Speed camera detectors

[Rolferoo]

Folks,

My new job entails a lot of motoring.  Can anyone recommend a speed camera detector other than the Mk I Eyeball that is cheap, effective and unlikely to be made illegal?  I have a budget of �100.

Also, ones that jam radar singals are to be made illegal, how will the police know you have one?  Will this include a model called a Silver Bullet?

For what it's worth, I do drive sensibly and within the speed limits, I just want one for piece of mind.

Cheers.

[Cockney_si]

I'm sure the government is going to outlaw these soon.

Surely you'r own judgement of speed is at fault if you say you drive sensibly and within the limits?

Perhaps you need a less powerful car.

[jake-the-peg]

I think there can be more to this than one's judgement of speed.

A village my wife regularly drives through has one of those "slow down" signs that light up when you go through them at above 30. The other day the guy in front of her went through it at a speed she reckoned to be between 30 and 40 and she was surprised to note that it didn't light up - she reckoned that it must be broken or switched off.

Guess what she found 50 yards further on - yep a police speed trap.

They'd clearly turned off the warning sign because they'd thought they wouldn't catch as many people under normal circumstances.

Frankly if the police are going to fight dirty I don't see any reason why Rolferoo shouldn't fight dirty too.

[ursula62]

At the end of the day, breaking the speed limit is illegal - whatever the reason.  

Yes, some police forces maybe using speed cameras as a way to make money, but if you weren't speeding you wouldn't get caught.

It's simple - if you always obey the limits you won't get done for speeding.

[kempie]

ursula62 - Many things are illegal and yet the police do not enforce them with the same zeal as they do speeding vehicles.

I do not condone speeding per se however, unless you are using cruise control, the only way to ensure you remain at or below the limit is to take your attention away from the road ahead (and behind and at the sides). Is it not strange that many cameras are placed  after an incline (which causes traffic to bunch) or congested level roads, both of which require you to be more alert to the vehicles around you rather than the exact reading of your speedometer.

If the safety aspect were true I would be for cameras but all evidence is to the contrary.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html

[Gef]

Kempie, during your driving test you must have been able to keep to the limit and concentrate on the road ahead. Has something changed?

This topic comes up again and again and I wonder why. We have speed limits - why not obey them?

[kempie]

When I was learning to drive many years ago I was advised by my instructor that after passing my test I should drive slightly above the limit "to aid traffic flow". I never took this advice even though it was before the cult of speed cameras.

I agree with law enforcement of all types (including those beyond the scope of limiting speed). The point I was making is that driving involves a host of skills directly related to safety, such as not hitting pedestrians or other cars; whereas diverting your attention toward your speedometer (a double-check response to seeing a camera) surely is not one of them. If anything it is fractionally detrimental to safety and so should not be used as an argument for the proliferation of cameras.

[jake-the-peg]

My point is that the way the police force in question were acting was such to make it harder to allow people to keep to the speed limit.

Nobody can watch their dials and drive safely all the time and when people are getting ticketed for being one or two miles an hour over and signs are being switched off you are getting perilously close to entrapment.

I also find it very difficult to take seriously the governments line on safety when many lives could be have been saved by simply insisting all new cars must be fitted with anti-lock brakes - I know this is about to come in via EU legislation but there is no reason that the UK couldn't have acted unilaterally on this years ago 

Nobody condones drink driving nor running red lights nor extreme speeding but ticketing people for 32 in a 30 is simply out of order.

[Cockney_si]

My car comes with a factory fitted sign that warns me if I'm going too fast, also it lights up in the dark when I have my lights on.

It's called the speedometer.

[Rolferoo]

Blimey, I was asking for a run down of the anti-radar gun devices, not a synopsis of how and how not to drive!

[Impret-Sir]

In an attempt to actually answer your question Rolferoo, I think you will be hard pressed to get anything for �100, particularly new. I would reccommend a road angel, which will warn you about gatsos, truvelos etc, via the GPS system and can be updated via the web to keep current. It is debatable that so called radar detectors are any use anyway, by the time the gadget has detected the radar, the radar has detected you!

Have a look on ebay, they do appear second hand on there.

[Greenbhoy]

Driving job or speeding/getting caught with a "device"...is it really worth it?

Stick to the limits and you won't have to fear losing your job.

[Royal Pollen]

I can offer a better idea than a Jammer.

THIS IS TRUE IM NOT LIEING.

It works like this.

When the letter for notification arrives, it asks you who was driving. Now, that is an illegal question.

Whoever is being asked, has the right, under European Law, not to incriminate themselves.

What this means is that whoever was driving doesn't have to answer the question,'Who Was Driving'?

Its an Illegal question.

