T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
329.12 | Too late she cried | SUBURB::HOWEI | | Mon Sep 23 1991 19:57 | 9 |
| Guys,
Actually a radar emission Detector is also good for detecting the
weaker "acquisition" waves of a radar detector.
A radar detector needs to acquire its target before it "Pings" it with the
radar wave otherwise it would "Ping" everything that passed before it.
If you get a low grade wave hitting you it might give you enough chance
to slam on the anchors before the reading wave is bounced off you.
Regards,
Iain
|
329.13 | Maybe it is just me! | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK | Mon Sep 23 1991 20:26 | 3 |
| Did i understand that?
mb
|
329.14 | Got pulled up once in the 70's .... | DCOPST::BRIANH::NAYLOR | Tigers fly, Spiders roar! | Tue Sep 24 1991 18:18 | 10 |
| Interesting experience. Mr Plod was using one of the old type radar devices,
which was a huge black box mounted on a table at the side of the road (remember
them?) and I was pulle dup even though I was only doing 28. They said their
box indicated over 100 mph and they wondered why. Seems my 2m ham rig was
putting out a rather dirty signal and it interfered with their radar.
Wonder if it'd still work? I would have my licence revoked by the Home Office
though if I persisted in transmitting dirty signals .....
brian
|
329.15 | X or K band | BRUMMY::63536::BELL | Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK | Tue Sep 24 1991 19:27 | 15 |
| The Police use X and K band signals with their radar guns, which are also valid
"ham" frequencies.
This is why the law on detectors is so vague, because they receive "legal"
bands, so you could just be another "ham".
The new Ka bands are a different kettle of fish!!!
mb
p.s.
According to this months Performance Car, there is a thriving market in the
US for old radar guns, which drivers just leave pointing out of the front of
their cars - confuses the heck out of the Police!!!!
|
329.16 | | SWEEP::PREECE | Dances-with-Wombats. | Tue Sep 24 1991 19:45 | 15 |
| >>>According to this months Performance Car, there is a thriving market in the
>>>US for old radar guns, which drivers just leave pointing out of the front of
>>>their cars - confuses the heck out of the Police!!!!
..and, presumably, trigger everyone else's radar detectors, thus causing them
to slow down and contributing greatly to road safety/traffic congestion
(delete according to viewpoint)
I wondered why they were on sale in the Whitney catalogue I just read.....
the ad. sounded a bit vague, at the time....
Ian
|
329.17 | Dial-a-speed | BRUMMY::63536::BELL | Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK | Tue Sep 24 1991 19:53 | 11 |
| Performance Car even said that some US company is making a "black box" with
a knob on the front. You dial the speed you want, and it emits that speed
for the Police to pick up with their guns.
Sounds a bit Science Fiction to me - how do you add the correct amount of
Doppler?
Now where can you purchase radar-seeking missiles?
mb
|
329.18 | | DCOPST::BRIANH::NAYLOR | Tigers fly, Spiders roar! | Tue Sep 24 1991 20:05 | 3 |
| How would the police radar gun discriminate between the two frequencies it
got back from the car, one the reflection, the other transmitted? Wouldn't
spurious reflections be a problem?
|
329.19 | | SWEEP::PREECE | Dances-with-Wombats. | Tue Sep 24 1991 20:29 | 3 |
| I think that's the idea, the "official" radr gun gets such a jumble
of signals back that it gives wild readings or lights up its
"Dunno" lamp.
|
329.20 | Even fools Iraqi traffic plod...:-) | DCC::MARTIN | The Corporate Rat... 865 3244 | Tue Sep 24 1991 20:59 | 8 |
|
The calculation of the correct doppler offset is done by a chipset
that went commercial about four years ago, previous military
application was in Brand-X cruise missile ECM circuitry. They are
reasonably freely available in the US. I have a friend who can supply
circuit diagrams of a speed radar jamming device using this chipset,
naturally I would never own one myself - they are *HIGHLY ILLEGAL*
in the US, and you will not find them available on the open market.
|
329.21 | Selling radar | TASTY::NISBET | Open the pod bay doors, Hal. | Wed Sep 25 1991 11:42 | 13 |
| I remember reading one of the 'innovations' catalogue which occasionally falls
out of the weekend newspapers. The most recent one had an advert for a
radar detector. I nearly cried at the euphemism of the sales blurb.
What it meant to say was "If you don't want to get caught speeding, buy this".
However, it ran more along the lines of, "Be aware of your speed by buying this
device ... Contribute to road safety ... (you're really being quite responsible
by buying one. etc ..."
By the way chaps, does this not come under discussion of things illegal?
Dougie
|
329.22 | Not actually illegal! | BRUMMY::63536::BELL | Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK | Wed Sep 25 1991 12:36 | 16 |
| Re: .21
> By the way chaps, does this not come under discussion of things illegal?
