Your reasoning is not logical.  You state incorrect premises and then
make incorrect conclusions as a result.

and yet you are 100% certain that in EVERY case what they say is not
true (that the cop would not have gone after them).  That is one of
your typical incorrect premises you use to build a case.  Plus, one
reason they can't count how many times is exactly because they can't
tell which times the RD detector DID save them and which times it was
an illusion.  But your implicit claim that in ALL cases it was an
illusion is nonsense since you, like them, have no way to know.  What
we do know, is that cops do stop some people for speeding and those of
us who do use radar detectors have many times seen the guy who just a
minute earlier zoom past us stopped a mile down the road getting a
ticket.  If that guy hadn't been zapped it could have been us, except
we may have been warned by our RD.  You, on the other hand, would have
had one less tool to rely on and as a result you would have to have
either slowed down to reduce your odds of getting a ticket, or kept
going the same speed with increased odds of getting a ticket.  In one
case you wind up traveling at reduced speed, ie. your speeding is less
efficient then it would have been with a radar detector, or you wind
up traveling with increased odds of getting ticketed.

Quite the opposite, anyone with an understanding of logic understands
that you want to have it both ways, you want to claim RDs are useless
while at the same time claiming that if YOU were using one it would
provide you with a benefit due to your superior skills.  In the world
of Brent, no one but Brent is skilled enough to use a radar detector
effectively, and yet, RDs are not effective.

Again, you want to mix two things that don't go together.  If the RD
is used effectively then you don't get stopped and your claim of a
prejudice factor is immaterial.  Not to mention that no one but you,
who doesn't use a RD detector, has observed this "prejudice factor".
It's  interesting how the person who DOESN"T use one knows more about
how things go when you do use one then the people who DO use one.
That's a very typical bizzaro-Brent world view - as always, Brent
knows more about something then the users of that something, he's just
special that way.

Post some data for this nonsense.  Plus, as I already explained to you
(not that it will do any good), if the RD is used properly you won't
get stopped.

You

I love the way you can read minds.   I've been stopped with those
"tell tale signs" and gotten a warning so factually we know your claim
is not true.

Well, thank you very much for your opinion. You do realize I hope,
that your statement above is just that, an opinion, and nothing more.
Millions of people disagree with you.  Their own experiences,
experiences you DON"T have, say you are wrong.  But don't let other
people's views or experience influence you.  You are free to hold
whatever opinion you wish, just don't claim its based on facts or
logic because it's been demonstrated many times that you have neither
the facts or a logical basis for your claims.

No one ever said they did NEED one or that ALL  "saves" are from the
RD.  Nice strawmen though.  You seem to specialize in strawmen and
tangents.  All one NEEDS in order to avoid getting ticketed is to not
speed (with due allowance for stupid and unethical cops).  

 OK, I'll agree with you, I can't personally judge your effectiveness
at using a RD.  That said, you can't judge everyone else's
effectiveness when using one because you aren't there with them, so
all your sweeping claims about how this that or the other thing IS
going to happen are just you blowing smoke out your a.s.

However, I can take YOUR statements about how RDs are essentially
useless and conclude that if YOU think they are useless that YOU don't
have any basis to think YOUR  having one would make you more
"effective" at speeding.  So it still boils down to YOUR OWN WORDS
showing that YOU have no expectation that a RD would do anything
useful for YOU.  Please explain to me how YOU would use a RD
effectively since you seem to object to the notion that Scott can't
use one Effectively.  Then once you have explained how the GREAT AND
POWERFUL SCOTT could use one effectively, explain how you can average
the same or HIGHER speeds without one and still have the same
probability of getting a ticket.  Don't lose sign of the goal, which
is speeding and not getting ticketed.  The baseline is: average speed
X results in Probability of getting ticketed Y.  You have to show how
having a RD does not allow an increase in X while holding Y constant,
or conversely, how having a RD does not facilitate decreasing Y while
holding X constant.  If the RD can increase X while holding Y
constant, or decrease Y while holding X constant, then the RD works.

I'm sorry the truth hurts Scott.  Once you get past the denial stage
you'll realize I'm right.