Jan 01, 2007 – NIWOT, CO –
FIELD EVALUATION REPORT, August 2003, SPEED MEASUREMENT LABORATORIES, INC.
Evaluated Product: Laser Blinder Evaluation Date: 8 August 2003 Evaluation Location: Stan Roberts Senior Road, El Paso, TX. Personnel: Sgt. Victor Araiza, El Paso ISD Police, Officer Patrick Linam, El Paso ISD Police, Carl Fors, SML, Dave Adams E.E., SML, Cory Jensen, SML, Liz Hermida SML; Torben Andersen of Blinder International, Leon Gruner of Blinder USA and www.AppliedTechnologiesUSA.com.Conditions: Clear, 92-100 F° Report Number: SML0803:17 Report Date: 12 August 03 Certifications: Sgt. Araiza, Officer Linam, and Carl Fors Certified Laser Gun Operators, NHTSA, standard.
Evaluation Methodology: Blinder produces a laser countermeasure designed to produce no speed readings when it encounters police laser guns. Court president established by New Jersey Superior Court ruling of 1998, Judge Reginald Stanton, dictates laser may not be used for speed assessment at distances greater than 1,000 feet. Current police training programs also recommend no targeting past this distance as the divergence of the laser gun’s 904 nanometer, 3 milliradian, beam would be greater than 36 inches producing a likelihood of erroneous speed readings from adjacent vehicles. All laser guns were operated by either Sgt. Araiza or Officer Linam. No speed assessment equipment, i.e. police radar and/or laser guns are ever operated by SML personnel eliminating any suggestions of testing bias. Both Sgt. Araiza and Officer Linam are certified laser operators. They were instructed to operate the laser guns as they do each day in issuing speeding tickets. The following police laser guns were used during the field evaluation: Kustom Pro Laser III, Stalker LZ-1, Laser Technologies Inc. Ultralyte LR 200, and Laser Atlanta Speed Laser.
Officers are trained to aim laser guns at front license plates as the plates provide an excellent retro-reflective surface. Laser needs a flat reflective surface to be effective and can not be aimed at windshields. In the absence of a front license plate, as is the case in seventeen states, officers aim the laser at the headlights of the target vehicle. As is the case with all SML field evaluations, only white mid-sized cars are used as target vehicles. This is the most difficult scenario for laser countermeasures as white is the most reflective color and easily targetable by laser compared to non-reflective black vehicles. Optical physics dictates white reflects all colors, while black absorbs all colors including police laser gun emissions.
Cones were placed on the test course at distances of 1,000 and 500 feet. The test vehicle approached each cone at two different speeds, i.e. 30 mph and then 60 mph. This approximates laser being used in the city and then the highway J setting. Speed is important in defeating laser guns.
The longer the laser beam remains on the target vehicle the greater chance of a speed reading. The slower 30 mph should yield more speed readings.
All laser guns were operated in the constant tracking mode compared to the single shot mode. This is the typical operational methodology used by police agencies as the constant tracking mode shows fluctuations in target vehicle speeds and further substantiates the legality of “visual tracking history” which is necessary for thorough and legal speed assessment.
The vehicle containing the Blinder approached each cone and counted down via a two way commercial radio when it arrived at each cone. The officer then fired the laser. There were two tries at each speed and each aiming point, i.e. first the license plate and then the passenger headlight. Laser guns were operated outside the base vehicle on the shoulder of the same lane as the test/target vehicle.
The test vehicle was first targeted from the front and then from the rear going away from the laser guns. Rear targeting with police laser is rare. Combining front and rear aiming of all four laser guns, Blinder was exposed to 120 laser encounters. Blinder was also exposed to Laser Atlanta’s Speed Laser set in the Stealth mode. This mode claims it can not be jammed. For field testing purposes Blinder’s transponders were not concealed in the vehicle’s front cowling or rear bumper assembly. This mounting neither enhanced nor diminished the normal placement performance. Blinder consists of two front and two rear mounted transponders. Under actual usage, Blinder’s transponders would be concealed to avoid recognition. See picture at right for normal, concealed installation.
Results: One of the four laser guns inform the operator if the laser gun is being jammed. Stalker LZ1 produces jamming codes , E-6, accordingly.
However, these codes can be produced by other outside influences such as direct sun light and road mirages and are often ignored by operators. E 1 code means insufficient data. Jamming efficiency is reported in three forms, i.e. JTG meaning Jam To Gun, J meaning Jam, and N meaning no jamming occurred. JTG further means the laser countermeasure jammed the laser gun from the point of first encounter, 500 and 1000 foot cone, to the laser gun’s position. J means countermeasure jammed the laser gun but uncloaked at some distance as is reported as J (210).
The countermeasure jammed the laser gun but uncloaked at 210 feet. Note rear results reported as J or N as Blinder could not JTG going away from gun. Blinder notifies driver with in cabin speaker.
Summary: Laser Blinder during its 120 encounters with four laser guns with different aiming points, different speeds, from the front and the rear of the target vehicle failed to jam only four times out of the 120 encounters resulting in a jamming efficiency percentage of 97%. Noted speed reception distances were averaged between the two tries in each category.
Based on the field performance of Laser Blinder, it is awarded Speed Measurement Laboratories Inc. “Performance Certification” as it performed as advertised in jamming all police laser guns.
This “Performance Certification” is awarded for one year from the date of this report. It is confirmed all police laser guns were operated by certified police officers in accordance with standards established by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, IACP, and operational guidelines set forth by NHTSA. All laser guns used during the field evaluation are certified by the IACP as they appear on its web site of www.iacp.org.
The results were witnessed by the attending police officers, SML staff, and representatives of Laser Blinder.
Speed Measurement Laboratories Inc. neither condones nor condemns the use of the products it field evaluates. The results of this field evaluation should not be construed as an endorsement of the product, but as a factual representation of the product’s performance. Products were evaluated under ideal testing conditions and individual performance may vary. SML’s “Performance Certification” logo is a trademark of Speed Measurement Laboratories, Inc. and may not be used, duplicated, nor reproduced without the expressed, written permission of the company as covered by the copyright law of the United States.
Results Attested To: Carl Fors. B.S. President Speed Measurement Laboratories, Inc. FCC Licensee RS Radiolocation KNNN392 Certified Radar/Laser Instructor/LES CF/rd file SML Report #0308:17
FIELD EVALUATION REPORT BY UK SpeedTrap Guide – December 7th
We quote from this report: “So did it work…… ? We did the test by using the four main Laser Guns used in the UK, the LTI 20-20, Riegl LR 90, UltraLyte LR and Prolaser II.
We then drove our test car towards the guns in turn doing several runs, we targeted the number plate and as many other parts of the cars as possible at ranges of over half a mile, so far in fact it was hard to spot the car in the sights of the guns.
All the guns had a real problem they all showed errors, the LTI went through almost all the errors it could find, none could get a speed and only some could get a distance, even at 20ft the guns could not get a speed reading. Not only that, it DID NOT bring up the LTI’s Jammer indicator. Now that’s very smart!
I was impressed, very impressed, I have tested other jammers and they never worked or if they did it was only some of the time they were able to jam the guns. The BLINDER however did what they said it would do. It’s a well made piece of equipment. It looks good, and is made in a tough aluminum case. Unlike the others, it came over as a high quality product.
Can we recommend it, YES, we can.
Oh yes, just in case you are wondering do I use it……….. you’re right, I do! In fact all the people at the test have bought one!