Recently the adverts in various car magazines include a line stating:
"Although the import, manufacture and sale of radar detectors is not illegal,
actual use of them MAY constitute an offence"
... and according to the Performance Car report, to date, nobody has been
convicted of having or using a radar detector (in the UK).
I am sure that plod would be a little more upset than normal if he found
you using one though!!!!
mb
|
329.23 | | RUTILE::BISHOP | | Wed Sep 25 1991 12:47 | 3 |
| Isn't just illegal to have them actually switched on?
If so, what's to stop you flicking the switch to off if plod stops you?
|
329.24 | EAT RADAR DEATH?? | SUBURB::HOWEI | IAIN HOWE | Wed Sep 25 1991 14:35 | 16 |
| GUYS,
Before you consider using Dial-a-speed stuff to fool plod with false
echos reflect on this story.
Two R.M.P (Army plods) were given a brand shiny new toy one day.
It was an adjustable strength Radar gun.
They decided to test it on the road outside their camp and decided that
if it worked well on 1/2 power it should work even better on full power.
A few minutes later Grandma came past doing about 35 m/ph and giving up
all hope of ever finding a speedy vehicle one of the plods turned the gun
on her.
The radar wave was (at that close range) powerfull enough to cause her
pacemaker to pack-up!
She quickly fell unconscious and crashed.
So beware of the Radar wielding police.
(Is this a new legal lethal weapon???)
|
329.25 | | CERRIN::PHILPOTT | Col I F 'Tsingtao Dhum' Philpott | Wed Sep 25 1991 15:56 | 19 |
| As I understand it, you need a licence (never in practice issued) to receive
any broadcast frequency except those used (broadly) for entertainment.
Specifically you need a licence to monitor radar frequency bands, and you
won't be able to get one.
Furthermore, it isn't necesary to have it switched on and in use, mere
installation is sufficient to get you convicted (for example try persuading the
beak that you've never switched your TV on, so don't need a licence).
In practice however I suspect that if plod find one in your vehicle they'll
book you for speeding or whatever else they can think up, but if they don't
find one you might get off with a warning.
And also remember that the plod use things like VASCAR that don't use radar
to work out your speed and a radar detector may create a false sense of
safety...
/. Ian .\
|
329.26 | In general, only use is illegal | JANUS::BARKER | Jeremy Barker - T&N/CBN Diag. Eng. - Reading, UK | Wed Sep 25 1991 16:19 | 40 |
| Re: .25
> As I understand it, you need a licence (never in practice issued) to receive
> any broadcast frequency except those used (broadly) for entertainment.
>
> Specifically you need a licence to monitor radar frequency bands, and you
> won't be able to get one.
This was the case several years ago, but as far as I know it no longer is
so. It is however illegal to use any information received by radio
transmission other than from certain sources.
> Furthermore, it isn't necesary to have it switched on and in use, mere
> installation is sufficient to get you convicted (for example try persuading
> the beak that you've never switched your TV on, so don't need a licence).
In the UK there is nothing to prevent you from owning a receiver (and in
many cases a transmitter) of any type at all. It may be illegal to sell or
import certain types of equipment and it is illegal to use a transmitter
without appropriate permission. The problem for people prosecuted for not
having a TV licence is that only if you can *prove* that you never switched
on the TV you will not be convicted. Very few people indeed can prove
this.
> In practice however I suspect that if plod find one in your vehicle they'll
> book you for speeding or whatever else they can think up, but if they don't
> find one you might get off with a warning.
More evidence than mere presence would be needed. Evidence of use could
come from the fact that a vehicle suddenly slowed down near a radar trap.
I would expect any plod worth his pay to advise a person having a radar
detector that it is probably something worthwhile getting rid of.
> And also remember that the plod use things like VASCAR that don't use radar
> to work out your speed and a radar detector may create a false sense of
> safety...
This and other things. There are many ways of measuring speed other then
by using doppler radar and most are for practical reasons undetectable
before the speed has been measured.
|
329.27 | Good job Gachot wasn't done for not having a TV licence! | NEWOA::SAXBY | Aye. When I were a lad.... | Wed Sep 25 1991 16:27 | 7 |
329.28 | Nothing new | JANUS::BARKER | Jeremy Barker - T&N/CBN Diag. Eng. - Reading, UK | Wed Sep 25 1991 16:33 | 6 |
| Re: .27
There are a lot of laws which say something like "...will be convicted unless
it can be shown that...".
jb
|
329.29 | The ability to commit an offence is a crime? | NEWOA::SAXBY | Aye. When I were a lad.... | Wed Sep 25 1991 16:38 | 9 |
|
So, effectively, mere posession of a TV without a licence is a crime,
unless you can prove that you never receive anything on it!?!?!?
