Difference between IO & QT

[CJR238]

The way I see it, legal or not, there will be someone out there that will use it. And if you accuse them of using their radar gun improperly, who do you think the judge will believe? The officer that is certified in using radar, or the person who says that their radar detector didn't go off? Two words: Case closed.

I agree here. I went through this process with an OKLahoma state trooper issued citation. It is case closed! The LEO is who is on the states side, and they will lean more towards the LEO in any situation. And those vehicle tracking rules stated in another thread have got to be way outdated. Maybe LEO's who are age 55 and older and from the days of the analog radar abide by those, but not the majority of the LEO's with digital technology and remotes in their hands, especially around here. I gave proof in many other threads about my situation, incuding this one here-->[replacer_a]

I agree.

However who do you think the judge is going to believe if a certified radar instructor and radar engineer can support and show that specific LEO's method and use is an improper technique, and its plastered all over the evening news?

If you know the law and are determined enough to change something you can, i see it quite often. Just the other day i saw where a device (in PA i believe) that measured speed by measuring distance traveled between 2 points was used to give tickets and one defendant disputed the accuracy with proof and there was a whole investigation.

Hers another one but more blatant disregard with lidar:
read here

[dslrip32]

The way I see it, legal or not, there will be someone out there that will use it. And if you accuse them of using their radar gun improperly, who do you think the judge will believe? The officer that is certified in using radar, or the person who says that their radar detector didn't go off? Two words: Case closed.

I agree here. I went through this process with an OKLahoma state trooper issued citation. It is case closed! The LEO is who is on the states side, and they will lean more towards the LEO in any situation. And those vehicle tracking rules stated in another thread have got to be way outdated. Maybe LEO's who are age 55 and older and from the days of the analog radar abide by those, but not the majority of the LEO's with digital technology and remotes in their hands, especially around here. I gave proof in many other threads about my situation, incuding this one here-->[replacer_a]

I agree.

However who do you think the judge is going to believe if a certified radar instructor and radar engineer can support and show that specific LEO's method and use is an improper technique, and its plastered all over the evening news? [replacer_img]

If you know the law and are determined enough to change something you can, i see it quite often. Just the other day i saw where a device (in PA i believe) that measured speed by measuring distance traveled between 2 points was used to give tickets and one defendant disputed the accuracy with proof and there was a whole investigation.

Hers another one but more blatant disregard with lidar:
read here

I would pay to see that! [replacer_img]

[bigalinwv]

One thing that always comes up in these discussions is the Belscort vs. V1. You are kidding yourself if you believe owning a V1 makes you QT-proof.

From dslrip32:

"I also have citation "warning" proof about 2 weeks ago where this LEO was on I-35 behind a bridge, and I was doing about 82 in a 70 and he hit me with Q/T or fast I/O, V1 went full signal and off immediately and he came after me. I stashed the V1 and this LEO was generous and wrote me a warning. I have proof."

[dslrip32]

One thing that always comes up in these discussions is the Belscort vs. V1. You are kidding yourself if you believe owning a V1 makes you QT-proof.

From dslrip32:

"I also have citation "warning" proof about 2 weeks ago where this LEO was on I-35 behind a bridge, and I was doing about 82 in a 70 and he hit me with Q/T or fast I/O, V1 went full signal and off immediately and he came after me. I stashed the V1 and this LEO was generous and wrote me a warning. I have proof."

Okay I never said anything makes anyone or anybody Q/T proof. I have said before that in these situations, that the detector should respond! Point Blank! My V1 does! My Escort did not!

[bigalinwv]

One thing that always comes up in these discussions is the Belscort vs. V1. You are kidding yourself if you believe owning a V1 makes you QT-proof.

From dslrip32:

"I also have citation "warning" proof about 2 weeks ago where this LEO was on I-35 behind a bridge, and I was doing about 82 in a 70 and he hit me with Q/T or fast I/O, V1 went full signal and off immediately and he came after me. I stashed the V1 and this LEO was generous and wrote me a warning. I have proof."

