small
reflection in the foreground to read a larger reflection behind. This error
is all the more insidious because poorly-trained operators assume it can't
happen.
Texas instructors warn, "It is a
widely-held misconception that the reflected target signal received by the
radar antenna will always be that of the closest vehicle to the antenna.
There are times, due to traffic conditions, that the closest vehicle is not
returning the strongest signal."
The Texas instructors confirm
this problem with radar, saying "It is not unfair to say that the reading
you register could be a larger, better target three-quarters of a mile down
the road."
3. Vehicle Interference Error
Texas tells its radar operators
that this "...situation becomes more critical if difference in patrol speed
and interference-vehicle speed is five to ten mph. A target vehicle moving
61 mph may be recorded at 66-71. These borderline speeds are more difficult
to detect with the eye."
4. Cosine Error
Cosine error produces a result similar to Interference error except no
moving traffic need be present. A stationary object adjacent to the road,
such as a building, or road machinery, or even a sign, makes a more
efficient reflector than horizontal pavement. Therefore the radar uses that
reflection as the basis of patrol speed.
If this reflector were
positioned straight ahead on a collision path, the patrol speed estimate
would be close enough. But the further the object is located off a direct
line to the target, the lower will be the estimate of patrol speed. This is
a simple trigonometry problem relating to the cosine of the angle between
the target and the ground reflector, hence the name Cosine error. Since
Cosine error always makes patrol speed seem smaller than it actually is, it
always acts to raise the reading of target speed.
5. Double-Bounce Error
Microwaves are easily reflected. That's what makes radar possible. But the
operator must be aware of the difference between an ordinary reflection and
a bad bounce. Big objects such as trucks are very efficient reflectors, and
it's possible for the radar beam to bounce off several moving trucks at
once, always producing erroneous readings.
6. Beam-Reflection error
Because microwaves are so readily reflected, Texas instructors recommend
caution, even in mounting the antenna within the patrol car. They say it's
possible that a reflective path can be set up through the rear-view mirror
that will produce radar readings on vehicles behind the patrol car when the
radar is aimed forward. And those vehicles behind can be either coming or
going, since radar does not distinguish directions.
7. Road-sign error
The ready reflectability of microwaves means that road signs are also source
of errors.
8. Radio-Interference Error
According to the Texas course, "UHF radio now in use can force radar to read
various numbers when you transmit, or just key the mike. Citizens band radio
transmissions from within the patrol vehicle can cause ghosting (false
readings)." It recommends that no radio transmissions be made while clocking
target vehicles.
9. Fan-Interference error
When the antenna is mounted inside the patrol car, the Texas course says,
"Radar will have a tendency to read the pulse of the fan motor (air
conditioner, heater, or defroster)." The instructors go on to say, however,
that the fan reading will disappear when a target comes into range, and that
the fan will not distort the speed reading of the target car.
However, in the case of moving
radar, they say, "Sometimes a steady fan speed will override patrol car
speed reflected from the roadway." When this happens, the false speed
reading produced by the fan will be substituted for patrol speed in the
moving radar's calculation of target speed. Since the calculation consists
of subtracting patrol speed from closing speed, if the fan reading is less
than patrol speed, then the speed displayed for the target will be
incorrectly high.
Police LIDAR can also make errors if not operated according to the
manufacturer's guidelines.
1. Stationary - Laser cannot be used in moving mode, they must be used
whilst stationary.
Similar to radar, laser cannot be used in the rain, snow, or high dust
environments.
2. Interference - If for any reasons intended signal returns are interrupted, it may not
be able to determine target velocity. Bright lights (such as Halogens)
beaming directly into a laser aperture may desensitize or entirely masks
target's echoes. The brighter and closer the light source the greater the
chance of interference.
3. Cosine Error - Is the angle from 0* perpendicular to the target vehicle. The greater
the cosine angle the greater the error. However, cosine error is always in
favor of the motorist, one of the speed readings will be will be
proportionally less than the actual speed of the target vehicle.