Just write back threatening to sue the authority because they are asking 'someone' an illegal question.

They wont write back, but if they do, give them a final warning.

That will be it.

To sue through the small claims court for an illegal question will cost them a fortune and the cases are already in the sytem. THEY WILL LET YOU GO

[kempie]

What the hell is an "illegal question"?

The law only requires 'safety' cameras to identify the vehicle. It is the responsibility of the registered keeper to know who was driving their vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. Failure to supply details of the driver could result in a prosecution under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

The situation has not changed since the introduction of the Human Rights Act, which came into force on 2nd October 2000. The registered keeper of a vehicle is still legally obliged to declare who was driving it at the time of an alleged offence.

[Royal Pollen]

Under British Law this might be the case. But under European Law, whoever was driving has 'the right not to incriminate themselves'.

The authorities, by asking who was driving, is asking that person to incriminate themselves. 

Its simple.

These cases are already before the court and while they're being decided yours will be forgotten

And the proof is in the pudding. IT WORKS, IVE DONE IT, AS HAVE LOTS OF POLICEMAN.

Don't just dismiss something that works because YOU dont like the sound of it.

[kempie]

Apologies to Rolferoo for digressing once again.

Royal Pollen - which pudding is the proof in?

I would contend that it is my 'right' to disagree with something I "don't like the sound of".

IMHO everyone who espouses their 'rights' should also advocate the other side of that very same coin, their responsibilities.

IMHO a responsible person would admit to their infractions and face the consequences. Yes, this is self incrimination but I have more respect for that than chasing after a 'get out of jail free card'.

[Impret-Sir]

Royal Pollen, that dodge has been around for years, and it is generally accepted that it doesnt work, if you refuse to tell the police who was driving they will get very angry indeed and you will get charged with obstructing justice, its an urban myth that this works, and sorry, I dont believe that you have done it.

[Royal Pollen]

Well, im not sure what to say. Ive been called a liar.

All i can do is tell my story.

I ride fast bikes. i got flashed and received the form that asked me (how would i know that) who was riding.

YOU DO NOT REFUSE TO TELL THE DVLC/AUTHORITY (not the Police) WHO WAS RIDING/DRIVING.

you return the form unanswered with the explanation that, as far as you understand, WHOEVER was riding/driving has the right under european law NOT TO INCRIMINATE themselves.

You recieve another letter back (how would i know this) saying. It maybe your belief under european law that....Blah Blah Blah but under Road traffic act XXXX you must.

At this point you threaten to get a lawyer and sue them if they keep hassling you.

YOU WILL HEAR NO MORE, I PROMISE.

I am not Lying and im quite offended by the suggestion

Look, try it, it works, I PROMISE

I bet the person who called me a liar is guessing.....IM NOT

[ursula62]

Royal

There was an article about this in one of the bike mags recently.

Basically they said that although what you say is technically correct in fact it can cost you more if you follow that advice. Best thing to do is cough up and take the points if you're found out.

I am a biker myself and frankly I can't see why anyone, fast bike/car or not, would want to exceed the speed limits. They are there for a reason.

I consider the manufacturers irresponsible in making cars and bikes with a top speed of 180 mph when the speed limit is 70 mph.

[Ducati]

Yawn - I see the 'we have a speed limit why not obey it' brigade are out in force - these utterly conscientious whiter than white paragons of virtue, are probably the same people that hog the middle lane of a motorway as if their lives depend on it.

The fact of the matter is that our speed limit on motorways and dual carriageways is out of date.

I have been 'done' by a piggy bank - it was 2am on a bright, dry night on a deserted dual carriageway, and I was doing 80 in a 70. This is NOT right, and i'll argue until I'm blue in the face about this. 80 MPH in these circumstances is safe - and if there was a copper about, I would not have been done. Simple as that.

So, best of luck with the detector - anything that levels the playing field is a good thing.

[Royal Pollen]

I just read some biker saying that what i have said will cost you more in the Long run. But they gave no reason for this.

You cant just say things like that, you have to give proof.

Ive given my evidence. Ive done this even though someone who doesn't know me had the ill manners to call me a liar without giving a reason how they arrived at that conclusion.

the people in this thread speaking out against what im suggesting our giving no reasons other than their bleeding harts.

Habeas Corpus. You're innocent till proven guity in a court of Law and all that. I may or may not have been speeding that day, but the procedures in place to bring me to court were ILLEGAL, I am innocent as you will be if you follow my advice. Thats the LAW. you say the Law is important but only if you get the result YOU want.

To those who bang on about sticking to the legal limit of the road speed. 1st, one of them said they were a biker. well, please dont invite me or anyone i know out for a ride with you. 2nd just follow any police car around London. They all speed. no-one sticks to the limit.