July, 2014

now browsing by month


2014 Summer LIDAR Jammer Test – North California Testing Group




After a long winter battering the United States, testing radar detectors and LIDAR jammers had to wait until better weather.  On June 29, 2014, four of our forum members (jdong (ECCTG), OpenRoad (ECCTG), unoriginalname, and STS134) got together and tested their LIDAR jammer setups against two very common LIDAR guns used by speed enforcement officials in northern California.  This had been a long awaited test, since most of our tests prior to 2014 were on the popular Laser Interceptor and Blinder HP-905 systems.  Additionally, this past winter, not many of our members had the new AntiLaser Priority (ALP) system, and this made event coordination for testing a challenge and left many readers and prospective buyers wondering the effectiveness of this new jammer.  Almost ten months since the ALP began selling here in the United States by one of our Preferred Vendors, we now have a good mix of AntiLaser Priority, Laser Interceptor, and Blinder members on the forum.  This leads to where we are now, and the following LIDAR jammer test demonstrated the effectiveness of the new AntiLaser Priority in terms of sensitivity, power, and jamming, and the test also highlighted some important information regarding installations of these systems.


Test Information


Weather: Sunny and clear

Course: Flat industrial lot; testing range was approximately 1,100 feet

Testing Course - Industrial Warehouse Area

Testing Course – Industrial Warehouse Area

Testing Speed: 30 mph

Testing Spots on Vehicles: Passenger Headlight (PHL), Center Mass (CM), Driver Headlight (DHL); rear tests were conducted on one test vehicle equipped with a rear sensor

Vehicle Setups

Setup information on 4 test vehicles

Setup information on 4 test vehicles


Laser Interceptor: 8.16A (released 20 May 2014)

Blinder: 14.02.01 (released 12 March 2014)

AntiLaser Priority: 4.3.6 (released 06 June 2014)


In this product testing, two LIDAR units were used to measure the speeds of the four targeted vehicles.  The Laser Technology Inc. TruSpeed S and TruSpeed units were used primarily because California speed enforcement agencies commonly use them for ticketing and revenue generation.  Secondly, these units provide good testing due to their shooting distance, beam width, and anti-jamming features.

  • TruSpeed and Truspeed S Comparisons

Laser Technology Inc. (LTI) TruSpeed

Laser Technology Inc. (LTI) TruSpeed

Type Measurement
Speed Accuracy  +/- 1 mph
Speed Range +/- 200 mph
Range Accuracy +/- 6″
Range Resolution 0.01 ft
Range 50 ft to 2,000 ft (non-LR)
50 ft to 3,000 ft (LR)
Acquisition  0.33 sec
Beam Width  2.5 ft @ 1,000 ft
Eye Safety  CDRH Class 1
Operating Temp  -22° to 140°F
Power  2 C Batteries
I/O Data Port  RS-232 Serial Port
Laser Wavelength  905nm
Profile (H x W x L)  7.75″ x 3″ x 11.75″
 Weight  2.75 lbs w/ batteries
 Pulse Rate 200 pps

Laser Technology Inc. (LTI) TruSpeed S

Laser Technology Inc. (LTI) TruSpeed S

Type Measurement
Speed Accuracy  +/- 1 mph
Speed Range +/- 200 mph
Range Accuracy +/- 6″
Range Resolution 0.1 ft
Range 50 ft to 2,000 ft
Acquisition 0.33 sec
Beam Width 3.5 ft @ 1,000 ft
Eye Safety CDRH Class 1
Operating Temp -22° to 140°F
Power  1 CR 123A Battery
I/O Data Port RS-232 Serial Port
Laser Wavelength  905nm
Profile (H x W x L) 5.2″ x 4.5″ x 2.1″
Weight  0.9 lbs w/ battery
 Pulse Rate 4,000 pps


 Results of Test

North California Testing Group - 29 June 2014 LIDAR Jammer Results

North California Testing Group – 29 June 2014 LIDAR Jammer Results



Based on the above results, overall the AntiLaser Priority and Blinder setups demonstrated solid LIDAR gun interference and protection for the drivers.  The abbreviation JTG seen in the table cells represents “Jam To Gun.”  This essentially means that the operator of the TruSpeed units was unable to acquire a measured speed on the vehicle throughout the entire course distance.  The test results on unoriginalname’s vehicle show the distance at which the LIDAR operator was able to acquire a speed measurement.  Since it is uncommon to attain measured readings at distances greater than 401 feet, the vehicle was tested six additional times, and the results occurred specifically with the Laser Interceptor’s sensor on the driver’s side of the vehicle.  Although the additional readings were measured between 201 and 400 feet and not found to be of issue with the passenger side sensor, these results point to a serious problem with the driver’s side sensor.  The most likely problem with the Laser Interceptor setup is due to a bad sensor, since the alignment and installation of the system was done to standard.


