>Also I'd research the detector and find a test to verify how undetectable it
>really is I think C&D did a test and found some of the "undetectable "
detectors
>were quite detectable. (say that 3 time as fast as you can!)
>
>KW
I read in Car and Driver (I think it was last year) about alot of testing
they did with radar detectors as well as radar and laser guns .
One thing that they said was a big target for either radar or laser was a
front mounted liscense plate . This is the most reflective surface on the
front of just about any vehicle , that's why I don't have one . That's also
why I think that some states make you have one , to make more money .
For example , they took a 96 or so black trans am . with no front plate and
the lights in the closed position , it could only be clocked from something
like 150 feet away , but with a front plate , it could be nailed at almost
a 1/4 mile away .
They also found a home remedy for making laser guns less effective was to
have as much light (especially ultra violet light) being thrown off the
front of the vehicle . After all , a laser is a light and the more light it
had to contend with , the more it could get screwed up .
They ended up getting some very large hunting type lights , mounted them on
the front of an Olds acheiva along with some army surplus ultra violet
filters (made the lights look as if they were off when they were actually
on) and they were able to drastically reduce the effectiveness of the laser
guns .
Now it's not really practical to put large lights on the front of a vehicle
, or to find ultra violet filters , but they came to the assumption that
driving with your headlights on may be able to give you that half-second to
be able to react and slow down before being nailed by the laser gun .
That's why I always have my driving lights on in the day time .
If I find the issue with all this , I'll let you know which one it was .
W . Jack Hilton III
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:10:32 EDT