MPH hypes POP in Nevada

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.

"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.

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]

""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. "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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. "

---

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-:mad::p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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. "

---

Good luck proving it though...

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djrams80

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.

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.

I own a V1...I'm not worried :D I would love to see Mike Valentine to show up at one of those council meetings and demo that POP isn't all it's cracked up to be. But just as RDD's are, MPH Industries is targeting the majority of the radar detector market which is Cobra.

If MPH was smart they would specifically engineer the POP technology to outperform the top of the line detctors (V1, 9500, STi, STi-R, X50) and if successful they wouldn't have to worry about the rest of the market because the cheaper units aren't going to even come close to the performance of the top of the line radar detectors.

Regardless, Law Enforcement can't write citation solely based on POP measurement.

Just my $0.02

the problem is the PD is dumb enough to think the can write tickets with it, some cops probably will write tickets using it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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. "

---

Bingo, you beat me to it.

I should have known someone would eventually do this. Nevada huh. Maybe we can have a few individuals in Nevada testing out if they will actually be using POP mode, or just using I/O 33.8.

but even still is the officer going to write on the ticket he used POP/IO or just say radar?

its your word against his, how are you going to prove in court that the LEO used POP? if they are that clueless (or smart) they will just say they used radar.

The west coast officers really need to get hobbies like catching as the guerrilla ticket fighter cd say's, " Shouldn't you guy's be out catching real criminal's like robers, or terrorist's?"

That was just for you Mr. Nma Member.

:D

Alpine-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djrams80

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

---

That's because in practice the police really don't use POP that much. My county PD has had about a dozen BEE-3s since about 2001-2002 and one of the officers admitted to me in 2007 that he has used POP maybe half a dozen times since they first received the units. They use the BEE-3 primarily for its auto direction sensing capabilities.

I'm not 100% what LEO use around here. But i do know Lasers are becoming more and more common just by seeing the units in use. Radar is very common of course. NHP uses spotter planes outside of town, mainly on the I-15 south/north, especially near APex.

they don't fool around out here.

Last time I was in Nevada I got hit with K band (highway patrol) and Ka 33.8. (Highway Patrol) That was in April 2008.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevo1569

Regardless, Law Enforcement can't write citation solely based on POP measurement.

---

Riiiight. And they can't beat you, search you without a warrant, or arrest you without probable cause either. :lol:

Trust me, they're doing all four of those things every day of the week.

The sole purpose of POP is speed check without being detected by radar detector and not a means to issue citations which is very clear in the manual. Regardless of what radar unit a well experienced LEO uses, all radar units are deadly to me because no one can beat I/O. The issue here is not merely the type of radar unit a particular LEO uses but "it is how it is being used." If I were LEO, will I use POP? Sure. Will a LEO always use POP? No. A well trained LEO knows when to use POP and when not to use POP. In fact, one of my Z35 POP guns is being used by my local LEO. Never think that LEO's are dumb. Some may be but not all. Fact is, they lurk around here and that's aside from Fritter of course.

Do they have a complete lack of critical thinking skills in Nevada?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MPH President Kevin Willis

Without POP, these drivers’ radar detectors would alert them in time to slow down before being measured by police.

---

OK, suppose the LEO triggers a POP blip and sees that the car is going 76 in a 65. Being a "by the book" kind of guy, he now triggers a regular RADAR burst. This latter signal is readily detectable, and, according to MPH, allows the driver to slow down to a legal speed before the speed reading can be locked in. The LEO thus clocks the driver at 64 MPH.

How has POP helped the LEO in this case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swarga

OK, suppose the LEO triggers a POP blip and sees that the car is going 76 in a 65. Being a "by the book" kind of guy, he now triggers a regular RADAR burst. This latter signal is readily detectable, and, according to MPH, allows the driver to slow down to a legal speed before the speed reading can be locked in. The LEO thus clocks the driver at 64 MPH.

How has POP helped the LEO in this case?

---

POP was introduced for speed checks and an alternative to visual estimate because it is hard to do visual estimate. In this case, when I/O is done properly, your speed is captured instantly and you can hear the audio tone from a high pitch to a lower pitch tone that matches the speed from 76 mph down to 65 mph and at the same time the speed decreases in the radar's reading soon after the brakes are applied. This is were LEO knows the vehicle has a radar detector onboard. If the target vehicle does not have a radar detector, the speed and audio tone remains the same. That is why when doing instant on, you have to leave it on for a few seconds to get good solid tone, a means to verify if the driver of the vehicle was using a radar detector and a good lock on a vehicle - basically tracking history(a process of identifying a violator). Next thing LEO does is to stop the violator. If indeed he has noticed signs of use of a radar detector, he'll try to confirm it by carefully looking for signs of use of a radar detector. LEO's case in any traffic stop whether it be I/O or C/O depends on how LEO makes his case. A good example is a note on your ticket stating
"ONLY VEHICLE". What will you say then and what possible reason's can you make?

When done properly, no one can beat I/O. This is the only radar threat that I know of to this date that a radar detector user cannot beat.

There is a misconception here that I/O is beatable which is partly true depending on distance and experience of the radar operator. When done properly, you will never beat it.

I recently emailed an MPH rep asking a legitimate question about POP. Never got a response. Are they forbidden from discussing POP with the public at large?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightHawk

When done properly, no one can beat I/O. This is the only radar threat that I know of to this date that a radar detector user cannot beat.

There is a misconception here that I/O is beatable which is partly true depending on distance and experience of the radar operator. When done properly, you will never beat it.

---

MPH appears to be spreading many such misconceptions... And the suckers in Nevada fell for it. :rolleyes:

If what you're saying is correct, cops don't need POP in order to bag speeders, even smart ones with RADAR detectors. And yet POP made the difference and got the contract awarded to MPH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swarga

MPH appears to be spreading many such misconceptions... And the suckers in Nevada fell for it. :rolleyes:

If what you're saying is correct, cops don't need POP in order to bag speeders, even smart ones with RADAR detectors. And yet POP made the difference and got the contract awarded to MPH.

---

Check out this report from MPH Industries...

http://www.mphindustries.com/pdfs/Ra...uzzbusters.pdf

It basically says that IO is useless.

A knowledgeable police officer (one who actually understands POP and radar in general) views POP in the same way we view "parking sensors". It may be made for one purpose, but we have no problem using it for the other purpose. A cop would be naive to believe a "parking sensor" story. And we would be naive to believe that cops don't use POP to issue tickets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justin81

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swarga

MPH appears to be spreading many such misconceptions... And the suckers in Nevada fell for it. :rolleyes:

If what you're saying is correct, cops don't need POP in order to bag speeders, even smart ones with RADAR detectors. And yet POP made the difference and got the contract awarded to MPH.

---

Check out this report from MPH Industries...

http://www.mphindustries.com/pdfs/Ra...uzzbusters.pdf

It basically says that IO is useless.

---

BS flag right here:

"All three detectors picked up standard radars (X, K, and Ka-bands) at the
eleven mile distance."

LOL Alpinestars, I like listening to that too.:D