Okay I never said anything makes anyone or anybody Q/T proof. I have said before that in these situations, that the detector should respond! Point Blank! My V1 does! My Escort did not!

But responding and saving can be two different things. As you well know.

[dslrip32]

One thing that always comes up in these discussions is the Belscort vs. V1. You are kidding yourself if you believe owning a V1 makes you QT-proof.

From dslrip32:

"I also have citation "warning" proof about 2 weeks ago where this LEO was on I-35 behind a bridge, and I was doing about 82 in a 70 and he hit me with Q/T or fast I/O, V1 went full signal and off immediately and he came after me. I stashed the V1 and this LEO was generous and wrote me a warning. I have proof."

Okay I never said anything makes anyone or anybody Q/T proof. I have said before that in these situations, that the detector should respond! Point Blank! My V1 does! My Escort did not!

But responding and saving can be two different things. As you well know.

Where did the saving part come into play with what I said? You must be talking about, what your thinking, LOL Go to sleep, get some rest, and come back to this discussion. I never ever said a detector can or will save a person. I said, that when hit with Q/T, I/O, or what ever, the $500 + device should damn well respond. Not save ur a$$. In this situation, your toast as-is. But your countermeasure should at the very least ReSpond!

[bigalinwv]

One thing that always comes up in these discussions is the Belscort vs. V1. You are kidding yourself if you believe owning a V1 makes you QT-proof.

From dslrip32:

"I also have citation "warning" proof about 2 weeks ago where this LEO was on I-35 behind a bridge, and I was doing about 82 in a 70 and he hit me with Q/T or fast I/O, V1 went full signal and off immediately and he came after me. I stashed the V1 and this LEO was generous and wrote me a warning. I have proof."

Okay I never said anything makes anyone or anybody Q/T proof. I have said before that in these situations, that the detector should respond! Point Blank! My V1 does! My Escort did not!

But responding and saving can be two different things. As you well know.

Where did the saving part come into play with what I said? You must be talking about, what your thinking, LOL Go to sleep, get some rest, and come back to this discussion. I never ever said a detector can or will save a person. I said, that when hit with Q/T, I/O, or what ever, the $500 + device should damn well respond. Not save ur a$$. In this situation, your toast as-is. But your countermeasure should at the very least ReSpond!

I was making the point that even a die-hard V1 user can still get nailed by QT. Belscort or V1, if the LEO is hiding and hits you with QT (as if I/O), you're done. Pretty simple, actually.

[dslrip32]

I was making the point that even a die-hard V1 user can still get nailed by QT. Belscort or V1, if the LEO is hiding and hits you with QT (as if I/O), you're done. Pretty simple, actually.

I agree.... Now all we need is a digital k/ka scrambler to go with our LI/Blinders

[hiddencam]

I think we can all agree on one thing:

Rule #1. The best defense against a ticket is not getting one in the 1st place!

From that point on this discussion blows up.

What exactly is QT, where it's used and does it constitute proper use of Radar to obtain speed readings is all subjective.

I say for all intents and purposes that it's the same as POP and does not meet the criteria for a proper tracking history. Even considering the advent of digital technology with today's new radars..........their faster, but that just means they could produce an erroneous reading quicker than their old analogue predecessors.

So what and who cares.........a LEO certified on Radar with an IACP approved unit with current certs can tag you anyway he wants and there is nothing you can do to prove he QT'd you in court.

Minimum time for a valid tracking history in one official document says a few seconds..........the dictionary describes few as more than 1........so I'll say 2 or more. However, if all the LEO's out there are pulling 2-3 second QT's I wouldn't care one bit............it's the sub 1 second shots I'm concerned with because those are the ones I could miss with my RD. So my definition of QT as an RD user is anything at or under 1 second.

Therefore, when I complain to the RD manufacturer about their QT performance I'm talking about picking up radar transmissions at or under 1 second.

Where we think it's prevalent and a serious threat should be based on our own experience AND reports given on this forum by location. From there we can each decide how much of a factor response times should be in our selection of a detector along with sensitivity, false suppression, etc....etc...

Great post.