4. Sweep Error (also known as pan or slip error) - Is manifested when the laser is
aimed at one part of the vehicle, say the license plate, and due to the
motion of the operator, the laser also targets a side mirror during the same
trigger pull. Sweep Error adds to the real speed of the target vehicle. See
videos below.
5. Reflection Error - On very hot days with low humidity a visible mirage/reflection of the
target vehicle is created. In many cases, when the laser is aimed at the
target vehicle the infrared beam also receives readings from both the target
vehicle and the mirage causing a Sweep Error.
6. Overexposure Error - When a laser gun receives an extremely powerful reflective signal, such as
a sun flare off a vehicle, the computer's timer can't see return of the 904
nanometer signal it sent. It can't compute a speed reading. In general, the
laser gun is looking for the strongest return reflection of its own emitted
beam for speed computation.
Experts and two investigations by the BBC's Inside Out program and The Daily Mail have revealed that the police's favourite speed gun, the LTI 20-20, is flawed and can produce incorrect and unreliable speed readings.
The device is used in some 3500 speed traps around the UK, but motorists have been prosecuted for speeding when they're adamant that they weren't over the limit. However, the main expert witness called by the CPS to defend the equipment in court is the boss of the UK importer, Frank Garratt, a former police officer and now a millionaire.
In tests the speed gun recorded a wall speeding at 44mph. (Yes, a brick wall, that's not a misprint) Other tests showed a bicycle doing 66mph and a parked car doing 22mph. The Daily Mail reports that even when the camera is set up following the police's own guidelines and the manufacturer's handbook some of the readings were wildly off the mark.
The newspaper wrote "The Mail can expose the scandal of a speed enforcement industry in which the collection of fines is considered paramount - whatever the consequences for innocent drivers caught in police traps by faulty readings." Lawyers told the paper that motorists are now rebelling by refusing to pay fines and fighting their cases through the courts. One solicitor, Barry Culshaw from Southampton, is representing 15 clients who all claim to have been a victim of faulty LTI 20-20 readings.
Another discovery, writes The Daily Mail, is that vital video film, often taken as secondary evidence, is often mysteriously withheld from accused motorists by the CPS. On at least 10 occasions the CPS has suddenly dropped the case against a motorist when ordered by a judge to hand over the revealing footage.
Dr Michael Clark is Europe's leading expert on laser technology and a former directory of a company making laser detection equipment for traffic lights and car parks. He's also a fierce critic of the speed gun and has acted as an expert witness on behalf of many motorists since he defended himself after being caught for alleged speeding.
Dr Clark says the gun is defective because its wide beam can easily pick up the wrong vehicle and if not held firmly on the target (which is a difficult task itself) it can produce an erroneous speed result because of "slippage".
Reflections from road signs and from other cars, even stationary ones, can also make the laser device misinterpret the true speed of the vehicle. The LTI 20-20 works by sending out a beam to measure the distance of the target from the officer operating it and also how long it takes for the beam to reflect off the target and bounce back. The operator looks through the sights and sees a red dot which he aims onto the target and presses a trigger. Critically the beam must be held firmly at the same point on the moving vehicle. But if slippage occurs and the beam moves up, down, or along the vehicle the gun will measure an inaccurate reading.
In tests in the USA, it was shown that if the beam slips from the windscreen of a car down to its grille on the bonnet it can add 8mph onto the vehicle's measured speed. If it slips along the length of the car - which is possible when a vehicle comes around a corner into the speed gun's sights - a whopping 30mph can be added on to the reading.
The BBC's experiments with the LTI 20-20 were dismissed by both the UK importers and ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) saying it was impossible for the gun to make any errors and that the BBC used an American version of the gun which they claim has less reliable software.
However, that claim was been rejected by the Daily Mail who obtained a UK version of the gun - a LTI 20-20 Ultralyte certified by Tele-Traffic, the UK importers based in Warwick.
