In 1989, AOL Editor-in-Chief David Kiley was in a collision that could have taken his life. He was driving a Buick Roadmaster, a heavy aircraft-carrier of a sedan. As he was stopped in a left-turn lane, he looked up at the light to see if it was time to turn into the intersection. The light he looked at was green, but it was the wrong light; it was for the through traffic. His light was still red. As he turned, admittedly distracted by some personal family events that were occupying his mind, the oncoming Volvo 240 stationwagon barreled into Kiley’s Roadmaster, T-boning the car. The Volvo occupants were fine, though quite dazed. Kiley’s Roadmaster was a total, but he was spared, in part, by the airbags that deployed.

If one or both of those cars had been equipped with collision-avoidance systems offered on many cars today, the accident may have been avoided all together. It’s important to realize, says Kiley, “that I had been driving a Mazda Miata in the same spot a few days earlier, and I daresay I would not have been as fortunate.” Collision avoidance systems are appearing on more and more cars, big and small, as options, or as part of safety packages car companies are offering. Do they work? How do they work? Read our Techsplanations on today’s collision-avoidance system:

What is it?

Collision avoidance is the next frontier in safety. Ever since seat-belts became mandatory equipment in the 1960s, most safety improvements have been focused on surviving an accident. From impact-absorbing bumpers to multiple airbags, the idea has long been to make a car more able to take a hit and still protect its passengers. Automakers have been very successful in their efforts, so now they’re turning towards using technology to help cars avoid accidents altogether. The cars are literally becoming smarter than we are as drivers. How does it work? Collision avoidance generally starts with a system called adaptive cruise control. This is like regular cruise control, but with the addition of radar sensors that can “see” the traffic ahead of you and slow your car to maintain a safe following distance. If you are a notorious tailgater, this system over-rides your own bad driving habits.

Collision avoidance systems can also sound alarms or flash warnings on the windshield if the sensors determine that your car is getting to close to another car too fast. The system will then apply brake pressure perhaps sooner than you yourself would. If the computers and sensors determine that a crash is unavoidable, they also work to tighten up seat-belts, adjust headrests, or close the power windows and sunroof to make the car safer in the collision. Pretty nifty.

Collision avoidance also includes other related technology, like lane departure warning and blind spot monitoring systems. This technology works by using a camera to “see” the road and alert the driver if the car begins to drift out of a lane, or if another car approaches from the side. Lane departure warning systems will sound warning tones or vibrate the steering wheel, and some may even help steer the car to keep it headed straight. Blind spot monitoring systems often display warning lights in the driver’s peripheral vision and may sound alarms as well.

Some systems use radar rather than cameras, but the end result is the same.

Why would I want it?

Simple: It makes your car safer. Avoiding accidents isn’t just good for your health, but it saves time and money that would be spent dealing with the aftermath of a collision, too. These systems react faster to dangerous situations than we, as people, ever can.

Is there any downside?

None really, save for the occasional annoying beep or steering wheel vibration when the system over performs and reacts when there isn’t what you might call “real danger.”

What vehicles offer it?

This is the sort of technology that’s become prevalent on luxury cars, like Audis, BMWs, and Cadillacs, but it has begun to trickle down to more mainstream vehicles like the Ford Taurus, which offers the system standard, and Dodge Charger, as well. Within a year or two, even cars priced below $20,000 should be offering these systems for as little as a $500 option as there is mounting pressure on car companies to make it standard equipment, or a modestly priced add-on. Bottom line No matter how good a driver you might be, there are times when it can’t hurt to have a little technology on your side.

Many members call us to ask how they can fight their camera tickets and what to expect in court when they do. The short, but honest, answer is it depends.

Some of the reasons for this include:

• Photo enforcement statutes vary from state to state
• Courts (even within states) interpret the laws differently
• Courts routinely disregard the constitutional rights of traffic defendants
• The system is designed to provide revenue for the jurisdiction not justice for defendants

What results is a capricious patchwork of enforcement practices intended to confuse motorists and to discourage them from standing up for their rights.

