# Thread: CHALLENGE TO ALL FORUM MEMBERS

1. ## CHALLENGE TO ALL FORUM MEMBERS

Guys,

I am SO SICK of hearing about these phantom dilusional POP encounters that people claim to have. The probability that anyone will encounter POP is a 1% chance. The probability that one will get nailed by POP is
.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000001% chance. In fact I am so confident that NO ONE will even encounter it that if you do put it on video take multiple passes with two detectors on (one with POP on and the other with POP off). If sufficient proof is given I will ship to you a Drive Smart GPS along with a Super Protector plate. All you will have to do is pay for shipping.

2. So I guess were going to have to rename you Roy JR with your GPS challenge

3. Originally Posted by spankyaf
So I guess were going to have to rename you Roy JR with your GPS challenge

:wink:

4. /me phones up LEO friend and sets up a POP shooting session

(just kidding!)

5. Originally Posted by jdong
/me phones up LEO friend and sets up a POP shooting session

(just kidding!)

yea no kidding

6. Now only if i had a video camera........ i could prove this........

7. Therein lies the problem, and I agree totally with happya\$\$ - just saying "it's POP" isn't sufficient, reading it off the detector, even in the manner of first seeing a POP warning followed later by a Ka/K-band warning (per what one would expect of a true POP-enforcement encounter), still isn't sufficient.

However, happya\$\$, I would also say that using a "twin-detector test" as you proposed - one with POP enabled and one with POP off - also doesn't prove anything. It runs into the logic block that's illustrated below:

POP alert goes off on the detector, followed by a Ka alert (scenario where the officer is awarding citations). It could be that the officer is using POP, and is going to issue a citation and thus "went Ka" after the initial POP reading - but it could just as easily be a false from I/O Ka, even if POP was not in-use.

So, we cruise back, with POP disabled on the detector. No POP warning seen, Ka alert lights up from the I/O use. But in this case, there's no way to positively confirm that the enforcer was not using POP. The absence of the POP warning really doesn't mean anything at all, as certainly, it could be that POP was not in-use, but it could also just mean that the enforcer, for whatever reason, chose not to use POP for that particular measurement.

I still see the only way to confirm POP use is by visual sighting of the hardware, *plus* confirmation from the LEO that POP was used.

Or, alternatively, privileged knowledge from within the department that it is being used.

For what it's worth, jimbonzzz agreed.

I'm not delusional, nor do I even remotely hope that POP enforcement practice is happening around me - I'd just as soon that it really and truly was not - but knowing that POP hardware is here in Ohio (as thephildo reported, from his ride-along with Richfield's enforcers), but not knowing the *TRUE* potential of its use (in this case, thephildo confirmed through privileged information that the enforcement practices those officers practice will never have us seeing POP from their radar-guns), for the time being, I'm willing to live with the annoying falses from my x50.

In honest review, though, are those falses worth it? Maybe not....they do decrease my "trust" in the detector somewhat, particularly upon POP alerts, and in thinking about my usual practices and tactics, a rabbit being POP'ed and then K/Ka'ed should also give me plenty of warning on standard K/Ka-band warnings as well (even on local surface streets). And certainly, with almost exclusive use of laser or constant-on Ka on the highway stretches that I usually do it would make sense that POP, particularly for how much it falses, is of little to no value to me.

I just can't seem to make myself get rid of it, though. ops:

8. Originally Posted by TSi+WRX
Therein lies the problem, and I agree totally with happya\$\$ - just saying "it's POP" isn't sufficient, reading it off the detector, even in the manner of first seeing a POP warning followed later by a Ka/K-band warning (per what one would expect of a true POP-enforcement encounter), still isn't sufficient.

However, happya\$\$, I would also say that using a "twin-detector test" as you proposed - one with POP enabled and one with POP off - also doesn't prove anything. It runs into the logic block that's illustrated below:

POP alert goes off on the detector, followed by a Ka alert (scenario where the officer is awarding citations). It could be that the officer is using POP, and is going to issue a citation and thus "went Ka" after the initial POP reading - but it could just as easily be a false from I/O Ka, even if POP was not in-use.

So, we cruise back, with POP disabled on the detector. No POP warning seen, Ka alert lights up from the I/O use. But in this case, there's no way to positively confirm that the enforcer was not using POP. The absence of the POP warning really doesn't mean anything at all, as certainly, it could be that POP was not in-use, but it could also just mean that the enforcer, for whatever reason, chose not to use POP for that particular measurement.

I still see the only way to confirm POP use is by visual sighting of the hardware, *plus* confirmation from the LEO that POP was used.

Or, alternatively, privileged knowledge from within the department that it is being used.

For what it's worth, jimbonzzz agreed.

I'm not delusional, nor do I even remotely hope that POP enforcement practice is happening around me - I'd just as soon that it really and truly was not - but knowing that POP hardware is here in Ohio (as thephildo reported, from his ride-along with Richfield's enforcers), but not knowing the *TRUE* potential of its use (in this case, thephildo confirmed through privileged information that the enforcement practices those officers practice will never have us seeing POP from their radar-guns), for the time being, I'm willing to live with the annoying falses from my x50.

In honest review, though, are those falses worth it? Maybe not....they do decrease my "trust" in the detector somewhat, particularly upon POP alerts, and in thinking about my usual practices and tactics, a rabbit being POP'ed and then K/Ka'ed should also give me plenty of warning on standard K/Ka-band warnings as well (even on local surface streets). And certainly, with almost exclusive use of laser or constant-on Ka on the highway stretches that I usually do it would make sense that POP, particularly for how much it falses, is of little to no value to me.

I just can't seem to make myself get rid of it, though. ops:
I did not mean run them both simultaneously. It would be a pain to take one pass, reprogram the detector, take another, etc.

9. Originally Posted by Bear-Tweezy
Now only if i had a video camera........ i could prove this........
I tripple dog dare you

10. Originally Posted by happya\$\$
Originally Posted by Bear-Tweezy
Now only if i had a video camera........ i could prove this........
I tripple dog dare you
I know the Indiana State Police have POP and my dad and i were doing about 80-85 in a 70 PSL and my dad saw the ISP cop coming towards us and POP was alerted on the X50 and then went immediately to K band( i think its the Enforcer from MPH...Not to sure but i htink thats what it is) we were doing about 73 i believe when it went to K band from POP

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•