Dr Clark points out during the experiments that the gun uses a multi-mode laser which uses 3 beams, not one. Over a long distance the beams widen so if it's targeted onto one vehicle it can unintentionally hit another vehicle nearby by mistake. Dr Clark said "A policeman can't tell from 400 meters away - or even at a longer distance in many cases - exactly which car he is marking." To demonstrate his point they parked a car at the side of the road and drove a white van past it at just 3mph. The laser gun was pointed at the car from 371 meters away which, according to the handbook, is easily within its capabilities.
As soon as the van drove past the parked car the laser gun picked up the moving van. It was impossible to target just the parked car along and as a result the car was recorded as travelling at 3mph, even though it was really stationary. The experiment was repeated with the van doing 26mph and the gun clocked the parked car at 26mph.
Another problem is reflection from other vehicles. They pointed the gun at a different parked car and slowly drove the white van past. It recorded the parked car doing 22mph. Dr Clark explains "The beam sometimes catches the reflection of a nearby car. It zig-zags to this car before carrying on to the target vehicle and returns by the same route."
In their final experiment they pointed the gun at a brick wall with no moving vehicles in the area. They moved the beam along the wall instead of keeping it perfectly still on a single point to create the slippage effect. The gun was confused and showed a speed of 44mph. Dr Clark said "This shows how a traffic officer can mistakenly pick up a reading from a wall by the side of a motorway or even an empty road if he doesn't target a vehicle properly. Of course there's no record to prove if an officer had targeting the vehicle properly or not. Assumption of accuracy is always taken for granted even if the officer had unwittingly made a mistake.
ACPO state that the gun shouldn't be used at distances more than 500 meters, but Dr Clark says that it's being used in some cases at double that distance.
Despite the recent media interest in these issue the shortcomings of the gun was discovered nearly a decade ago in 1996 in the US state of New Jersey. The state temporarily banned the gun after a court witnessed someone targeting the gun on a wall of the courtroom and it measured 4mph. The lawyer, Joe Maccarone, defending a motorist accused of speeding called on an expert from NASA. The expert said that at just over 300 metres there was only a 60% chance of a human operator hitting a 12 foot wide target with a laser gun. Cars are only 6 foot wide so the chances of hitting something other than the target are very high indeed.
Hand-held
laser mistakes videos:
If you have been given a ticket from a laser
gun when you were positive you weren't doing the alleged speed, then
YOU
MUST WATCH THIS VIDEO!
Part Two
This
video also shows how "reflection" can
also create errors in speed readings, as well as the slip error as featured
in the first video
This
video
from a speed laser hobbyist also shows how a slip error can generate an
erroneous reading.
Since the speed cameras used in the NT
are Lasercam units, they are susceptible to the same errors as normal
laser (lidar) guns above. If the operational guidelines are strictly followed, then there shouldn't
be many mistakes. This isn't to say mistakes don't / haven't
happened. For example:
Speed camera convictions in Northern Territory, Australia are subject to
challenge following a court ruling shows devices are not properly
checked.
A Northern Territory Magistrate has overturned a speed camera conviction
after the defense proved cameras were not checked for accuracy in
accordance with the law. The decision threatens the state's lucrative
speed camera program, leaving unpaid fines subject to challenge.
In August 2005, a speed camera accused Va'Clav Step, 55, of driving his
1978 Holden van at 71km/h in a 60km/h zone (44 MPH in a 37 zone).
Magistrate John Lowndes determined the certificate of accuracy for the
ticketing machine had, in effect, expired on June 13, 2005. The law
requires a test every six months but the evidence showed police were
performing the test every 12 months.
Lowndes also found that the speed camera ticket improperly presented the
time and place of each alleged incident. According to NT law, this
information must be on the image itself, not printed below the
photograph.
"I was angry at how the police treated me when I went to talk to them
about it -- it was if I was a criminal," Step told the Northern
Territory News. "They said I couldn't prove that the speed camera was
wrong -- they told me just to pay it."