Maybe posession of a fast car (presumably one capable of exceeding 30
mph!?!?!) should be a crime, unless the driver can PROVE the driver never
exceeded the speed limit?
Mark
|
329.30 | The law is an ass - again ! | JUMBLY::BATTERBEEJ | Kinda lingers..... | Wed Sep 25 1991 17:00 | 18 |
| Recently a woman was convicted because she had committed the offence
of watching an unlicenced TV. It was the telly belonging to the person
she was babysitting for. She had no idea that it was unlicenced and it
was already on when she arrived. Just another example of the law being
an ass. This seems to suggest to me that :
a) You should ask to see a persons TV licence before setting foot on
their property. There are probably countless occasions where this
is impractical or extremely unreasonable (eg. you may upset your
employer).
b) If 10 people were at a house watching an unlicenced TV it means
that *all* of them could be convicted. In fact, if the inspector
comes into the house and looks at the telly, *he* is guilty as well.
Seems to be a case of the law not being used for the purpose for
which it is intended.
|
329.31 | Good grief ! | SUBURB::VEALES | Simon Veale - DEC Park, Reading | Wed Sep 25 1991 17:07 | 2 |
| Wow, and I thought it was the householder who was responsible. Ie my
TV licence refers to me and my address, not to my TV sets.
|
329.32 | lets get outta this rathole ... | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK | Wed Sep 25 1991 17:44 | 28 |
329.33 | | DCOPST::BRIANH::NAYLOR | Tigers fly, Spiders roar! | Wed Sep 25 1991 22:06 | 29 |
| There have been cases where TV owners without licences have "got away with it"
BUT they were able to prove that the set was not tuned to any receivable
frequency AND they only watched rented video tapes AND the video receiver
was also not tuned in ..... Pretty tough stuff.
Re acting on information received....
For Mr Plod to book you with a radar gun, he must be able to see you, ergo you
must be able to see him, allbeit he's a smaller target. Who is to prove that
you didn't SEE him and act on that information?
Latest radar detector in the US ....
Install the sensors front and rear in the light clusters (not visible) and have
the warning connected to two things already found within the car, ie the seat
belt buzzer and the OXS sensor light. Permanent installation, and undetectable
unless the police know what they're looking for. Of course, they could just
fire the gun and see what happens .....
Re Dead Grangma ....
Hard to prove that the gun stopped THAT pacemaker? Coincidence, circumstantial,
or what?
Radar reception "permission" ....
Buy a radar set for your boat complete with licence .... :^)
Brian
|
329.34 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Tue Oct 01 1991 13:47 | 9 |
|
> Wow, and I thought it was the householder who was responsible. Ie my
> TV licence refers to me and my address, not to my TV sets.
Simon, the name on the licence doesn't mean a thing, it's the
property that counts........so when you move house, remember
to change the address on the TV licence.
Heather
|
329.35 | | KERNEL::SHELLEYR | On the bank of brinkruptcy | Tue Oct 01 1991 13:59 | 17 |
| Ratholing a little further regarding TV licences...
When I first bought my house 6 years ago, I didn't have a TV (through
choice) for over a year.
I was sent threatening letters every month telling me to pay for a TV
licence. There was no "if you have a TV" about it.
Dispite returning all the letters with I DO NOT HAVE A TV on it, they
just kept on coming. It only stopped when I eventually got a TV and
paid for a licence.
I guess its just assumed that _every_ household _must_ have a TV so why
aren't they paying for a licence.
Roy.
|
329.36 | | NEWOA::SAXBY | Aye. When I were a lad.... | Tue Oct 01 1991 14:00 | 4 |
|
Yeah, I got this too.
Mark
|
329.37 | Go on try yer luck...! | DCC::MARTIN | The Corporate Rat... 865 3244 | Tue Oct 01 1991 16:09 | 7 |
|
I too have suffered, and just keep returning empty sealed envelopes
to them... I only started doing this after I had returned two "I do not
have a TV forms to them", I get a reminder about every three months...!
I now have a PAL B/G/SECAM/NTSC TV and Satellite dish to play
with... no BBC or ITV...! Stuff 'em...!
|
329.38 | | LEECHS::hilton | How's it going royal ugly dudes? | Tue Oct 01 1991 16:14 | 6 |
| Some guy got taken to court over this.
He won because he proved his television was incapable of recieving ITV,BBCetc
Greg
|
329.39 | the ever changing law ... | BRUMMY::63536::BELL | Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK | Tue Oct 01 1991 16:27 | 28 |
| Re: .38
As i mentioned a few replies ago ...
The law has now been changed, and ANYBODY with TV equipment capable of
receiving signals from any UK based company (eg BBC, ITV, SKY) must now
have a valid TV licence.
