Radar detectors NB

[KevB]

Following on from the thread on digital speed camera's, I have come to the conclusion it's time to invest in a radar detector. Any recommendations on which make/models work and which don't.

Thanks.

Kevin

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana</A>

 

[tcm]

hm

the raved-about ones are Valetine 1, but not cheap.

but much better is to take the number plates off your car, and then ring the police to say they have been nicked. Get the wife to take the number plates off the car when you aren't looking and and it's not actually a lie! Not too expensive a fine if you do get nicked for having no number plates anyway.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[KevB]

Yes I think you are right, about a £30 fine for not having/obscuring ones number plates.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana</A>

 

[pissativlypossed]

Bought a Snooper from Halfords which works well, in so much as it has never failed to spot a speed camera, there are 2 problems that i am aware of though, firstly,and most annoyingly, it picks up all types of radar bands, this includes automatic door openers on garages etc and traffic light controllers so it goes off all the time and I tend to ignore it for this reason. The second problem is that they will not detect the newer digital cameras, for this you need the detecters based on a gps system which gives the location automatically. There is an annual subscription for this type, but this enables you to regularly download updates on the location of new instalations. Expensive but better then contributing to Blairs holiday fund!

<hr width=100% size=1>"Open Another Bottle"

 

[britemp]

Plus 5 years for conspiracy. . . . . . /forums/images/icons/wink.gif


<hr width=100% size=1><< Sig removed at request from Kim Hollamby - he thought it might scare forumites! >>

 

[pistonbroke]

Road Angel is superb, £350 ish but it's saved me numerous times!!!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Dave1258]

Does anyone feel sorry for shoplifters? Should store detectives walk round with a bright yellow jacket on saying 'Store Detective' on it?

Driver education is what's needed in this country. None of this namby pamby don't upset the motorist rubbish. If you are caught using a mobile phone whilst driving the phone should be confiscated. Speeding twice within a year, once if excessive, 10 hours driving tuition and retake your driving test.

Less camera's more patrols. Better driving standards and we can save money on not having road humps etc. 10 people a day die on Britains roads, that's 70 people a week. If a train or plane crashed killing that many every week there would be uproar!

Forget all the little gadgets, keep your eyes on the road and drive within the speed limits. Rant over.......


<hr width=100% size=1> A man should have two things in life, a boat and a wife willing to let him have one.

 

[pissativlypossed]

Agree with all that Dave, but do you really belive that the cameras are there in the name of road safety, come on, get real. They are another form of tax collection, Which would not be such a problem if the money collected went back in making the roads safer for everyone. The money will end up buying some convicted scroat a new pair of trainers or sending them on a holiday.

<hr width=100% size=1>"Open Another Bottle"

 

[Dave1258]

Is it just me being stupid but I always thought there was an easier/cheaper way of avoiding fines/penalty points/court appearances/criminal record/loaded insurance premiums, etc.

PS placed on record - *not* a supporter of the current regime but a firm believer in practical road safety measures

<hr width=100% size=1> A man should have two things in life, a boat and a wife willing to let him have one.

 

[KevB]

I wouldn't feel cheated if I was stopped for speeding by the Police, I begrudge getting caught by these money making cameras. Speed rarely is the major factor of an accident. Obviously people who excessively speed need to be brought to justice but this of us who do maybe 10-20 mph over the limit on suitable roads are easy picking for the government.

The Governments spin on speeding isn't believed by the majority and most realise it's just an attack on the law abiding motorist.

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana

 

[Bergman]

Not sure about the logic of your argument.

Increasing number of prosecutions must indicate that lots of people are ignoring speed limits - which is why there is no significant reduction in fatalities.

When number of prosecutions starts to fall then so should number of fatalities.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

"When number of prosecutions starts to fall then so should number of fatalities."

That’s illogical.

Stopping all speed cameras would cut prosecutions overnight but would not alter the number killed.

If speed cameras were a deterrent then fatalities would drop but they do not – so if there is no deterrent one is left asking the question why?


<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[halcyon]

Speed does not kill, inappropriate speed kills.