At one extreme, there’s Arizona and Virginia. In each state, courts have ruled that camera-based traffic citations must be delivered in-person (personal service), otherwise they are deemed to have not been delivered and can be effectively ignored. (However, any acknowledgement of receipt could be deemed as a waiver of the personal service requirement.)

At the other extreme, there’s Prince George’s County, Maryland, where at least one judge has warned motorists that common, valid ticket camera defenses won’t be heard. A motorist’s only acceptable defense, according to the judge, is to state that he/she was not driving and to identify who was. (Listen to the judge’s whole statement.)

In Washington, D.C. a U.S. Court of Appeals recently rejected a class-action lawsuit that argued motorists were denied their constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law because drivers cited for speeding by metro police faced stiffer penalties than drivers receiving camera citations for the same violation.

In writing for the appellate court, Judge Harry T. Edwards concluded, “The District has decided that the best way to deter speeding is through the creation of some variability and uncertainty in the city’s enforcement schemes.”

But nowhere has “variability and uncertainty” been more on display than in Palm Coast, Florida.

When Ann Paris and Scott Hunter appeared one after the other before Traffic Magistrate Charles Cino, common sense predicted a similar outcome for each. Each was cited for a red-light camera violation, and each had signed an affidavit stating that another person was driving their car at the time.

According to a news account, Cino repeatedly pressed Paris to identify the driver of her car, to which she answered, “I don’t know.” Paris then agreed to pay the original fine of $158 versus the approximately $264 she was facing for taking the case to court. Cino moved to Hunter.

Cino said he would not force Hunter to tell him who was driving and agreed with Hunter’s attorney that it was not his client’s burden to provide that information. Case dismissed.

The only apparent difference in the cases was that Paris represented herself (pro se), and Hunter had an attorney. Courts routinely treat pro se traffic defendants with disdain (e.g., making them wait until the end of the session to present their cases).

One reason the NMA encourages members to challenge every ticket is to demonstrate the inherent unfairness of the traffic justice system. The more people stand up for themselves, the greater the chance for meaningful reform.

So, given the vagaries of the process, how do you protect yourself? First, don’t expect the court to be fair-minded. Second, learn how to fight your traffic ticket. Third, attend a traffic court session before your appearance so you know what to expect. Finally, don’t give up; even if you lost the first round, consider an appeal. ♦

And participate fully by contacting your state officials before these revenue generating laws and regulations are passed.

NMA’s 2011 4th Quarter Legislative Update

The NMA has always advocated for motorists’ rights at the national, state and local level. This goes back to our founding in 1982 when we began the fight to repeal the 55 mph Maximum National Speed Limit. Today, we routinely track legislation and alert members when and how they can make their opinions known. The last quarter of 2011 was very busy in this regard, and we thought it would be informative to summarize our efforts nationally.

Illinois:

• The NMA opposed Senate Bill 0965, which passed in November and authorized speed cameras for the City of Chicago. The measure is waiting for gubernatorial action. Note: there is still time to contact Gov. Quinn and urge him to veto this bill.

Iowa:

• In November, The NMA opposed efforts by the Iowa City Council to initiate a red-light camera program. The council passed an ordinance authorizing the cameras in early January.

Massachusetts:

• The NMA opposed House Bill 918 and House Bill 1799, currently with the joint transportation committee. Both would authorize red-light cameras in the state.
• The NMA supported House Bill 905 (also in front of the committee), which would allow vehicles to display one rear license plate only.
• The NMA also supported House Bill 2058, which would make an expired inspection sticker not a surchargeable incident and is before the joint financial services committee.

