MPH hypes POP in Nevada

[OldGoat]

at posting, the MPH website is down

May 08, 2009
Nevada Issues Contract to MPH Industries for BEE III Radar with Radar detector-defeating POP Technology

The State of Nevada issued a contract to MPH Industries for its BEE III radar on May 4, 2009. In prior contracts with the State, MPH had sold over 600 BEE III radars to police agencies in the State. This contract will allow MPH to do so for at least two more years.

One requirement of the bid was that the State’s radar “should include a mode of operation that allows measuring the speed of targets using a microwave beam that does not set off radar detectors.” This is a good description of MPH’s POP Technology, and in fact, in an addendum, the State stated that “The specifications stipulate … that the ‘POP’ mode is preferred ….”.

MPH President Kevin Willis stated that MPH is proud have the State’s radar contract once again, since the Nevada Highway Patrol is an important customer to MPH. Commenting on the BEE III radar, he stated that “its POP technology is allowing officers to catch the most flagrant speeders. Without POP, these drivers’ radar detectors would alert them in time to slow down before being measured by police.” Mr. Willis also stated that “in several cases, POP technology has been the deciding factor for agencies choosing MPH radars over competing radars.”

Why is POP Technology important? POP allows a radar to measure speeds much more quickly than traditional radars, resulting in the radar detector normally seeing the radar as unrecognizable noise and ignoring it. POP Technology takes away a speeder’s advantage if he has a radar detector.

On their website, (Q&As: Speed--law enforcement), the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety states:

“The only purpose of a radar detector is to avoid speed law enforcement.”

“Use of a radar detector demonstrates an intention to speed that distinguishes users of these devices from drivers who speed occasionally or inadvertently. In a survey of users, more than half admitted to driving faster than they would without their ‘fuzz busters.’”

As they say, “the only purpose of a radar detector is to avoid speed enforcement.” POP Technology is the only tool that allows officers to use radar while not alerting radar detectors, taking the advantage away from detector-using speeders.

POP Technology was invented by MPH in 1997, and has been adapted since. POP Technology is only available on MPH radars. POP Technology is incorporated in many of MPH’s premium radars, including BEE III, Enforcer, Z-25, and Z-35. POP Technology has been discussed in articles appearing in Law Enforcement Technology, Police and Security News, and the Wall Street Journal.

[th3 factory freak]

"MPH President Kevin Willis stated that MPH is proud have the State’s radar contract once again, since the Nevada Highway Patrol is an important customer to MPH. Commenting on the BEE III radar, he stated that “its POP technology is allowing officers to catch the most flagrant speeders. Without POP, these drivers’ radar detectors would alert them in time to slow down before being measured by police.” Mr. Willis also stated that “in several cases, POP technology has been the deciding factor for agencies choosing MPH radars over competing radars.”

Why is POP Technology important? POP allows a radar to measure speeds much more quickly than traditional radars, resulting in the radar detector normally seeing the radar as unrecognizable noise and ignoring it. POP Technology takes away a speeder’s advantage if he has a radar detector.

On their website, (Q&As: Speed--law enforcement), the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety states:

“The only purpose of a radar detector is to avoid speed law enforcement.”

“Use of a radar detector demonstrates an intention to speed that distinguishes users of these devices from drivers who speed occasionally or inadvertently. In a survey of users, more than half admitted to driving faster than they would without their ‘fuzz busters.’”


1. This guys is sitting there making a whole bunch of assumptions about drivers he never met. You just gotta love it.

2. POP as you all know, can be detected easily.

According to an article I found once, MPH stated the POP alone should NOT be used as sole evidence in traffic cases.

[djrams80]

Interesting....I've never had any problem detecting NHP and I have pop off on all of my RDs.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u7GqTyvoMI]YouTube - Nevada Highway Patrol Running 33.8 Ka[/ame]

[crazyVOLVOrob]

""Information derived during the POP burst is non-evidential and to be used for advisory information only...citations should not be issued solely on information derived from the POP burst. "

[alpinestars_2002795]

""Information derived during the POP burst is non-evidential and to be used for advisory information only...citations should not be issued solely on information derived from the POP burst. "

Dang Mr. Rob. I totally agree, isn't this vailid information out of the back of their own user manual that they don't want me and you to have there Rob? I wonder why the manufacturers don't want us to have their equipment, nor their user manuals now?

Perhaps It's possibly because of their lack thereof of integrity with the usage and operation of their Radar gun?

I guess somebody has to keep these numskulls in check.

Maybe perhaps someone needs to fight back against the usage of pop mode radar due to it's lack of Judical Notice. I wonder then what will occur when they loose thousands of dollars in revenue due to a major trial loss, and the loss of the gun's entirely?


Alpine-

[gig103]

""Information derived during the POP burst is non-evidential and to be used for advisory information only...citations should not be issued solely on information derived from the POP burst. "

Good luck proving it though...

[Montu]

so pop vs I/O...

I'm guessing I/O is harder to detect / more deadly?


I know they're not suppose to use pop but hey there not suppose to use lidar in CA either.


my local pd has mph products and I've seen them use PoP once while I was parked watching them.

[v1user]

i believe pop is more deadly. I/O emits a radar signal as long as the user holds the button. from my understanding pop only emits very short burst of radar (67 milliseconds) according to the radarbusters website

[KnightHawk]

so pop vs I/O...

I'm guessing I/O is harder to detect / more deadly?


I know they're not suppose to use pop but hey there not suppose to use lidar in CA either.


my local pd has mph products and I've seen them use PoP once while I was parked watching them.

POP has a shorter burst than I/O and are both deadly. POP is used for speed checks and once confirmed, they will switch to regular radar using I/O.

Interesting....I've never had any problem detecting NHP and I have pop off on all of my RDs.

LEO may not be using POP in your vid.

[Divewjason]

Two Problems.

1. Radar detectors can easily detect POP.

2. POP measurements can not stand alone in court and officers are not permitted to write tickets based solely on a reading from POP radar.

There is a reason why POP is not widely used. Some very uninformed people were quoted. Apparently that PD isn't very informed either. Oh well, their ignorance is our gain.

"Institute research has shown that interstate highway drivers with radar detectors reduced their speeds by at least 5 mph or activated their brake lights when suddenly exposed to police radar. Before exposure, vehicles with detectors were traveling significantly faster than those without detectors. By 1 mile past the radar, more than three-fourths of the vehicles with radar detectors were traveling at least 5 mph faster than the speed limit.1 Clearly, the only purpose of a radar detector is to avoid speed law enforcement."

People without radar detectors generally drive at least 5 mph over the speed limit regardless. Their case to outlaw radar detectors is weak. Not to mention they didn't mention how fast the other drivers without radar detectors were going or give us any statistic regarding their behavior, which would be an important part of an "unbiased" experiment. Something stinks.