The case a couple of years ago, of the chappy who modified his TV so that
it could only receive ASTRA no longer applies.
If you can ONLY receive CABLE TV, you still need a TV licence!!!!!
... talking of rat-holes, a few years ago the BBC were chasing me up because
i "didn't have a licence", but it was the BBC who had my name as BALL at the
address in question - obviously mistyped by the data entry department.
A letter, within which i transposed all "a"'s and "e"'s soon cured the problem!
mb
p.s.
I was just thinking, these futuristic cars with radar sensors mounted on the
front to stop you getting too close to the vehicle in front. You know, the
ones that Top Gear talk about when they are short of decent programme material.
Well won't they b*gger up the police radar??
|
329.40 | | CERRIN::PHILPOTT | Col I F 'Tsingtao Dhum' Philpott | Tue Oct 01 1991 17:25 | 14 |
| the cars with active radar will need to have a frequency band allocated (by
the Home Office I think), and last I heard they had said "no suitable band
is available, -- the police and military having priority"
So these cars are unlikely to be legal in Britain (other than as experimental
prototypes) for some considerable time to come.
In any event the band allocated will be rigorously tested to prove that it
can't possibly interfere with police radar, civil avaitaion and military radar,
pacemeakers, and other critical gadgets...
And then they'll probably put a power limit on it that makes it unusable...
/. Ian .\
|
329.41 | BBC has nothing to do with TV licenses | JANUS::BARKER | Jeremy Barker - T&N/CBN Diag. Eng. - Reading, UK | Thu Oct 03 1991 14:27 | 12 |
| Re: .39
The BBC has nothing at all to do with TV licensing. There is the National
Television License Records Office in Bristol which keeps the records and
the Post Office which employs the investigators.
Re: .40
I would suspect that the frequency band used by things like automatic
door openers and so forth may be usable.
jb
|
329.42 | Catch me if you can.... | JUMBLY::BATTERBEEJ | Kinda lingers..... | Thu Oct 03 1991 15:41 | 8 |
| Another thing to bear in mind - when you buy a new TV on HP or
credit, the shop you buy it from informs the records office that
you have a telly and therefore require a licence. Pretty snide
practice if you ask me. I'll pay in cash next time. Not that I'm
a licence dodger or anything :-)
Jerome.
|
329.43 | | NEWOA::SAXBY | Aye. When I were a lad.... | Thu Oct 03 1991 15:47 | 6 |
|
Don't they have to take your name and address anyway?
Best bet is to only buy second-hand teles! :^)
Mark
|
329.44 | | COMICS::WEGG | Some hard boiled eggs & some nuts. | Thu Oct 03 1991 16:38 | 11 |
| Re last 2.
They inform the licence record office no matter how you pay. I bought a
TV as a present for my mother in law once, I've been hounded ever since
because I don't have a licence in my name at her address.
A few years a go, a collegue of mine sold a TV through the classified
ads in a local newspaper. The licencing office contacted him to ask why
he'd never had a licence for it!
Ian.
|
329.45 | how to save a few bob | COMICS::HWILLIAMS | | Fri Oct 04 1991 21:20 | 12 |
329.46 | They can still prove its a colour set | OSI::BRYANT | | Fri Oct 04 1991 21:57 | 3 |
| The detector vans look for traces of the colour-burst crystal oscillator.
I imagine that this is present as a modulation component on the local oscillator
signal re-radiated from the antenna.
|
329.47 | The invisible menace? | NEWOA::SAXBY | Aye. When I were a lad.... | Mon Oct 07 1991 10:41 | 4 |
|
But have YOU ever seen a detector van? :^)
Mark
|
329.48 | Fit a diode! | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK | Mon Oct 07 1991 11:48 | 6 |
| Re: .46
so if you fit the RF equivalent of a DIODE to your aerial lead, so that none
of the "colour-burst" escapes, then they can't detect you?
mb
|
329.49 | | TRMPTN::FRENCHS | Semper in excernere | Mon Oct 07 1991 12:11 | 5 |
| Oh yes they can because the can pick up the RF radiated direct from the
oscilators etc. You could always put your TV in a Faraday cage.
Simon
|
329.50 | More exciting stuff! | SHAWB1::HARRISC | Not very nice at all | Mon Oct 07 1991 13:53 | 5 |
| Apparantly up until a couple of years ago, it wasn't possible to detect
you were watching a TV... All the detector van stuff was lies!
(I got this off a game show where one of the contestants actually drove
a detector van for a living!) ..Craig
|
329.51 | | RDGE44::ORCHARD_9 | You can lead me to a drink, but water maker me hoarse | Mon Oct 07 1991 14:03 | 2 |
| Also a few years back - they only had about 3 vans for the entire
country !!
|
329.52 | Time for a career break! | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK | Mon Oct 07 1991 14:16 | 7 |
| Re: .50
> (I got this off a game show where one of the contestants actually drove
> a detector van for a living!)
