Difference between IO & QT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divewjason

The definition of QT is subjective on this forum. I'm not sure why you are asking SS to back up his claims. We might as well ask any of us who define quick trigger in any way to back up our claims as well. :confused:

---

Please read post # 75 and read what I quoted him in bold letters. I was asking him to prove it why it is a lie. That is what I wanted to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightHawk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divewjason

The definition of QT is subjective on this forum. I'm not sure why you are asking SS to back up his claims. We might as well ask any of us who define quick trigger in any way to back up our claims as well. :confused:

---

Please read post # 75 and read what I quoted him in bold letters. I was asking him to prove it why it is a lie. That is what I wanted to see.

---

I can't speak for SS, but I assume that he had a different outlook on the article than the one originally presented in the thread. The way SS sees it, the officer will get your speed by any means necessary, so escort saying that you can't receive a ticket from QT is a lie. I believe that is what he is implying. But we'll see what SS says since you asked him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightHawk

All your statements are from quote your "authoritative source" without reference or any useful links to back it up.

---

That is where you are wrong. I have made no claims of an authoritative source. I have only said that I have seen NO authoritative source that backs up these claims of QT being illegal or unauthorised. You can't prove a negative. Therefore, I have nothing to prove.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightHawk

All your statements are from quote your "authoritative source" without reference or any useful links to back it up.

---

That is where you are wrong. I have made no claims of an authoritative source. I have only said that I have seen NO authoritative source that backs up these claims of QT being illegal or unauthorised. You can't prove a negative. Therefore, I have nothing to prove.

---

Isn't this proof that QT is an unauthorized method?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightHawk

"MTAM" page 27.

"The radar officer is on patrol on a four lane divided
expressway (65 mph max.) using moving mode radar with Standby (RF
Hold) switch in the off position. A medium size vehicle approaches from
the opposite direction, catching up with and beginning to pass another
medium size vehicle. The officer visually estimates the target vehicle
speed to be 80 mph and turns the Standby (RF Hold) switch “on”. A strong
audio tone consistent with the estimated 80 speed is heard and a reading
of 81 appears in the target window. Immediately thereafter the officer
observes the front of the target vehicle dip abruptly, the vehicle appears to
brake abruptly, the audio drops quickly and the reading in the target
display window drops rapidly from 81 to 65. The patrol window displays
63 and the calibrated speedometer reads 63. The officer notes the obvious
visual deceleration of the target vehicle corresponding exactly with the
drop in audio and target display window read-out and concludes that the
radar was tracking the target vehicle and not the other vehicle. Target

identification is complete and the officer can take enforcement action."

"The operator must track the target vehicle as long as possible

to be certain of a valid target identification" Page 13

"It is also necessary that the tracking of the target vehicle take place over a

reasonable amount of time, so the operator knows it is not a spurious reading." Page 26

I will have to delete what's quoted here in the next 48 hrs. If you need it later, just let me know.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CJR238

Documents requiring "seconds" of tracking history:

"Never base a decision on Instant Radar Measurement. Instead watch speed Measurement and listen to the audio output for at least a few seconds to make sure that the signal received is from a real, identifiable vehicle".

Here is the link to the specific photo copied page with the paragraph above.
http://www.aidoann.com/sanjose-ticke...prsm/p3-16.jpg

Link to Unit 3 of the NHTSA Basic Training Program in Radar Speed Measurement from which it was taken.

http://www.aidoann.com/sanjose-ticke...al-review.html


Aditional info supporting the reasons for a tracking history and outher info.

Quote:

---

There have been claims that a power surge occurs when the RADAR unit is first switched on from the hold switch position and that this power surge will result in inaccurate and supposedly high readings. Recent tests conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) indicated that no false readings were noted during their tests. In digital type RADAR, the verification circuitry prohibits the RADAR reading from being displayed until a sampling is done over a period of time sufficient to analyze the signal to make certain that it is a Doppler signal rather than electrical noise. This precludes the RADAR from reading a high number, or any number in fact, until the signal is stabilized. The anti-detector switch effect is not a factor in modern RADAR operation, but it is emphasized that the target should be observed for a period of time prior to the reading being obtained and sufficient information should be obtained to develop target history to support any alleged violation.