Lowndes dismissed all charges against Step. (source)
SPEED CAMERA EVIDENCE IN DOUBT, WARNS SAFE SPEED
We are hearing of dropped court cases all around the country concerning laser speed cameras in mobile vans. The cases are being dropped when defendants exercise their legal rights by demanding to see the "traffic video", 7 days before a court hearing.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed campaign said: "The rumours are that some of these traffic videos prove that the equipment does not always record speeds correctly. We don't know of any other explanation for these mysterious failures of the CPS to provide traffic videos when formally requested."
UK law, drafted in the interests of a fair trail, provides an opportunity for both sides to examine the evidence prior to trial in a process known as "disclosure". Defendants are entitled to disclosure of evidence no later than 7 days before the trial. Any evidence not so disclosed must should be excluded from consideration by the court. If a traffic video is not disclosed, then it cannot be admitted as evidence and no corroborative evidence of the speed of the vehicle would be available to the court.
Paul continues: "We strongly recommend that no one submits to a trial in one of these cases without proper advanced disclosure of the video evidence. A short clip is not enough, the entire video comprises one "document" and defendants are entitled to disclosure of the whole document."
These doubts about the legal evidence in speeding cases are centred around the "LTI 20/20" laser speed meter. Most, if not all, mobile speed traps in the UK use this particular equipment. In a typical application the laser speed meter is linked to video recording apparatus that records continuous video from a speed trapping session. The vehicles and their number plates are recorded on the video, and the speed readings from the laser speed meter are superimposed on the pictures. This means that the video is the main evidence of the speeding offence.
The LTI 20/20 has been criticized for spurious readings in other countries according to reports. (source)
What is the
best defense against each of these speed measuring devices??
Simple! - "Don't speed" - I hear echo amongst the narrow minded.
That's fine, and we agree whole heartedly, but "Don't speed and you won't
have to pay a fine" assumes three very important things:
1) The speed limit is clearly indicated (Kwinana Freeway road works with two
different posted speed limits on either side of the road ring a bell?)
2) Your car's speedometer is accurate.
3) The radar, laser or speed camera that measures your speed was accurate.
So what happens when you are driving down the road, sitting on 80km/h
(according to your speedometer) in an 80km/h stretch of road, but you cop a
speeding fine?
We will
analyze each NT speed measuring device and discuss the
products available:
Dash Mounted
radar:
The dash mounted Golden Eagle by Kustom Signals operates on K-band. When the police officer is driving
down the road "shooting" at on-coming traffic he is doing it in two ways;
constant on or instant on. In constant on, the radar beam is
constantly transmitting down the road. When an oncoming car enters the
radar's beam, a reflected signal is returned to the gun, and a speed is
displayed on the unit. Again, any decent radar detector will give
advanced warning in this scenario.
In "instant on" the radar unit is powered on,
but not transmitting. When the approaching vehicle is within range,
the radar gun is then switched on (transmitting) and the target vehicle's
speed is displayed within a second or two. "Instant on" radar can be
deadly, again, if you're the only car on the road. For this reason it
pays to keep a "rabbit" in front of you so he or she is targeted and you
detect the radar in advance.
Some people have queried the possibility of a
radar jammer.
Your most important question
in purchasing a so-called radar jammer should be "does it work?"
You may have seen them advertised on other websites and some magazines:
the passive radar/laser jammers (also known as radar scramblers).
Some passive jammers are
Phantom, Phantom II, Phaser or Phazar, the Phantom III and The Black Widow.
Passive radar Jammers DO NOT WORK!
These "jammers" are usually manufactured by a company called Rocky Mountain
Radar (RMR). We have tested many of their units and we have yet to find one
that works as advertised.
Know what to avoid before you purchase such a passive
jammer, consider reading the "Jamming Testing Report" by Radar Roy first to
find out why we do not sell and/or recommend them.
