Originally Posted by Veil Guy
While its certainly good to know about such potentials, this may [ultimately] not be the problem at all, in reality.
Why? Because even if his Lexus did have this system (either a lidar-based lane-departure or ACC) and the mounting locations were problematic in this regard, I suspect, they could probably be disabled or "fused-pulled."
I agree with this on a practical/factual/technical level - and will add that even if such electronic defeats cannot be successfully made (in some cases, they may trigger a DTC within the ECU programming), one can still oftentimes take more rudimentary measures, such as, literally, "taping over" those sensors (this has been seen more than once, on the RadarDetector.net community).
However, on the grander scheme of things, I think that such an effort is self-defeating.
To an extent, these active/passive-safety as well as convenience systems are there for a reason. And while the "driver" in me says that the convenience features such as active cruise are un-necessary, and that the nanny systems such as lane-departure warning is for the driving feeble
, I also cannot help but see the other side of the equation - that they do make thing safer, overall (even the latter, one cannot always say that accidents can be avoided, for, simply, they are accidental in nature...try as we might, we're still human, and there *is* still a possibility, however remote and however hard we try to avoid it, that we will stray out of our lane-of-travel, unintentionally), and furthermore, that some such systems, such as Infiniti's "Preview Braking System," truly are the next evolution, and really will only do good, in a street-driving sense.
This is a hard one to call - and I think it *needs* to be up to the specific end-owner to decide what side of the equation he/she may fall on, and to then undertake modifications (either to the vehicle's features or to that of the countermeasures hardware), albeit with FULL
knowledge of what the implications may be.
If not, at least these new radar detectors have ASICs which can be easily updated by software (ie; firmware) to have the specific pulse trains pre-filtered out. That's one of the great features of the latest generation of radar detectors, field-updateability by the user/owner. |
^ True, but to-date, aside from Laser Interceptor and Whistler, no other company has successfully implemented such. Caveats:
(1) I would hope that the Escort (Bel) would not be far behind, given already that they have already implemented the capability to lock-out laser falses with TrueLock.
(2) I do not know of the capabilities of such defeats from AntiLaser - I do not recall any specific testing of this, for its G9.
I am already pleased to have experienced that the latest firmware, for both of the remote radar detectors from Beltronics and Escort, has successfully eliminated the falsing created by the POP-profile-like 24.1ghz (K-radar) based adaptive cruise control and/or lane departure systems used in models like Audi's side-assist. Kudos to the engineering teams for effectively mitigating this problem that we first documented nearly two years ago. I was hoping Audi NA would have seen to it (as I communicated directly with their executive management and their senior engineers about this) but am pleased to see Escort/Beltronics take the initiative.
If Escort (and Beltronics) haven't already specifically filtered these lidar sources, they certainly will, soon enough. Whistler has long-ago addressed these systems with their advanced LSID feature of the Whister XTR-695 and future models.
^ Agreed - as per above "caveats."
Of course, lidar falses occur on these sensitive laser detectors/laser jammers more so than windshield-mounted models, primarily due to their external mounting locations.
True, but I think it is the programming that makes the difference.
There have been more than one multiple-LIDAR-countermeasures user who've mentioned that the more up-to-date/revision-"happy" devices such as the Laser Interceptor can be counted on to give the least falsing possible, and this is an observation which I will agree with.
Some of these individuals have gone so far as to not to respond to their LASER alerts until the LI warns - and while I can see the practical value of this, it is not a practice that I agree with.
While I fear LASER less than instant-on RADAR, I nevertheless see it as a high enough risk, akin to Ka-band in terms of the "risk scale," that it *MUST* be responded to each and every time, regardless. To ignore such a threat, regardless of which countermeasure is reporting/alerting, is to expose oneself to a high tremendously degree of risk.
This is particularly true with the LI, given that it does not "instantaneously" warn of the LIDAR threat, but instead, "returns fire" even before it starts to audibly alert.
Also, this is dangerous given the fact that the V1 and the Escort ZR3/4 are such excellent detectors, and could have potentially seen a threat well before the threat is realized "on-vehicle," before the vehicle is actually painted.
It is fairly common to get a front (or rear false) on either the Beltronics STi-R or the Escort Passport 9500ci when the sun is lower in the sky and being eclipsed by passing trees (whose recurring shadows at a specified frequency/speed) which can create the appearance of a police laser pulse-train (and it occasionally happens on the more sensitive windshield-mount laser detectors, too). |
It's something that you get used to. At least with the knowledge that the laser shifters (or laser jammers) are doing their function (and having Veil G4 on as well), there's no urgency to stab the brake when it happens, making you a safer driver, in the process.
Yep, I've often presented the case of such "flicker-induced" (in this case, the rapid on/off of bright sunlight, filtered through passing tree-branch overhangs at-speed) I've seen much more of the rear falsing, and I can actually predict, most times, when such situations appear.
However, I disagree with the fact that this is something that one should "get used to."
It's akin to saying that one should "get used to" Ka-band falsing - it's simply not tactically sound.
To me, this is a weakness/technical limitation of the countermeasure device that should be addressed either by the end-user or, better-yet, by the manufacturer.
In having the noise-floor so high, it can only lead to one thing - "detector desensitization," which is a cardinal sin of detector usage.
In having repeatedly inoculated the end-user to such false-alerts, the device causes one to not only doubt the veracity of its alerts, but to also increase user-latency in taking the proper action to ALWAYS, at such alert, to reduce speed as quickly and as safely as possible.
The window-of-opportunity for a successful jam, temporally/distance-covered, is small. One should not have to second-guess one's countermeasures.
In so much as we appreciate the Escort/Bel products for seeking ways to reduce falsing via advanced filtering - and often use this very characteristic of the device to counter the points made by the V1 - we should *NOT*, as end-users (or even "fans") of the Escort marque somehow come to the defense of the ZR3/4's propensity for false-alerting, but instead should demand better of the manufacturer, to address this most concerning, and most dangerous, problem.