GOL Test and Pop

[BullyDawg19]

i see where none of the detectors performed on the pop portion of the testing. it caused me to pause for a moment and reflect on the current standing of the best detectors out there. apparently there is a radar that cannot be detected by these units. i know it is not "supposed" to be used for speed detection but for just how long. this growing technology will be further studied and upgraded until it can and will be utilized legally. i wonder what the 3 top companies are gonna do or are doing as we speak. i certainly wont be purchasing another unit until someone can show some level of performance against pop. it is only a matter of time before this is the norm and not the exception.

[<<JAZZY>>]

Certain radar detectors do well against POP radar but thankfully most cops either don't use that mode or aren't aware of how to use it. I believe the most recent testing isn't a true indicator of how well a detector detects POP radar because POP is quick and radar absorbing material was used in the testing so that was a double whammy against all of the detectors.

This testing is a more accurate representation of the POP detection.

http://guysoflidar.com/radar-detecto...adar-test.html

[jimbonzzz]

Certain radar detectors do well against POP radar but thankfully most cops either don't use that mode or aren't aware of how to use it. I believe the most recent testing isn't a true indicator of how well a detector detects POP radar because POP is quick and radar absorbing material was used in the testing so that was a double whammy against all of the detectors.

Radar absorbent foam was not used in the POP test.
Some detectors have more range for detecting POP than others, but we don't yet know which one has the most range. In the POP test, we were simply beyond the range for the detectors to alert to POP. In general, POP has to be stronger than regular radar for a detector to alert to it. With some detectors, POP can only be detected with 1/2 the range of conventional radar (or less). This is likely done to reduce false alerts.

[stealthJamal]

Certain radar detectors do well against POP radar but thankfully most cops either don't use that mode or aren't aware of how to use it. I believe the most recent testing isn't a true indicator of how well a detector detects POP radar because POP is quick and radar absorbing material was used in the testing so that was a double whammy against all of the detectors.

This testing is a more accurate representation of the POP detection.

http://guysoflidar.com/radar-detecto...adar-test.html

Foam was not used on the POP test. Absorbent Foam was only used on the 2006 GOL Radar test at the flat straight test site! The GOL website clearly shows what part of the test the foam was used on!

That testing from 2005 was done on a big flat straight away. The purpose of the GOL POP test Oct 2006 was to demonstrate the early warning capabilites to a LEO running POP over a hill.

It seems to me your only chance of picking up POP is when the conditions are really good for the radar detector (like a flat straight away with no objects in the way). If you were to encounter a LEO using POP over a hill in the real world like the GOL test, then you would have no early warning. Your only slim chance in this case would be if the LEO is operating POP legally and you are able to slow your car some in the 1 second or less it takes the LEO to switch to regular instant on. This means you will have no time slow down if the LEO is well hidden and an experienced radar operator.

POP used over a hill = SCREWED.

Although POP is rare, it is still a possibility you could encounter it used like this. Hopefully the radar detector companies will work to make POP better. It would be best if the radar detector companies could make POP have at least the same range as instant on Ka without POP falsing.

[<<JAZZY>>]

Certain radar detectors do well against POP radar but thankfully most cops either don't use that mode or aren't aware of how to use it. I believe the most recent testing isn't a true indicator of how well a detector detects POP radar because POP is quick and radar absorbing material was used in the testing so that was a double whammy against all of the detectors.

Radar absorbent foam was not used in the POP test.

My bad, I thought the foam wasn't used on the over the hill test only.

[AWD_rules3830]

well how many people who use top three detectors have gotten pop tickets? has anyone done a poll on this?

[Michael B]

You will never know if you received a POP ticket as the LEO will always say he tracked you.
This could indicate that you may have been hit with POP but he covered his butt by saying he switched to CW for tracking history.
Their word against yours.

[stealthJamal]

You will never know if you received a POP ticket as the LEO will always say he tracked you.
This could indicate that you may have been hit with POP but he covered his butt by saying he switched to CW for tracking history.
Their word against yours.

I think it's possible that your Escort or Bel detector would display POP and then the instant on in regular mode if they operated it legally. If you only saw POP on the detector then the LEO only used POP without switching to regular instant. Of course this wouldn't do you any good in court, and like you said it is still their word against ours.

[jimbonzzz]

well how many people who use top three detectors have gotten pop tickets? has anyone done a poll on this?

By the time YOU are targeted with POP, it is basically too late: like StealthJamal said, you are less than a second from getting hit with regular court-accepted instant-on. On the MPH Z-Series holding in the trigger another 1/2 second switches the unit to conventional mode, on the BEE/Enforcer a second press of a button.

Ideally, for POP detection to provide any useful protection, you want to get a POP alert when it is being used to target vehicles ahead of you.

[ES13Raven]

Where is HappyA$$ with his

You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning, than getting hit with POP