Active Radar Jammers - Not Much Improvement! You may have also heard of the active radar jammers with the name of Phantom RCD XP or The Scorpion. These do work to a
limited degree.
Active radar jammers like those named above, only jam X, K with any success
and have difficulty jamming Instant on radar. Their effectiveness
against Ka radar is even less, especially at close range. Read a test
report on active radar jammers here.
Hand-held
laser (lidar):
Laser guns are another "deadly" device in
that they can calculate your speed in less than a second. Although
most radar detectors include a laser sensor, they usually offer little more
than a "ticket notifier" when they go off. Having said that, there ARE
circumstances where a laser (detector) can and has, provided adequate
warning...although these are few and far times in
between. Click on the video below and to the left (allow
pop-ups) to watch just how quickly a laser acquires a vehicle's speed.
So what is the best defenses against laser?
Well, as far as a detector goes, the best at detecting laser is the Valentine One.
Granted we
just finished convincing you a detector is useless against laser, but the
Valentine One, will give you the best chance of detecting "off-axis"
laser from the car in front of you being targeted.
For proof that the
Valentine is the best unit at detecting laser, read our 2008 Laser Detector test:
"That being stated, these
results suggest that, especially in close-range laser encounters, the
Valentine 1 is the top performing laser detector, by a wide-margin,
followed by the Escort 8500 X50 and more closely, the STi Driver, and the
Beltronics RX65 Pro.."
But as aforementioned, just detecting the laser won't be enough.
The most cost effective solution is with the use of Veil anti-laser paint.
Veil will give you additional seconds warning time when used in conjunction
with a good laser detector. You can read more about Veil in our laser
jammers section.
The best defense against laser is by the
use of an active laser jammer. Unlike
most active radar jammers, active laser jammers do work. An active
laser jammer will prevent a speed being displayed for a brief time whilst
you adjust your speed if necessary. The best laser jammers for the
Australian model LTI
Ultralyte according to the Guys Of Lidar 2007 test are
the Laser Interceptor and the Blinder. You need to look at the results
for the Ultralyte 100pps as these are
the laser guns used in Australia. The Laser Pro Park finished fifth in
the test against these laser guns.
Mobile Speed
Cameras:
The
Lasercam NT is paired with a laser gun such as the LTI 20-20 Marksman.
Thus the same products discussed above would also offer protection against
this camera. Veil anti-laser paint will give you a few more seconds
warning time if used in conjunction with a good radar detector, but for the
best protection, a laser jammer would give you adequate time to check your
speed.
How does each radar detector
perform detecting NT radars, lasers & cameras?
BTST
Detector
Bel RX55
Bel RX65
Bel RX75
Bel Vector 940
Bel Vector 955
Bel Vector 965
Bel Vector 995
Bel 966r
Bel 975r
Bel 990i
Bel STi driver
Bel XR **
Bel STi-R
Bel XR70 **
Cheetah
Mirror
Cheetah
Sentinel
Cobra 9330
Cobra 9930
Early Warning
Escort SR7
Escort X50
Escort 9500ci
?
?
?
Escort 9500i
Navalert GPS
Pro-78
XTR-690
Valentine 1
Summary for best radar detector for
NT:
Due to the laws banning the use of a
radar detector in the Norrthern Territory, we cannot recommend the purchase of
any "speed evasion article". There are, however, drivers who choose to
ignore these laws, and purchase a radar detector anyway. Those doing so, would most likely choose a stealth radar detector, as
only stealth radar detectors are 100% invisible to the Stalcar
police radar detector detector (see below)
What are the laws governing the use of radar detectors in
NT?
27. Interfering with traffic
infringement detection device
(1) A person must not
unlawfully tamper with, interfere with or cause damage to a traffic
infringement detection device.
(2) A person must not
unlawfully interfere with the operation of a traffic infringement detection
device.