A speed limit is only appropriate for one set of conditions, thus in most cases a waste of time.

What we want is the Col Reg's rule 6,

"every car shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that it can take proper and effective action to avoid collision, and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prvailing circumstances and conditions."

Now that with Police patrol cars, I could agrre with, and would be a effective tool in reducing road deaths.


Brian

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

May seem illogical when taken out of context but the point is that large numbers of people prefer to risk fines disqualification etc to driving within speed limits.

The belief is that if everyone drove within the speed limits then the number of fatalities would decrease. Not necessarlily the number of accidents, but from the simple case that a low speed accident is less likely to prove fatal than a high speed one. From that if the number of people exceeding the speed limit was reduced then the number of prosecutions would reduce and the number of fatalities would reduce - hence the logic of my original statement.

I agree that cameras are not proving a sufficient deterrent, the question is what to do about it, assuming that 3000+ deaths a year is judged to be an unacceptable price to pay for the pleasures of fast driving.

Drawing a parallel with other unacceptable activities such as vandalism theft burglary etc the usual call, at least in this forum, is for tougher sentences and greater police effort to catch the culprits - and rightly so in my opinion.

But why should driving too fast be different?

I remember a time when drinking and driving was considered an "acceptable" activity. Lots of people saying things like "I can drive better after a few pints".

Over the last few years this view has gone out of fashion (fortunately) and drinking and driving has become socially much less acceptable than it was.

Why is speeding different.

I appreciate the notion that speed itself is not the problem but unacceptable speed in the wrong circumstances at the wrong time in the wrong conditions is really to blame. But really that is completely un-definable in law and unmanageable in practice and most certainly impossible to train into new drivers. Which leaves us with arbitrary limits.

Using stats to show that speed is only a minor cause of accidents is misleading. You might as well say that boy racers in stolen cars is a minor cause. The fact is that almost every accident is a result of a number of significant factors that coincide in time and place. There is no single panacea that will make a large difference "at a stroke"

Reducing the number of road casualties involves addressing a number of factors of which speed is one, but not the only one.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Its_Only_Money]

"Less camera's more patrols"

Hear hear, trouble is that the camera's are used as an excuse to reduce the number of patrols, even if cameras worked and reduced "breaking the speed limit" as a cause of accidents/fatalities, when we then need to move onto the next cause we won't be able to as there won't be any patrols to do it.....

Crminalising a large part of the population just won't achieve the aim....

Oh, Road Angel is the one to have IMHO.....even has a NMEA output so you could use it as a spare GPS position source for a PC/plotter if you wanted......

<hr width=100% size=1>Rgds

Simon
Its Only Money
Fairline Sprint
Solent-based

 

[Gludy]

"Reducing the number of road casualties involves addressing a number of factors of which speed is one, but not the only one. "

I 100% agree with that BUT the statistics show that speed cameras do not deter and so why keep spreading them?

It is logical to state that if everyone drove within the speed limit there would be fewer accidents and fatalities .... its just that speed camears do not achive this.

The drink driving campaign worked because it brought about a change in attitude - cameras just bring about a cynical hostile attitude and the results show they do not work.



<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[Bergman]

Agree entirely that what we have is an attitude problem. It appears somehow acceptable to drive (too) fast. Hence the original point of this post, buying radar sets to allow people to avoid cameras - or to help break the law and get away with it - depending upon your point of view.

I am not at all clear when and why the change in attitude to D & D came about, I don't think it was from a reduction in the effort to prosecute people.

One difference is the automatic disqualification for drinking & driving, it is this that most people fear the most and which most people go to great lengths to avoid.

Perhaps the answer is more draconian sentences for speeding, perhaps disqualification at 6 points instead of 12, or prison for the most flagrant offences.

I agree that there is a "being seen to do something" sort of attitude to speed cameras, although its hard to see what else is available, I would have great doubts about diverting substantial police resources from addressing vandalism, theft mugging etc to increase "preventative" patrols. A police car is a considerable cost and I think I would rather see that resource used elsewhere.



<hr width=100% size=1>