Radar detectors

These are the ones that measure your average speed over a distance of a mile or so by optically reading your number plate using a series of video cameras linked to a central computer.

Oh, and just in case, you better get some car insurance too as it also knows who is and isn't insured.

Allan

How does it know whether your insured? Do insurance companies share databases with DVLA?

quote:

---

How does it know whether your insured? Do insurance companies share databases with DVLA?

---

Allan

http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/

Regards

Chris

These days with the onset of age, I have no time to worry about the distracting beeps and warbles emitted by annoying bloody radar detectors while crawling around the M25 at 22 mph. I need all my mental faculties concentrated on the slapper in front applying makeup/arguing with girlfriend on cellular/negotiating traffic comprised of same, and agitated mums on the school ruun (ruin?) in their dangerous american people-carriers (troop carriers?)/expensive german people carriers (delete which not applicable - they're still badly driven anyway)...

Teleportation is the only answer to automated speed enforcement. Bring on the Tomorrow People!

Rico - let them eat Kans... the girlie wusses.

quote:

---

These are the ones that measure your average speed over a distance of a mile or so by optically reading your number plate using a series of video cameras linked to a central computer.

---

Is this anything to do with those cameras on blue bollards, that you see every mile or so? They're owned by Traffic Master aren't they? I believe they measure traffic conditions by reading car number plates, and timing the intervals between that and the next camera to gauge the average speed on certain routes.

You know the rules.........if you speed, you risk paying the penalty.

The higher the speed, the higher the risk of a fatality in the event of an accident.

Any initiative which forces people to drive at the correct speed is to be applauded.

Speed is becoming the new drink and drive, it will not be tolerated.

Regards

Mick

The point of speed trap cameras is that they are an effective way of identifying drivers who break the speed limits and it does not take up much police resource at all.

It serves the dual purpose of keeping motorist slow and is also a revenue earner as well. This benifits society.

To my mind, if you break the limit, you do so at your own risk and there is no reason to moan when you are caught.

Speed limits are imposed for safety reasons and there is no reason to feel sorry for those who transgress the law.

Regards

Mick

FYI, elk are designed with their body just above the hight of the front bumper. When you hit them they roll up the bonnet and crush the windscreen / A-pillers (as was the case with yesterday's accident), this usually rights off the car / elk and, not uncommonly, the front seat occupants.

I have no problems with people driving fast, but please consider youself, other road users and potential victims.

/david

Sense is what is needed before sitting behind the wheel, not blanket speed limits.

‘Safety Fast’ as MG used to say in the Sixties…

Steve

The authoritie need to make our roads safer and this becomes more important as the traffic population increases.

Accidents cause not only personal problems for those invovled but are also a financial drain on the economy.

HMG have made it known that more vigorous MOT's will be introduced, tougher driving tests will come into being and speed restrictions will be enforced by the use of low cost options such as speed cameras.

The penalties for those who fail to comply will probably be based on removal of the driving licience for a short period (say 4-12 weeks) rather than penalty points or monetary fines.

The days of belting around at 90mph on motorways are soon coming to an end and rightly so.

The main point to remember, that most fatalities involve people in their 20's/30's and that is a tragedy for the families concerned including orphaned children.

I would rather have road safety measures more rigidly enforced if the result is less injuries and fatalities on the roads.

It was a culture shock in the eighties, being told not to drink and drive but we now accept it as being reasonabale and right. The next culture shock is being made to reduce your speed but it will happen.

Regards

Mick

Generally speaking people obey laws that they see to be just. Where they see abuse of the legal system, they rebel. The inevitable consequence of the use of speed cameras for revenue earning, based on identification via registration numbers, is that more and more people will not register their cars and will not insure them and why then bother with an MOT?

cheers

Nigel

quote:

---

Speed cameras are to do with raising money for the Constabulary, any safety benefits (if there are any) are a by-product.

---

Allan

You can argue until the cows come home. Speed cameras are a fact of life and will become more prevalent as time goes by.

They may be hidden or exposed but they will be there. If you break the limit, you will pay the penalty. There is no point moaning about it because you know the rules.

How HMG spends the fine money is irrelavent. The point is that after a couple of fines, all of us, except the most reckless will slow down. Nothing wrong with that.

Regards

Mick.........never had a penalty point or fine in my life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Mick.........never had a penalty point or fine in my life.

---

You out ran them in your Jag that's why

I think we agree with you regarding the safety aspect, but like guns, cars are harmless. It's who's firing/driving them that can be dangerous.

One more thing. Caravan owners who speed (and fishtail down the road). Have you ever wondered why snails are so slow? Think about it.