(3) A person must not drive a
vehicle that has in it or on it a device for preventing the effective
operation of a traffic infringement detection device.
(4) A person must not drive a
vehicle that has in it or on it a device for detecting whether a traffic
infringement detection device is in operation in the vicinity of the
vehicle.
(5) A person commits an offence
against sub-regulation (3) or (4) whether or not the device in or on the
vehicle is in use.
(6) If a member of the Police
Force believes on reasonable grounds that a person has, or a vehicle is
fitted with, a device that is intended to be used in contravention of this
regulation, the member may seize the device for the purposes of tendering it
in evidence in a prosecution of the person.
(7) If a person is found guilty
of an offence against this regulation, the court may order a device seized
under sub-regulation (6), or a device used in the commission of the offence,
to be forfeited to the Territory.
Can the police determine if you are using a radar detector?
YES!
There are two ways a police officer can tell if you are using a radar
detector in your vehicle:
1) By visual detection
If a policeman is operating
in-car radar from behind you, and triggers an "instant on" burst, then
sees your brake lights ahead, this could suggest you are operating a
radar detector
If a Highway Patrol Car is
coming towards you and again, turns on it's radar, the sudden "nose
dive" of your vehicle's front end is a dead give away
Suction cup marks on the
front windscreen
2) By detecting it
electronically
All radar detectors (except Stealth Radar Detectors) emit some
electronic noise, even though they are a passive device. Thus a product
was created to "listen" for this noise congruent in all radar
detectors...and so the RDD was born.
A radar
detector detector (RDD) is a device used by police to determine if a
vehicle is using, a radar detector. RDD's were brought
about by the need for law enforcement officers to determine if a driver
was using a radar detector in a state or country where they are illegal.
The
first RDD used in the NT was the VG-2 which "listened" for the radio frequency
leakage (around 10.5Ghz) emitted by the local oscillator - inherent to
all radar detectors. Most radar detectors are now immune to the
VG-2 (often referred to as "shadow-technology" but there is a newer RDD
out, made by an Australian company; Stealth Micro Systems (SMS) of Australia
developed the Stalcar (known as Spectre outside of Australia) and later followed with upgrades, the Spectre
2 and Spectre 3. The Spectre II and III were so successful, that many
law enforcement agencies around the world submitted large orders for
these devices.
In 2003 the NT began adding
the new Stalcar RDD to their arsenal which effectively made all units (except stealth radar detectors) vulnerable to detection. If you
don't have a stealth radar detectori, expect your old radar to be detected by this
RDD unit at a distance of anywhere between 50 and 1000 feet. See our
latest Spectre RDD / Radar detector test results using the very latest RDD model - version IV+. As you can see in
this test, most radar detectors can be detected several hundred meters away.
Northern Territory's speedy days are over
- by Glenn Butler November 8, 2006
55
people died on Northern Territory roads in 2005.
That's a staggering 57 per cent increase on 2004's
figure of 35. Which in turn was a huge drop from
2003's figure of 53.
And yes, while they are low numbers in absolute
terms (1636 people died nationally in 2005), even
one death on our roads is one too many, as our
politicians love to say.
So the
NT government is taking action. It has decided
that the Territory's lack of speed limits on open
roads is to blame. It believes imposing a 110km/h
Territory-wide limit from January 2007 is the silver
bullet that'll stem the road's rising red tide.
Some multi-lane dual carriageways will have
130km/h speed limits. These highways, typically, are
found close to major cities like Darwin and Alice
Springs. Venture more than 20km/h out of town – as I
did on a trip to the NT in August – and major
highways quickly shrink to one lane in each
direction.
On my trip to the NT, I regularly exceeded
100km/h in unlimited zones. As did the majority of
drivers on those roads. But it was a far cry from
the high-speed death race I'd been led to expect by
doomsaying safety gurus from the more populous
eastern states.
Most drivers sat around 120-130km/h. Some were going quicker than
that, though I saw less than a handful in my two-day, 800km trip
that I reckon were doing more than 140km/h.