I bet the contestant didn't drive a detector van for much longer after saying
that on TV, hey!
|
329.53 | What has this to do with cars...? | DCC::MARTIN | The Corporate Rat... 865 3244 | Mon Oct 07 1991 14:32 | 5 |
|
No way, they have been able to detect (and watch) what you are
watching for as long as TV has been around... the basic principle is
that a reciever also emits radiation, and all they have to is tune
in...! This is why sensitive screens should be Tempested...
|
329.54 | lasers | KERNEL::MCGOWAN | | Mon Oct 07 1991 15:33 | 5 |
| I heard a report that the police are to begin using laser based speed
detectors - this should upset anyone that's just forked out 100 quid
for a radar detector :-)
Pete
|
329.55 | | IEDUX::jon | I'm in an Ealing comedy | Tue Oct 08 1991 20:26 | 10 |
| Re .51,
> Also a few years back - they only had about 3 vans for the entire
> country !!
There are still very few (single figures?) so the system works on a
combination of clerical checks of addresses and scare tactics such as
"Detector vans are in your area now!" TV ads.
Jon
|
329.56 | No "Boy Racer" comments please :-) | BELFST::FLANAGAN | Zoiks a giant hedgehog from Zog! | Mon Jan 20 1992 16:47 | 27 |
| Hello folks,
Does anyone have a league table of the best radar detectors, or a
pointer to a recent test.
I was interested to see some adds in this month's CAR magazine and the
outrageous price of these 'dubious' pieces of equipment. There was one
cordless model with a pricetag of 399.** quid !
Around were I live here in Northern Ireland an increasing number of
speed traps are appearing. There is a regular one just 100 yards up the
road from my house and right outside a friend of mine's. We both own RS
Turbos, and I was wondering if they were waiting on us ! :-)
I would like to hold on to a clean licence and could be persuaded to
but one of these contraptions. My cousin has a 'Whistler' (I believe)
in his BMW 325i, and he swears by it. I could probably mount it in the
living room to see if Plod was just up the road waiting with open arms
:-)
No seriously though, any info on models would be of interest. Some of
are bound to have one (or know someone who does), so just how much of a
warning, distance wise, can one expect. I have rtead through previous
replies and this is not answered in mere yards, but in some sort of
weird doppler dimension :-)
Any advice appreciated.
|
329.57 | | SBPUS4::MARK | I wanna be a slug...... | Mon Jan 20 1992 20:38 | 8 |
|
You will usually only detect the radar when it hits you or the vehicle in front.
That's pretty well too late in one case and far too late in the other. No matter
what, it isn't a defence against VASCAR. If I was you, I'd save your money for
the fine.
M.
|
329.58 | | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK | Tue Jan 21 1992 12:24 | 20 |
| I don't know too much about the properties of the radar emitted from a
radar gun, but it is a electromagnetic radiation just like light.
If you are in a dark room and someone shines a torch, even with a narrow
beam, you are going to notice reflections.
Now i think that radar only really bounces off metal, but that still leaves
other cars, crash barriers, road signs etc to help direct the signal towards
your detector.
Also, the inverse square rule applies, so the signal you are detecting will
be the SQUARE of the signal the Police radar gun picks up!
If you save the money for the fine then don't forget that it is 6 points per
offence now, so get nicked twice in three years and it is bye-bye licence!!
(one detector advertised in Car offers your money back if you get nicked in
the first year - this may help!)
mb
|
329.59 | | BELFST::FLANAGAN | Zoiks a giant hedgehog from Zog! | Tue Jan 21 1992 13:21 | 11 |
| Thanks for your replies chaps. Martin I didn't realise that it was 6
penelty points per speeding offence (not to mention the fine!). What
you mean when you say a radar detector will pick up the square
of Mr. Plod's received signal is that it will pick up a much stronger
signal, and therefore be able to detect it sooner ??
Think I'll have a deeper delve into Car, and perhaps take them up on
their offer.
Gary.
|
329.60 | They are there for a reason | WELLIN::NISBET | Disarm yourself bomb | Tue Jan 21 1992 13:41 | 21 |
|
In my experience, radar traps tend to be in Blackspots, where excessive
speeds are a contributory factor to the accident. In this respect, the
police radar traps are _in response_ to bad accidents in the past,
rather than the police simply trying to getting brownie points for
Numbers of Catches. (The A303 springs to mind. This is a very fast
road, and it is easy to belt along well in excess of 70 - however it IS
a dual carriageway, and the junctions are varied. It is possible to
encounter some extremely slow moving traffic. The notorious A74 is
another example)
So if you are trying to detect radar traps, it seems to me that you
shouldn't be travelling at law breaking speeds at these points anyway.