Michigan:

• In December, Gov. Snyder signed NMA-supported legislation to repeal portions of the state’s Driver Responsibility Act, which imposes a system of surcharges for certain traffic violations or the accumulation of too many points on one’s driver license.
• In November, the NMA supported Senate Bill 795 , which would close loopholes in Public Act 85. PA 85 requires speed limits to be set in accordance with proven engineering principles. The bill is under review in the Senate transportation committee.

Pennsylvania:

• The NMA worked against Senate Bill 595 which would authorize red-light cameras in 19 cities beyond Philadelphia. The measure passed the Senate in October and is currently under review in the House transportation committee. In November NMA member Jim Walker testified before the committee against a related House bill.
• The NMA opposed Senate Bill 1184 requiring ignition interlock devices for first-time DUI offenders. The bill passed out of the Senate transportation committee and awaits further action in the appropriations committee.
• In December, Gov. Corbett signed NMA-opposed l egislation authorizing a six-month continuation of Philadelphia’s red-light camera program.

New Mexico:

• In October the NMA supported efforts by Albuquerque voters to reject red-light cameras in a non-binding referendum. The city council subsequently voted to repeal the red-light camera ordinance.

Ohio:

• In November the NMA supported voters in South Euclid, Garfield Heights and Ashtabula who rejected red-light cameras in ballot measures.
• East Cleveland voters chose to retain red-light cameras after the mayor threatened layoffs of police and firefighters if the cameras weren’t saved.

Wisconsin:

• Thanks in part to the efforts of Wisconsin NMA members, in November the Dane County Board of Supervisors voted against a $20 per vehicle wheel tax.
• The NMA opposed Senate Bill 320 requiring ignition interlock devices for all first-time DUI offenders. The bill is in the Senate Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations Committee.

We’d like to thank our members and state activists for their hard work in 2011. They spent countless hours tracking issues, sending emails, making phone calls, responding to media requests and educating policymakers, who aren’t always sympathetic to our issues.

We’re always looking for ways to be a more effective advocate for you, our members. If you would like to get involved in this endeavor, contact us or your state activist. We’d like to hear from you.

The word Laser actually stands for “Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.” It is a form of electromagnetic radiation the same as radio and microwaves. The difference is that light has a much higher frequency than radio or microwaves.

The light emitted by a laser is no different than any other source except that it has a unique method of generating light. The type of laser used is an infrared semiconductor laser diode. The generated light energy has a wavelength of approx. 900 nanometers, with a beam divergence of 3 millenarians, equal to a beam width of about 3 m (or ft) at 1000 m (ft). Target acquisition times range from 0.3 to 0.7 seconds.
This laser is completely eye safe, meeting FDA Class 1 specifications. This means that you could stare directly into the laser for 3 hours without any harm to your eyesight. The radiated light power on MOST lasers is in the order of 50 microwatts, or in other terms, it outputs only one twentieth the light power of a typical TV remote control, and far less than a flashlight.

This is why laser jammers using industry standard laser LED diodes are effective against laser guns. The products calculate distance by measuring the time of flight of very short pulses of infrared light. This method is different from the traditional surveying instrument method of measuring phase shifts by comparing the incoming wavelength with the phase of the reflected light. Any solid object will reflect back a certain percentage of the emitted light energy – it need only be small for the sensitive detector to pick it up. The guns measure the time it takes a laser pulse to travel to the target and back with a precision, crystal-controlled time base. Knowing the speed of light, you then calculate the distance travelled. To increase accuracy, the laser measures as many as sixty pulses, utilizing a least squares method of determining the range. Sophisticated error trapping algorithms are in place to ensure a reliable reading.

However laser jammers generate an off phase pulse which infills the phasing cycle of the laser guns making them easy to defeat.

LIDAR relies on the principle of time-of-flight of a laser beam to calculate the speed of the target object. Devices typically send out a stream of approximately 100 pulses over the span of three-tenths of a second. The reflected signals are then processed using statistical algorithm to pick which reflected signals to retain.

