Quote:
Originally Posted by Veil Guy  First, I wouldn't recommend painting Veil on your helmet, if thats what you were thinking. I would simply get a flat black one or dark colored one, instead that didn't contain metallic fleck paint.
I would be concerned about the color of your jacket as I have been able to get speed readings off of individuals' shirts while they're peddling their bicycles!!! Again, the darker, the better. |
+1 to both.
These observations are not
Veil Guy's alone - but rather, his as well as the rest of the community's.
Although I am not a rider ( I'd love to be one, but my wife would literally kill me
), my interest in it has kept me at least somewhat in the informational loop. Indeed, these points-of-interest raised by
Veil Guy, as well as his advice, are ones that we keep seeing, and are most valid and should be taken to-heart.
Mstaples, in your initial post, you cited that you were looking to get riding jackets without any reflective elements to them, whatsoever. I would go one step further, and simply focus on the FRONT - and perhaps also sides - to insure that nothing on those aspects retro-reflect, as it would thus retain a good bit of utility for your safety (with rear traffic), while allowing you to present as "stealthy" of a forward-facing profile as possible.
Similarly, I would also be inclined to spot-treat the reflective elements on such clothing with commercially available (try various "tactical" or police/military-equipment shops, online) IR "kill" sprays, which should allow the fabric to retain its visible-light retro-reflective properties, while hopefully thus working the same way as VEIL, to kill-off at least some of such fabric's IR (LIDAR)-reflective nature.
Quote:
|
On the bike itself, I would certainly recommend treating your main headlight and the directional indicators (anything that is essentially vertical and perpendicular to the road) as these elements are likely the most direct reflectors back to the laser gun.
|
+1.
Quote:
|
Forks, may be a little tougher to make a determination. If they're angled away and don't reflect much light in a perpendicular fashion, I'd tend to leave them alone.
|
+1.
In our community, we keep seeing this as being fact, over and over again.
Although, certainly, every bit addressed will help, it's also going to come to a point of diminishing returns - and particularly given the physical configuration of the fork tubes, it will truly be hard to determine whether or not if treating them will be of any PRACTICAL use. Given the aesthetics concerned, I, too, would just leave them well enough alone.
Quote:
|
If you have a front number plate, I would certainly suggest you put a small plate cover on the front (or an Ontrack Lasershield) with a light treatment of Veil.
|
+1.
And if you're really obsessed - as it seems you are
- to pursue, if one is cosmetically similar enough to the plate that you've been issued, a less-retro-reflective or non-reflective, non-metallic, "replica" plate, to even further address this point-weakness, and to also essentially offer it up as "bait" to the enforcers (i.e. giving them something that they think would be easy to pick up, which, in-reality, is as strong of a passively resistant area as you can make it).
Quote:
If, on the other hand, you still feel like you need even more time, the I'd recommend an addition of a laser jammer to your defense arsenal (provided it's legal in your state). I think a decent two head system like a Blinder M25 would be the appropriate solution. You could place one head in the front and one head facing the rear.
The Laser Shifter ZR4 is a three head system really designed more for a car or larger vehicle as its third head is specifically designed for the standard-size license plate.
The other types of laser jammer systems are "laser-diode" types. Only one laser-diode jammer, that I am aware of, actually withstood the rigors of time and that was the Lidatek LE-10, but that laser jammer has long been out of production.
I personally would not recommend any current laser-diode-based jammer for the following reasons:
- They tend to be more expensive than their LED counterparts.
- Reliability has been repeatedly brought into question by a good number [of their] users.
- LED lighting is an advanced, low-power, extremely reliable, and cool light source (that is why it is appearing more and more as the light-source for automobiles, computer back-lit displays, etc.)
- Blinder holds several patents on laser-diode jammers and asserts that all of the [other] laser diode jammers coming into this country violate their patents.
- Veil + LED laser jammer performance (Blinder/ZR4) equals or exceeds performance of other laser jammers used alone.
- The pairing of Veil & LED laser jammers (like Blinder or ZR4) not only tends to be less expensive, but you'll also receive the benefit of what the military refers to as: "Defense-in-Depth."
|
On the vast majority of these list-points, I agree completely with
Veil Guy,
Mstaples - however, my presentation and views differ slightly on only one.....
First,
Mstaples let me begin by saying that in being an individual hobbyist, with no ties to the industry and with no vested interests, although I can well see and agree with the ethically and morally upright nature
of
Veil Guy's point in that the various overseas laser-diode makers' devices violate design patent(s) held by Blinder, I simply will not, as per all of my input in any of the speed-detection countermeasures as well as automotive-enthusiasts' communities, venture into the moral/ethical debate, and will base my advice solely on the technical merits of the devices examined.
Where
Veil Guy is bound by his honor and morals (for which I
truly and
most sincerely respect, please do not misunderstand,
Mstaples), I am more free to take luxuries, given my status.