As for "No Boy Racer" comments. That's a bit of a cop-out. It isn't up
to you to dictate how a conversation should run. It is surely
impossible to discuss Radar Detectors without touching on Road Safety
and Criminal Activities.
Dougie
|
329.61 | | PERKY::RUTTER | Rut The Nut | Tue Jan 21 1992 14:09 | 12 |
| >> In my experience, radar traps tend to be in Blackspots, where excessive
>> speeds are a contributory factor to the accident. In this respect, the
I don't doubt that this is often the case, but isn't always so.
>> shouldn't be travelling at law breaking speeds at these points anyway.
One could argue that the radar detector may be of help in letting
the driver know that they are currently in a 'black spot' area
and subsequently cause them to slow down...
J.R.
|
329.62 | | FORTY2::PALKA | | Tue Jan 21 1992 14:51 | 25 |
| Re square of a signal.
How do you square a signal strength ?
I think you mean that the radar gun has only got a reflected signal to
work with, rather than a direct signal. The strength of the reflected
signal will be less then the direct signal (at the reflector) in all
practical situations, but there are contrived situations where the
strength of the returned signal could be much higher than the strength
of the direct signal at the reflector.
However all that means is that your detector has got an easy job to
tell you when you have entered the radar beam. A good detector has to
detect the radar signal from reflections and dispersion of the beam
when you are not in the direct beam. You really want the detector to
go off when you are further from the point at which your speed would be
measured than the radar gun is ! A speed trap would rarely be at the
end of long straight where you have been travelling towards the gun for
some time, it would normally be setup so that only a short stretch of
road is in the direct beam, otherwise there will be too much interference
from other vehicles.
Andrew
Andrew
|
329.64 | | BELFST::FLANAGAN | Zoiks a giant hedgehog from Zog! | Tue Jan 21 1992 15:09 | 16 |
| Dougie if you and I weren't mods of one in the same conference I'd biff
you :-)
No I must also say that the Police are placing speed traps all over the
place (not near accident blackspots as such) here in Northern Ireland,
or at least close to my home town. I have decided therefore to purchase
a radar detector. This will hopefully enable me to slow down significantly
to avoid the Police car parked precariously round the next bend in the
dark with no lights on in an accident blackspot. It will therefore aid me
in avoiding accidents and contribute greatly to road safety :-)
If it were only possible to purchase some sort of anti-terrorist
device. This could also be of benefit to the Police, who could arrest
some terrorists and not booking speeding motorists.
Gary.
|
329.65 | | BELFST::FLANAGAN | Zoiks a giant hedgehog from Zog! | Tue Jan 21 1992 15:12 | 5 |
| What did .63 say and who wrote it ??
It wasn't me this time !
Gary (completely innocent).
|
329.66 | The driver is responsible | WELLIN::NISBET | Disarm yourself bomb | Tue Jan 21 1992 15:14 | 26 |
| <<< Note 329.61 by PERKY::RUTTER "Rut The Nut" >>>
[ ... ]
One could argue that the radar detector may be of help in letting
the driver know that they are currently in a 'black spot' area
and subsequently cause them to slow down...
J.R.
Perhaps all drivers should have Radar Detectors to improve Road Safety.
In the absence of a radar trap, one might assume that the driver will drive
too fast in the 'black spot'. It is the responsibility of the driver to
drive at a speed which is suitable for the conditions. If he or she drives
too fast - then he or she is a bad driver.
My point is this;
Radar traps are usually there for a reason. i.e. 'Black Spots'. If a driver
has to rely on a radar detector to alert him/her to a potentially dangerous
situation, it doesn't say much for the drivers competence to handle the
vehicle.
Dougie
|
329.67 | O-Level physics | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK | Tue Jan 21 1992 15:37 | 18 |
| Re: .62
> How do you square a signal strength ?
The strength of a signal is inversely proportional to the square of the
distance it has to travel. I am sure someone will come up with the actual
maths involved.
Thus the radar gun has to produce a strong enough signal to hit you (at
the inverse square power) then bounce back again for speed measurement,
again at the inverse square of what actually bounced back off you.
This is why Police usually only use the guns over a third to half mile range
- any further and they just wouldn't work.
Detectors can pick up signals from 3 miles away!!!!
mb
|
329.68 | | BELFST::FLANAGAN | Zoiks a giant hedgehog from Zog! | Tue Jan 21 1992 16:31 | 8 |
| Very interesting stuff there Martin. I do remember reading in one or
two of the magazine adds for detectors, that they can pick up Police
radar from "up to" 3 miles away. This is what prompted me to ask in the
first place, in practical experience; what is the average distance from
which your detector can detect. I suppose this will vary according to
the type of band (whether it be X, K or Ka) being used by the Police.
