Yes they are worth It, but not a license to speed all the time!

 

my v1 has saved my butt a few times....

 

2 me, only if it's a Valentine 1. Was disappointed with all others that I've owned.

 

A V1 and constant situational awareness are very very worthwhile.
Those that are posting here about laser being a "done deal" don't have all the facts about the products on the market these days. Both Escort and Blinder offer products that work against laser. My Escort ZR3 has saved me a couple times already.
Oh yeah, did I mention situational awareness? When zipping along a frisky speeds stay off the cell phone, stop the coffee drinking, stop the yapping with the passenger, watch the terrain and any brake lights up ahead, etc, etc.

 

Not true. A visual estimation of speed is the only real evidence accepted in court. The radar is only used to confirm the officer's visual estimation and suspicions that the vehicle is exceeding the posted limit. I was a traffic officer for 11 of my 22 years on the department and a visual estimation of speed is never going to be "thrown out" of court.

Eye witness testimony is the "real evidence" and the radar reading is only circumstantial evidence. It's like having an eye witness to a homicide as opposed to just having the murder weapon.

 

Depends on the court, the jurisdiction, the prosecutor, etc. "One size fits all" answer doesn't apply here.
I got the impression his comment was that the officer's sole evidence was his eyeball. If it's eyeball plus a gun, then yes of course that presents a good case.

 

Radar detectors are not illegal in California. A radar detector is nothing more than a radio wave receiver and no more illegal that your standard AM car radio.

 

Not true again. Check the California Evidence Code and you'll see that the "Best evidence rule" always applies in criminal cases. You'll also see that the court mandates that before a defendant can be convicted of any crime, the "best evidence possible" must be presented in court against that defendant. The "best evidence" in a radar citation is the officer's eye witness testimony. Speed estimation is a class taught in the police academy for that very reason. The officer makes a visual estimation of the vehicle's speed and then confirms that suspicion by use of the radar. Radar alone is only a mechanical device and will never be accepted as the only evidence in court, nor will it ever be accepted as the "best evidence" in court. Much like the old polygraph will never be accepted as evidence in court.

 

Most will say they are useless but I must disagree. Let me explain:

Just because you have a radar does not mean drive 100mph every where you go. Remember, 60mph = 1 mile per minute. You can be cruising at 90+ mph and your radar detector will sound, by the time you react, your most likely f*****. You have already covered too much ground in order to slow down before you're in the guns range. The only way this works is if you are paying constant attention and react quickly!

Also, radar detectors do not single out cars. If there is a group of 5 or 6 cars crusing down the highway close together, the radar is going to pickup the fastest car in the group. Laser guns can pinpoint any vehicle with a single beam.

Now a friend of mine spent a couple hundred bones on a nice radar, I cant remeber the name or brand off hand but it was nice. We put it in his car set it to the highway mode and hit the highway to see how well it worked. We were on the highway on a straightaway headed into town. The radar sounded and there was no car in sight. The straight away had at least 2 or 3 miles worth of visibility. We slowed down to the speed limit and proceeded. About another mile worth of driving a car came into veiw, as we got closer the radar got louder and as it passed we saw that it was a highway patrolman. I know that these things arent ticket savers but I was extremely impressed with how well it detected the radar and how far away it was. We had at least 3 mins of time before the HP came into veiw, you may think "just 3 minutes?" but 3 minutes at 85+mph is more then enough time to reduce your speed to the speed limit. This was 2 years ago and we drive like bats out of hell. No tickets yet! Only pulled over once and that was for an illegal lane change with a cruiser behind us with the radar off.

Simply put, radars work wonders. Experience talks.

 

This is the most likely way you will get caught. With a detector and some traffic you get a warning when drivers ahead of you are being targeted.

All it takes is the detector saving your butt once to pay for it. Not just the cost of the ticket but many years of lost good driver points on your insurance.

I wouldn't be without one !!

 

Does everyone here live in California? Of course not. The California Evidence Code doesn't mean a thing in Texas, or Florida for instance. The rules of evidence vary from state to state. As a practical matter, most officers everywhere use the eyeball to establish initial probable cause then use the radar to back it up.
BTW, radar triggered photo cameras don't involve officers at all and are routinely accepted in many jurisdictions as being conclusive evidence.
Like I said, a one size fits all answer doesn't apply here. Many people here don't live in California.

 

Yes, they are worth it. My experience is that many (if not most) police leave their radar guns active as they crusie around or even park. Everytime I get in the vicinity of one my radar goes off. It is ALWAYS NICE TO KNOW when a policman is in range even if they are not on the same street you are on.

I have also noticed that my detector starts beeping as a I get close to red light cameras. I assume, but I may be wrong, that they use radar to assist in "activating" the camera.

MTCW

Bob

 

If your radar detector is warning you that you are being painted, then they are getting the reflection. if you think that your radar detector can go out and capture radar signals before they hit your car, you have some serious technical issues.
You radar detector is a stationary receiver, the only way it detects a radar beam is if your car is in the beam. by then they know you.
The only thing good about a radar detector is their ability to detect splatter... unfocused radiation bouncing of objects in the area. the more focused the beam, the less splatter. then the detector will only warn when the focused beam is on you. Old style wide band x band radar is splater prone.but hardly anyone uses it anymore.
The other good thing about a detector it false signals will reel you back into a safer speed. If you maintain a sensible speed, you dont need a detector... I dont speed, but I do have a detector because it is fun to catch them ( Police ) working.

 

Sell that thing! Yu can get $250 - $300 for a current V1 within 24 hours.

I bought mine used for $210 shipped and that's been the best money I've spent. My V! saved my but twice on Tuesday. Two speed traps were set up ~ 2 miles apart and both times I had enough notice. Normally I'm driving ~75 -80 heading into work. Tuesday, I drove 63.

 

Wouldn't be without one.

 

in two words Hell No

 

My Escort has paid for itself MANY times over. No, it will not work in every single case, but the times it does, makes it worth having. Mine has saved me more times then I can count.

 

You need to get your facts straight. State and Federal rules of evidence are identical. The Best Evidence Rule applies to all states. Photo citations are valid in court only becuase there is a member of the local government (i.e., police office or city official) present in court to testify as to the specifics as to how, why, when, and under what circumstances the photo was taken, processed, and issued. Again, verbal testimony is the key to any traffic citation. The Best Evidence Rule also applies to photo citations. That's why you can have a photo citation dismissed in court if the city official or officer who appears on behalf of the state only has a zerox copy of the photo in their possession to present to the court as the best evidence. A copy is not considered by the court as the best evidence and it's in violation of the Best Evidence Rule.

Police officers are considered by the court to be "trained experts" in vehicle speed estimation. I can go out this evening with no radar at all, and write 25 speeding citations based soley on my expertise in vehicle speed estimation and every one will hold up in court. The bottom line is that radar is only the gravy. All I'm trying to say is that the radar reading is not the evidence in court.......the officer's visual estimation of the vehicle's speed is the evidence.

 

I'm first on the list if you if you want to sell it

 

Every once in a while you hit some LEO with old technology and you think it's a worth while investment. It's totally useless when you run up on a LEO in a daily driver that lights up like a Xmass tree when you pass them. It's still better than nothing but don't put too much faith in any of them, you will only be disappointed not to mention paying dearly when ticketed