With that disclaimer in-mind:
When each
individual product, in the current iteration/unique physical construct that is on-market today is examined, the reliability record of the current crop of laser jammers, the ones on-market today - regardless of whether it is a LED-based unit or a laser-diode based unit - is actually
the same, or otherwise virtually close enough together, in terms of duration-on-road/miles-on-road, as to be totally irrelevant:
Laser Jammer Test 2008: Guys of Lidar - I get in to the meat of it, starting with post #10, with retorts in the latter half of post #22,
Jammer advice - here, post #11, and a rebuttal on posts #16 and 18.
Again, yes, it is undeniable that, as physical companies and in terms of "overall track history," the two LED-based laser jammer makers, Escort and Blinder, have a superior record than *any* of the laser-diode jammer makers.
However, this is a valid assertion only when examining the larger context, for when broken down into a detailed examination of either the specific product of the Escort ZR4 or the Blinder M
x5 (the little "
x" denoting either the 2, 3, or 4 prefix, itself denoting the physical "head" configuration of the series) J16, neither of these items have been on-road for any longer than any of their laser-diode based competitors.
In its current product-iteration, the Laser Pro Park ("LPP") actually holds the longest and best reliability record - at just over 2 years running. However, I would not advise purchasing the LPP, currently, if you are either a Stateside resident or a resident of any country/area where the specter of the LTI TruSpeed/TruCam is looming. Currently, LPP has yet to introduce a product update to positively counter this "new" police LIDAR device, and as-such, despite having been a long-time LPP user and proponent, I have, since this past fall, stopped recommending this product.
Similarly, it should also be mentioned that the AntiLaser G9 (often abbreviated "AL G9"), currently has had a FAR shorter time-on-road/miles-on-road period than any of the other reputable laser-diode based jammers, for it was only introduced early this past winter. Given the past history of the AL G8, I would currently be *very* hesitant to recommend this product to anyone, based on reliability/durability. Here, only time will tell.
And given the tenuous status of the LaserStar as well as the Cheetah-USA P.A.S.S., plus the failure (and subsequent ongoing re-design of the LED + laser-diode combo LaserMask), currently, the only remaining item would be, by logic, the Laser Interceptor ("LI").
By default, it is the only laser-diode based jammer that I can currently recommend, if laser-diode based jammers is where you're looking.
And finally, given the performance of the M25 J16 tested by the highly regarded
delonix (of Delonix Radar, AU) - and before any Blinder proponents complain about his videos, note that he
sells the Blinder - I would be hesitant to rely upon it for frontal protection, with only one head forward.
Instead, I would be tempted to opt for a M35 (three head, noting the "3" prefix) system, keeping that one most effective rear head setup as-is, but supplementing frontal protection with a head mounted to your helmet, too, as that is a noted weak-point that we've seen demonstrated by many different hobbyists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mstaples One thing for certain is that I have to get more strategic about my driving patterns. Awarness, i think, is a big factor. |
Being "aware" is the #1 most important rule.
All countermeasures are but tools - even with everything in-place, as soon as you start "speeding stupid," it's a guaranteed ticket.
Look at the guys who've cowboy'ed up, and posted tales of themselves ignoring the alerts of their V1, assuming that it's just a false - to their chagrin later. Look at
AgentR8's incredible rally setup - something that none of us in the hobbyist community can even remotely match in terms of operational capability/capacity (or complexity, as the electronic countermeasures utilized simply REQUIRES a dedicated operator to such, alone) and yet, they were still cited.
Awareness should always be the first and last line of defense.
Quote:
|
The ticket I got for 85 in a 65 zone (a holiday speed trap) is something I guess i can't argue with. He has it on his laser readout... so that's that.
|
Not necessarily.
Aside from "lawyering up," there's still other hobbyist resources that could help you. Many of the enthusiasts on RD.net are avid ticket-fighters, and the likes of
Suf Daddy and others truly enjoy helping fellow drivers fight their tickets, especially with respect to LIDAR, which, itself, is far from infallible ( REF: the two-part series on BBC -
YouTube - The Truth About Speed Cameras - part 1 and
YouTube - The Truth About Speed Cameras - part 2 , and also other such hobbyist videos such as
YouTube - Stalker LIDAR Panning and Sweep Errors influences and
YouTube - Kustom Pro Laser III Panning and Sweep errors ).
Quote:
|
So anyway, I'll try to see if there is something I can do about the chrome "lowers" on the motorcycle, which would be big reflectors. I hate to paint them, but I guess I'll have to.
|
Again, as with what
Veil Guy said above, I'm not so sure that you'll have to address such areas on your bike, as long as they are not "perpendicular" surfaces.
Quote:
|
For sure, with my next bike I will be factoring in it's stealth possibilities in a big way before i buy it.
|
Here, remember that "stealth" has two components -
One, that of the LIDAR profile....
For example, the C4 and C5 Chevrolet Corvettes were just "black holes," where police LIDAR is concerned.
However, visually, it's far from "stealth".... just about any enforcer who sees a 'Vette will pick it out as the speeder, among a pack of cars, whether it was the worst offender or not.
As "America's Sports-Car," it's got a reputation to live up to - both good and bad (aside: a fellow Subaru enthusiast was recently pulled-over and cited for speeding, the enforcer reportedly singled him out of a pack of vehicles, because his "Subaru was the only obvious sports-car of the bunch").
Veil Paint: How far to go 
Linear Mode