Gary.
|
329.69 | | SHIPS::SAUNDERS_N | Village Idiot says RKE | Tue Jan 21 1992 16:32 | 8 |
| > don't forget that it is 6 points per offence now,
Martin,
That's news to me, where did you get the information from?
Nigel.
|
329.70 | | PERKY::RUTTER | Rut The Nut | Tue Jan 21 1992 16:37 | 19 |
| >>Radar traps are usually there for a reason. i.e. 'Black Spots'. If a driver
>>has to rely on a radar detector to alert him/her to a potentially dangerous
>>situation, it doesn't say much for the drivers competence to handle the
>>vehicle.
First, I was only putting forward a 'theoretical' argument.
I gather your reply is also in the same mode.
Whatever, I don't intend getting deeply into a rathole on this.
As for the location of radar traps - if the trap is situated in a
concealed place (which is usually, but not always, the case) I don't see
how it really improves road safety. If it is visible, in a prominent
position, it would result in people slowing down which would surely be
the real aim of the Police. To my mind, this is the same argument I
would put forward on the use of unmarked police cars versus the 'jam
sandwich' type (when used for traffic duties). That has also been
argued before in this conference...
J.R. (who doesn't have a radar detector, but hopes not to regret it)
|
329.71 | | BELFST::FLANAGAN | Zoiks a giant hedgehog from Zog! | Tue Jan 21 1992 16:54 | 26 |
| J.R. some of the traps over here are blatently carried out from concealed
positions. I have seen one being performed by an officer standing up
against the side of a concrete bus shelter completely concealed from
view (except for traffic coming the other way - me :-), one under a
large over hanging tree in the dark, and one from behind a parked car
in the dark, 2 others in different spots, where officers actually
crouch down in someone's drive way behind the gate pillar. It was the
later trap which I saw a one car and a chap on a motor cycle receiving
a booking in the space of 10 mins. I must admit that I was doing 40mph
and it was a 30mph limit, and slowed down when I saw one officer
standing booking the chap in the car. It was not until I drew alongside
the gateway that I actually saw the dreaded hair dryer wielding Plod.
If I found the Police lurking in the bottom of my driveway hasstling
motorists, I would have to tell them to get off my property and catch
some real criminals; which as I'm sure you know there are quite a few
of over here in Northern Ireland. Also the majority of these hairdryer
weilding members of our constabulary are young blokes looking for
promotion.
So until my radar detector arrives I will have to rely on the
consumption of large quantities of carrots to give good night vision,
luck, or stick stringently to the speed limit. But even then they stop
you for illegal number plates ! :-)
Gary.
|
329.72 | Devil's Advocates, wherever you look! | WELLIN::NISBET | Disarm yourself bomb | Tue Jan 21 1992 17:15 | 17 |
| <<< Note 329.70 by PERKY::RUTTER "Rut The Nut" >>>
>>Radar traps are usually there for a reason. i.e. 'Black Spots'. If a driver
>>has to rely on a radar detector to alert him/her to a potentially dangerous
>>situation, it doesn't say much for the drivers competence to handle the
>>vehicle.
First, I was only putting forward a 'theoretical' argument.
I gather your reply is also in the same mode.
It was.
J.R. (who doesn't have a radar detector, but hopes not to regret it)
Dougie ( --- " --- )
|
329.73 | Stop the dangerous pratts | NEWOA::DALLISON | They Melvin'd me | Tue Jan 21 1992 17:17 | 5 |
|
Police used to use my driveway for radar traps. I used to take them
cups of tea and biscuits.
You think I'm joking ?
|
329.74 | Down the rathole, glug glug glug | WELLIN::NISBET | Disarm yourself bomb | Tue Jan 21 1992 17:21 | 29 |
| <<< Note 329.71 by BELFST::FLANAGAN "Zoiks a giant hedgehog from Zog!" >>>
J.R. some of the traps over here are blatently carried out from concealed
positions.
I'm sending that to ColemanBalls Gary! Or a certain "Quotations" topic we
both know? :-)
[ ... ]
Also the majority of these hairdryer
weilding members of our constabulary are young blokes looking for
promotion.
surely this entirely subjective?
Gary.
If concealed Police radar traps result in fewer joy riding deaths, or
indeed, fewer deaths as the victim of speeding motorists, then I would
maintain that it is entirely justified law enforcement.
How many pedestrian deaths result from speeding motorists? How many deaths
have resulted from terrorist activities? Where should the police best
channel their man power to reduce deaths?
Dougie
|
329.75 | | NEWOA::DALLISON | They Melvin'd me | Tue Jan 21 1992 17:26 | 9 |
|
>> How many pedestrian deaths result from speeding motorists? How many deaths
>> have resulted from terrorist activities? Where should the police best
>> hannel their man power to reduce deaths?