So, in light of the speed limiting decision by
the Northern Territory's government, I went looking
for statistical data on the relationship between the
NT's unlimited roads and its road toll.
I couldn't find one single report in the 445
listed on the
Australian Transport Safety Bureau research website.
Not one investigating the average speeds of vehicles
using the NT's unrestricted roads. Not one that
actually knew the speeds of vehicles involved in
fatal crashes.
The
only grub I unearthed was raw data detailing the speed zones in
which vehicles fatalities occurred. In the last five full years 80
people have been killed on unrestricted roads. In that same time 168
people were killed on roads with speed limits.
The thing is, we have no idea how fast they were travelling.
90km/h? 130km/h? or 190km/h? Who knows? If the NT government does,
it isn't telling us.
Yes, we all know the harder you hit the deader you will be. But
the fact remains that there is no research behind this move in the
NT that links speeds above 110km/h with fatality crashes. Only a
table of numbers and a politician's gut feel.
I for one lament the loss of speed-unrestricted highways in the
Northern Territory, because it was truly the last area where drivers
were actually asked to use their common sense in dealing with the
potentially deadly duo of road and car.
Only you know your driving skills, only you know the abilities of
the car you're driving and only you know the road conditions in
front of your windscreen. Now, however, your actions are being
regulated by a politician behind a desk in Darwin, potentially
hundreds of kilometres away.
The Northern Territory has – perhaps unwittingly – set itself up
as the poster boy for the Speed Kills consortium. If the NT road
toll plummets, as the Territory's government hopes, then it's proof
they did the right thing. If not, then what does that prove?
What do you think about the introduction of speed
limits on Outback highways in the Northern
Territory?
If I wasn't speeding, how can I challenge/beat a speeding fine?
If you have been booked for speeding, and you were, then you should face the
music and cough-up. But what if you weren't actually speeding?
Remember that when you are pulled over and booked for speeding, the incident
is alleged… not proven! The following rules will ensure you do not make the
mistake of answering the police’s questions the wrong way.
Quite often the first question a policeman asks you is "Do you know why I
pulled you over"? Here, the policeman is looking for an admission of
guilt. By answering him "because I was going too fast?" immediately
incriminates you by admitting you were speeding (even if you weren't).
The other question commonly asked by a policeman when he pulls you over is "Why were you speeding?"
Again, he or she is looking for an admission of guilt. Do not admit that you were speeding or may have been speeding. There will be no chance of defending yourself in court later on. Remember that you are not under arrest and your only obligation is to hand over your driving license and registration.
Remember the 3 rules when pulled over:
Rule number one is your answer to the question, "Why were you speeding?" Simply reply:
"I was not speeding Officer, I was sitting exactly on the posted speed limit"
Rule number two is your answer to the Officer
if he persists in repeating question 1 by saying his equipment (Radar /
Laser) has shown that you were speeding. Simply reply,
"I was not speeding Officer, if your equipment says I was then I would strongly suggest that it is faulty. Will you show me the last infringement notice you issued so I may compare to see if their speed was the same as the one you are claiming I was doing?"
In most cases, the policeman will show you your reading but refuse to show you
his or her previous infringement fine, citing that he is not obliged to do so.
The third rule is perhaps the most important of all. Under the National Safety Committee
guidelines for the use and implementation of Police Speed detection devices,
the police are only supposed to be operating them in known "Black Spot" or
high accident areas. Innocently ask the question to the policeman,,
"Why
are you operating this speed detection device in this area? Is it a known
black spot or high accident risk area?"
If you follow the above rules you will stand a good chance of winning your case in court
should you wish to defend the infringement. The justice system is there for all of us, not
just the police. If you win it costs you nothing! For further information
and consultancy about how to defend yourself against and a police Laser
(lidar) gun , the mobile radar or a speed camera, contact speeding fine consultants
Remember that when you are pulled over and booked for speeding the incident is
What are the road fatality statistics for
Northern Territory??