The use of many reflections and an averaging technique in the speed measurement process increase the integrity of the speed reading. Vehicles are usually equipped with a horizontally oriented license plate or “tag”, that when illuminated, causes a high integrity reflection to be returned to the LIDAR – despite the shape of the vehicle.

In locations that do not require that a front or rear registration plate is fitted, headlamps and rear-reflectors provide almost ideal retro-reflective surfaces overcoming the reflections from uneven or non-compliant reflective surfaces thereby eliminating “sweep” error. It is these mechanisms which cause concern that LIDAR is somehow unreliable.

LIDAR does not suffer from “sweep” error when the operator uses the equipment correctly and when the LIDAR unit is equipped with algorithms that are able to detect when this has occurred. A combination of signal strength monitoring, receive gate timing, target position prediction and pre-filtering of the received signal wavelength prevents this from occurring. Should the beam illuminate sections of the vehicle with different reflectivity or the aspect of the vehicle changes during measurement that causes the received signal strength to be changed then the LIDAR unit will reject the measurement thereby producing speed readings of high integrity.

For LIDAR units to be used in law enforcement applications a rigorous approval procedure is usually completed before deployment. Also important is that a LIDAR gun cannot operate through glass and it must be stationary to get an accurate reading. If a police officer uses a LIDAR gun with the patrol car window up, the reading is not accurate.

For more information on how to protect yourself from receiving laser speeding tickets, call 800.323.5608 and speak to a radar and laser professional.  You can also get more information by visiting www.k40.com and liking us on facebook @ www.facebook.com/k40electronics

You keep writing, we’ll keep appreciating.

We appreciate Dr. Hanover DVM who wrote:

Dear K40 -

“I was test-driving a Porsche at MotorWorks in Barrington yesterday and when discussing pricing, I inquired about a K40 system.  They handed me a brochure on your new RL360 radar detector, which sounds great.  The part I laughed about was the testimonial in the brochure from Keith White, “Third K40″.  I purchased my first K40 when in high school for my used Olds Cutlass Supreme.  It took me months to save up the money.  Ever since then, I have put K40′s in all the vehicles I purchased and my work trucks.

1. Cutlass Supreme
2. Merkur XRI
3. Cougar
4. Cougar (1st totaled in accident)
5. Ford Expedition (work truck, mobile veterinarian)
6. Jeep Cherokee (ex-wife’s new work truck)
7. Dodge Ram 350 (ex-wife’s work truck)
8. Ford Expedition (new work truck)
9. Cadillac Deville
10. Lexus 470
11. BMW 530 (fiance)
12. Ford Expedition EL (2010 new work truck)

So, this RL360 radar detector with laser defusers will be my 13th K40 system purchased.  Not bad for a regular consumer.  Just wondering when you will have a frequent customer discount card?  Thanks for keeping us safe.”

Sincerely, Dr. Hanover DVM

You can see more great emails from actual K40 radar detector users at www.k40.com or by reading our facebook posts at www.facebook.com/k40electronics

Confiscation and/or destruction of the detector was once a common practice but lawsuits raised by drivers arguing violation of property rights have resulted in temporary removal while a citation is written, then return of the device after its description (make, model and serial number) has been entered on the ticket – usually for speeding and possession/operation of detector. Use of a radar/lidar detector on a military installation is prohibited. Persons entering a military installation with one visibly mounted to the sun visor or windshield will be asked to remove it and put it away. Those who refuse will be denied entry onto the installation at that time. Military law enforcement may not solely stop a vehicle for a detector being in use but, along with being stopped for another moving violation, the person using the detector may be ordered to report the violation to his/her unit commanding officer (active duty only). Radar jammers are illegal under federal law, but laser jammers aren’t specifically banned. Some states, such as California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee,and Texas have state laws banning laser jammers.

For more information please visit www.k40.com or call the radar detector experts at 800.323.5608 – Industry information is also available at www.facebook.com/k40electronics