---

Thanks nine_c1!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nine_c1

Tracking History
Six supportive elements (audio and visual) are involved in the valid
identification of a target vehicle. Together, these supportive elements
comprise what is referred to as a complete tracking history. These six
elements are:

1) Visual Observation and Estimation of Speed. An operator must be
able to visually identify the target vehicle, and to estimate its speed at
greater than the speed limit.
2) Doppler Audio. An operator must correlate the tone of the Doppler
audio with visual observations and estimation of speed of a target
vehicle.
3) Target Speed Display. An operator must establish that the target
speed displayed corresponds with the visual estimation of speed and
the Doppler audio output.
4) Within Operational Area of the Beam. An operator must establish
that the target vehicle was within the operational area of the beam at
the time the target’s speed was displayed.
5) Patrol Speed Verification (moving mode only). An operator must
establish that the radar’s patrol speed display corresponds with the
independently calibrated patrol speedometer at the time a target
vehicle’s speed is being monitored.
6) Faster/Slower Mode Verification (same-direction mode only). An
operator, while monitoring a target vehicle’s speed in the samedirection
mode, must establish that the radar is clocking in the proper
Faster/Slower mode. By gradually varying the patrol speed up or
down a few mph, the operator shall verify that there is no
corresponding change in the target speed display. When the radar has
correctly computed the target speed, changes in the patrol vehicle
speed will not affect the target speed display. If the incorrect Faster/
Slower mode is being used, the target vehicle speed will
correspondingly go up and down with the acceleration and
deceleration of the patrol vehicle. Regardless of the cause, rapid target
window fluctuations are not acceptable for enforcement purposes.

The actual sequence in which the elements of the tracking history occur is unimportant. It is vital, however, that all of the necessary elements be present. It is also necessary that the tracking of the target vehicle take place over a reasonable amount of time, so the operator knows it is not a spurious reading.

BTW..........here is the link where I obtained the above definition. It is an EXCELLENT course on Police Radar.

http://courts.michigan.gov/mji/Resources/mag-manual/UNIT6.pdf

Here is the LONG LONG Training module directly from the NHSTA.

http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/NHTSA/007825.pdf

---

---

Though this doesn't stop any unscrupulous LEO's anywhere from doing it, it is a factor a LEO needs to consider before using QT as a method to catch speeders.

No where in there did I see a definition of "tracking" that involves leaving the radar transmitting for any specific period of time. That is what is at issue here. Transmitting and tracking are not synonymous.

And, of course, the site hosting that manual even impeaches the credibility of that manual, noting its outdatedness, incompleteness, and dubious origin.

The Manufacturer's Manual, Or So They Said...

I just don't get what you guys are trying to prove here. Why would you want to mislead the entire community into believing that QT is not a threat to them? It boggles the mind! :hmmmm2:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divewjason

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-->read here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightHawk

All your statements are from quote your "authoritative source" without reference or any useful links to back it up.

---

That is where you are wrong. I have made no claims of an authoritative source. I have only said that I have seen NO authoritative source that backs up these claims of QT being illegal or unauthorised. You can't prove a negative. Therefore, I have nothing to prove.

---

The reason why you don't see an authoritative source is ONLY because the term QT is not being used in any instructors training guide, owner's/operator's manual or goverment endorsed manual. Therefore you don't see one unless you come across this website. The term used in any case is irrelevant and in this case here is QT. Sure I can prove a negative. Because the manner it is performed is in fact negative if it is used as basis for citation. As we all know, escort's defense to this threat is that, it is illegal to issue a ticket solely based on a quick burst of radar which is true and you are claiming it is a lie. What I was asking was a proof of why it is a lie. Escort did not make any enforcement rules and it is simply not their rules either. These is a rule pretty much made by the courts and not even LEO's. As I have said earlier, the use of a term like QT is irrelevant here. It is how the method is applied in acquiring speed. The debate we are seeking is the transmit time as you stated. The transmit time falls close to POP and not even close to a traditional IO as posted in my earlier post. BTW, that example is usually when the violator has a radar detector on board. Sudden change of audio tone from a high pitch to lower pitch tone is not audible in a QT method as most of us here defines it. Transmitting is not synonymous to tracking as you stated but tracking cannot exist without time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divewjason

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.

---

That's the bad part for you guys down there. :D Specially when you don't know what to do. ;)

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!:D

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.:rolleyes:

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dslrip32

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divewjason

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-->read here

---

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:
Pennsylvania: Cops Busted for Illegally Issuing 650 Speeding Tickets

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CJR238

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dslrip32

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divewjason

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-->read here

---

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:
Pennsylvania: Cops Busted for Illegally Issuing 650 Speeding Tickets

---

I would pay to see that! :thumb2:

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!:p My Escort did not!:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dslrip32

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!:p My Escort did not!:mad:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigalinwv

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dslrip32

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!:p My Escort did not!:mad:

---

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:eek: Go to sleep, get some rest, and come back to this discussion.:rolleyes: 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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dslrip32

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigalinwv

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dslrip32

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!:p My Escort did not!:mad:

---

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:eek: Go to sleep, get some rest, and come back to this discussion.:rolleyes: 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigalinwv

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;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nine_c1

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!:D

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.:rolleyes:

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.