Steve

Nil points, fines, accidents (touch wood).

quote:

---

Any money raised by speed cameras goes into a central government fund NOT the constabulary. Individual constabularies are then entitled to bid for money from that fund for the purpose of installing further speed cameras provided they can make a case on safety benefits.

---

Allan

I think that was the Party Line. Unless I'm very much mistaken constabularies will shortly get the dosh for themselves... (if it's not already happening)... and there is no link between speed cameras and road safety. To the point that BC and Alberta (IIRC) have abolished speed cameras recently, citing zero provable links to road saftey, and merely a form of tax. They are more prepared to enforce road saftey by using patrol officers - a proven road safety measure.

And here in UK, we all just roll over and pay up, and never stop to wonder why gatzos are sited in such safe areas - wouldn't want a camera technician injured whilst refilling a gatzo coz it was in an accident black spot now, would we? Don't get me started on taxation of motorists in UK - less than 9p of your precious litre of petrol is oil company/distribution/retail costs... the rest is govt. tax! And it doesn't even go back into the roads.

Mick is right to some degree - it's a clear case of user pays. Unfortunately, we can choose to pay more by travelling at 90mph on the M roads... and pay via increased fuel consumption (which is in fact a saving to industry and the country when an execs time is factored in as opposed to sitting in the sunny M25 parking lot) - it's just a full-on double-whammy for those attracting a speeding fine.

Rico - Save the Kans!

quote:

---

As to likelihood of injury at speed, anything over 40mph, your car (& probably you) will need much medical attention. Just look at anything that’s been in an NCAP test for proof. But we can’t be driving around limited to 40mph can we.

---

Stephen,

You seem to be implying that if your going over 40mph you're going to be killed or maimed anyway so why not do 80mph?

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't these crash tests done at 40mph into a solid block of concrete?

If so, in a real life collision into another car of similar weight, the impact would be much less severe, as the 2 vehicles would share the impact and the second car would crumple as well, further 'softening' the blow.

Also, at say 60mph you're far more likely to avoid a collision (or at least reduce your speed to something less deadly at the time of impact) than if you're doing 80mph or more.

I personally would prefer speed cameras to the dreadful speed humps they're putting everywhere around here which slows you to around 15 miles per bloody hour!

Steve B

Until recently I have driven Jaguars with a 4.2 engine. I am currently car-less until I have made up my mind what I want. I am finding it more convenient than anticiapted to rely on taxis and the wifes car for getting about. It takes me only 15 mins to walk to work and that brings its own health rewards.

Also please do not think that I am a paragon of virtue because I am not. I think that I have been pulled up 7 times by the Police on the motorway for breaking the limit. Fortunately I have talked my way out of it and was let off on all occassions. Always be nice to the Police, smile and ooze charm.

However, if I had been fined or whatever, I would have complained to no one.

Regards

Mick

I think this quote from Steve B is good

quote:

---

Also, at say 60mph you're far more likely to avoid a collision (or at least reduce your speed to something less deadly at the time of impact) than if you're doing 80mph or more.

---

I was involved in an argument with 3 other people a few months ago on this very subject. All three are 100% certain that they are top-class drivers and are therefore able to keep full control of their vehicle at speeds around 100mph on the M1. My argument was, "Accepting you're all ace drivers, what about normal people who aren't as good as yourselves. Someone else may make a mistake and if you're doing 100mph rather than 70mph you will have less time to react to their error". Needless to say, they were so blinded by their perception of their own abilities that they couldn't see the point. This just about sums up the type of person you're dealing with.

Brian

quote:

---

and judging by that experience I very much doubt that I could have stopped the car in a straight line from 70mph, let alone 100.

---

Well you can't be an 'ace' driver then.

The speeders among us disregard that argument too because, naturally, they can cope with these things.

Brian

I was once very nearly a magistrate and I am often asked to reconsider my decision to become one.

If someone came up before the bench spouting the sort of drivel that you have, they could expect a very severe sentence indeed.

You are demonstrating a foolhardy attitude and its only a matter of time before you are involved in an accident. I hope you feel that your driving prowness is sufficient excuse if someone is injured or killed when you are involved in an accident....naturally it was not your fault, it's theirs because they cannot drive as good as you.

If ever you came up before me ........expect a disqualification.

Regards

Mick ....I might reconsider and become a magistrate now just to keep idiots like you off the road.

Mick

Err, not quite with you there, Mick. I'm on your side. Read my post again and then I'll accept your apology for calling me an idiot.

BTW I'm not 'BD' anymore. I'm PYTHON for now.

Brian

[This message was edited by Python on SUNDAY 02 September 2001 at 22:56.]

Yes I think I have made a mistake........too many names.

I fully apologise for my misinterpretation of your post.

Regards

Mick