Tests were conducted on only one vehicle equipped with a rear sensor.  STS134’s vehicle had one AntiLaser Priority sensor installed in the rear of the vehicle.  The results of the test showed the AntiLaser Priority’s impressive power and sensitivity capable of providing protection on a small car from two challenging LIDAR guns.  The sensitivity of the sensors provided coverage against attempted readings on the vehicle’s headlights and rear tail lights.  Secondly, the power of the AntiLaser Priority’s sensor overcame any potential reflected signals from the two LIDAR guns, as compared to having an ideal setup with two sensors counter-firing the threat.


Lastly, a topic of discussion that arose at a testing meet in Seattle this past April was the potential problem with installing AntiLaser Priority sensors.  During that test, one of the test vehicle’s ALP system was not providing protection in preliminary trials.  The members evaluated the setup and determined that one of the front sensors was angled off by 1 degree.  After making an adjustment to the angle of the sensor and testing the setup, the results were consistent with a solid setup and the attempted LIDAR speed readings were not attainable by the operator.  This caused concern since it was thought that the sensors were too sensitive and had to be installed in a perfect manner.  Sensor installations are easily angled off by 1 degree, and furthermore, deviations in the road and changes in car height can affect an initial perfect installation.

In testing jdong’s AntiLaser Priority setup during this test, the results brought closure to the lingering assumption of having a perfect sensor installation as described above.  jdong’s AntiLaser Priority sensors were not installed according to conventional methods.  In fact, some members would describe the sensor installations as poor, since the sensors were held to the plastic grill with Velcro, and the sensors were recessed in the grill.  Clearly a setup like this will have great variation of sensors angled outward / inward or pointed up / down; however testing showed that the AntiLaser Priority sensors neutralized the threats of the TruSpeed and TruSpeed S throughout the entire length of the course and protected the driver against targeted areas like the lights.

Additional Testing Against Radar Detectors

Although radar detectors can alert users to radar usage by speed enforcement agencies at great distances, detection of of LIDAR sources does not provide the same level of protection to users since LIDAR guns need approximately 0.3 seconds to measure the speed of a vehicle at great distances.  Despite this drawback, the ability of a radar detector capable of detecting LIDAR can potentially safeguard a driver against a ticket if they avoid being the target and are alerted to LIDAR scatter amongst a pack of vehicles around them.  As a result, our members decided to test the ability of their radar detectors to detect the TruSpeed and TruSpeed S LIDAR guns:

Radar Detector TruSpeed TruSpeed S
Escort Passport Max X*  –
Escort Redline X
*Note: The Passport Max was shot at point blank range



After almost 10 months since the AntiLaser Priority (ALP) was released here in the United States, our forum has steadily developed a group of AntiLaser Priority users.  Some of these users are new and some are veteran users who have switched to the AntiLaser Priority due to its craftsmanship, updated firmware that combats all the current LIDAR guns, and because of the current accessories such as the ALPConnect app that allows alerts and settings to be changed on the fly.  This summer test demonstrated the sensitivity and power of the new ALP, and brought closure to an area of concern regarding sensor installations that developed during a similar testing meet in Seattle by one of our other groups of enthusiasts.  To demonstrate the sensitivity and power of the AntiLaser Priority, one test vehicle with a rear mounted ALP sensor provided total protection against both LIDAR guns (TruSpeed and TruSpeed S).  Despite being targeted on the headlights and tail lights, which are considered challenging shots, the ALP sensors detected the beam of these LIDAR guns and countered the attempted speed readings.  Although one sensor is not recommended for vehicle protection against LIDAR, this real world test showed that one ALP sensor has the capability to deliver protection on a small compact car.  Secondly, the test showed that sensor installations do not have to be 100% perfect.  One of the test vehicles had sensors installed and held in place to the plastic grille with Velcro.  Moreover, the sensors were recessed into the grille.  Both of these installation practices are not recommended because they fail to keep the sensors level over time, and recessed sensors detect off-axis LIDAR encounters poorly.  In the April 2014 test in Seattle, one of the test vehicles was failing and allowing the LIDAR operator to attain speed measurements.  After the owner inspected the sensor installation and found it to be “1 degree” off from pointing straight ahead, he adjusted it and the following tests yielded complete protection and immunity from the LIDAR guns.  This potential problem of not having a perfect installation was laid to rest in this June 2014 test when jdong’s setup provided 100% protection in all the test runs.  Although the manufacturers recommend the sensors to be completely level and pointed straight ahead in front of the vehicle, minor deviations are allowable and will still provide protection for users; however, sensors that are clearly pointing up or down or the sides by 5 or more degrees should exercise caution and test their installations to ensure they are protected.  Overall, the AntiLaser Priority displayed its potential and power during this test, and we expect many more ALP users in the future who will enjoy driving and protecting their vehicles against LIDAR threats.



  • Forum discussion on this test – click here
  • Vendor for the AntiLaser Priority  – click here
  • Vendor for the Laser Interceptor [LaserInterceptorUSA] – click here
  • Vendor for the Blinder HP-905 – click here