Is the Northern Territory tackling the wrong issue with speed?
205 people were killed on Northern Territory roads between 1999 and 2002. According to Northern Territory police figures, 88 of those were indigenous Australians. Almost half.
This is just one of the stunning stats I unearthed while researching yesterday's blog on the introduction of speed limits on Northern Territory highways. All of them relate to the incredibly high fatality rate within the indigenous community.
Coincidentally, the 3rd Indigenous Road Safety Forum was held in October in Broome, WA. In his opening address to the forum, Jim Lloyd, the minister for local government, territories and roads, said there is a three-fold over-representation of indigenous Australians in road fatality figures.
He said the research was incomplete. Nevertheless, he said, research evidence indicates:
-- Between 1999 and 2002 indigenous Australians made up 43 per cent of all road fatalities in the Northern Territory, yet they constitute just 29 per cent of the population.
-- 74 per cent of occupants and pedestrians were legally drunk (over 0.05)
-- 70 per cent were either non-licensed drivers, or in a vehicle being driven by a non-licensed driver.
-- Failure to wear a seatbelt was a factor in 60 per cent of vehicle occupant deaths
-- Almost half of all fatalities were pedestrians
-- Two-thirds of the fatal crashes were in urban areas
(Note: all statements above relate specifically to indigenous Australians.)
So, how the hell is the arbitrary slapping of speed limits on NT Outback highways going to address the relatively high numbers of drunken or unbelted or unlicensed Indigenous Australian deaths?
Incredibly, the Australian Indigenous Road Safety: 2005 Update report released in June 2006 – the one on which the 3rd Indigenous Road Safety Forum is presumably basing its discussions – has no aboriginal road safety data beyond 2001.
Lloyd admits data is woefully inadequate.
"Currently we only have data up to 2001. By the end of the year we should have complete data for 2002 and 2003, and by the end of next year (2007) we should have caught up with the backlog and have 2004 and 2005 figures."
Caught up? By my count that still puts the government two years behind the game.
How well could you make decisions in your own life if you couldn't use any information from the last two years? Would you bet your life on it like the various governments are betting the lives of indigenous Australians?
Lloyd's right about the dearth of research and statistics: In the last 13 years, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has published just five research reports into indigenous road safety. Just five out of 445 road safety reports.
The most recent report into indigenous road safety concedes that the true indigenous toll could be higher than those astounding figures I've listed above, because "some indigenous people do not identify as such during data collection", and so "the problem of indigenous road safety is likely to be under-estimated".
The report proposes that indigenous road safety data must be improved before "adequate road safety measures" can be developed. Though clearly the NT government has decided to ignore this advice and chase the road safety silver bullet by legislating speed limits across the Territory.
Summary for police radar, laser and speed cameras in
N.T.
If radar detectors
were legal to use in the the Northern Territory, then the
best radar detector would be the Valentine One.
However due RD's being banned in NT, Delonix cannot and
will not making any recommendations to you. As
mentioned earlier, there are those that choose to ignore
the laws banning radar detectors, and buy a Stealth Radar Detector being 100% invisible to detection by police RDDs.
LTI
20-20 exposed as unreliable (
The
first RDD used in the NT was the VG-2 which "listened" for the radio frequency
leakage (around 10.5Ghz) emitted by the local oscillator - inherent to
all radar detectors. Most radar detectors are now immune to the
VG-2 (often referred to as "shadow-technology" but there is a newer RDD
out, made by an Australian company; 
In 
55
people died on Northern Territory roads in 2005.
That's a staggering 57 per cent increase on 2004's
figure of 35. Which in turn was a huge drop from
2003's figure of 53. 
The
only grub I unearthed was raw data detailing the speed zones in
which vehicles fatalities occurred. In the last five full years 80
people have been killed on unrestricted roads. In that same time 168
people were killed on roads with speed limits. 