I can see it now.... "And most of those could be avoided with more
concentration".
...ahem...
|
329.76 | Forgot the Spelling Checker | WELLIN::NISBET | Disarm yourself bomb | Tue Jan 21 1992 17:33 | 3 |
| I can hannel that ... :-)
|
329.77 | | BELFST::FLANAGAN | Zoiks a giant hedgehog from Zog! | Tue Jan 21 1992 18:09 | 15 |
| :^)
Ok but what I said is true though.
RE: joyriding. A Policeman holding a hairdryer at a joyrider in a
stolen car is not going to stop or slow down said joyrider. The Police
must then decide if they are going to give chase. By the time they get
into their armour laden car with hairdryer, rifles and other tools, the
joyrider is long gone. Anyway he is probably looking for a chase anyway
- the joyrider that is, although the sometimes vice versa may be the
case.
As has been said, if motorists were to concentrate more, then
joyriding, radar detectors and global warming could all be avoided :-)
Gary.
|
329.78 | | NEWOA::DALLISON | They Melvin'd me | Tue Jan 21 1992 18:14 | 5 |
|
>> As has been said, if motorists were to concentrate more, then
>> joyriding, radar detectors and global warming could all be avoided :-)
And indeed hairdryers.
|
329.79 | | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK | Tue Jan 21 1992 18:41 | 33 |
329.80 | 3 points | MIACT::GLANVILLE | | Tue Jan 21 1992 20:11 | 16 |
|
If it helps the debate on how many points you get (3?, 6?), I can
tell you that the powers_that_be in Norwich awarded me 3 of them for
doing 92mph on a dual carriageway mid October 91. Was this before the
mentioned changes?
As an aside on the Radar debate, as I was more or less the only car in
sight (certainly the only car travelling at speed), I think it unlikely
a detector would have forewarned me. They can detect 'shots'
taken at other suspected offenders only if there are other suspected
offenders being 'shot at'.
Jay
|
329.81 | blah blah | DCC::HAGARTY | Essen, Trinken und Shaggen... | Tue Jan 21 1992 20:12 | 21 |
329.82 | My spelling checker doesn't know BS | WELLIN::NISBET | Disarm yourself bomb | Tue Jan 21 1992 20:27 | 34 |
329.83 | | NEWOA::ALFORD_J | The intermission fish... | Tue Jan 21 1992 20:43 | 7 |
|
I believe it's six points per speeding offence (normal exception excluded)
since the end of December.
I could be wrong of course and it hasn't come in yet...
|
329.84 | | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK | Tue Jan 21 1992 20:44 | 5 |
| Re: .80
I think the new law was from 1-Nov-1991 (or maybe 1-Dec-1991)
mb
|
329.85 | New laws | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK | Wed Jan 22 1992 12:34 | 22 |
329.86 | Direct from the D.o.T. | FUTURS::LEECH | O.K. Mr. Moley... | Wed Jan 22 1992 13:06 | 41 |
| re -1.
These details came from the leaflets sent out with tax reminders. The
exact details are as follows :-
1) New offence of dangerous driving - with up to 5 years' imprisonment for
causing death
2) New double length driving test for those convicted of dangerous
driving.
3) New offence of causing death by careless driving while under the
influence of drinks or drugs - with up to 5 years' imprisonment.
4) More use of cameras to detect speeding and traffic light offences.
5) New 'on the spot' powers for police to prohibit the use of
unroadworthy vehicles.
6) Up to 6 months' imprisonment for failing to stop and report an
accident.
7) Courts will be able to order forfeiture of a vehicle for serious
offences.
8) Speeding will attract a new range of 3 to 6 penalty points.
9) Disqualified drivers will retain penalty points on their licence.
10) Stiffer penalties for driving while unfit on medical grounds,
including up to 6 months' imprisonment for driving after licence
revoked or refused.
11) The most serious offences will apply to public places as well as on
roads, footpaths, bridleways and cycle tracks.
Shaun
|
329.87 | | SHAWB1::HARRISC | Have YOU wiped properly? | Wed Jan 22 1992 13:19 | 7 |
| I got all the info in -1 with my road tax reminder. Nothing was said
about a points increase for speeders.
Personally I feel the number of points given should vary depending on the
conditions etc. at the time of speeding. Not just a set increase.
..Craig
|
329.88 | | SHAWB1::HARRISC | Have YOU wiped properly? | Wed Jan 22 1992 13:20 | 3 |
| Too late again...Damm phones
..Craig
|
329.89 | How's this for a plan. | BAHTAT::DODD | gone to Helen's land | Wed Jan 22 1992 16:08 | 13 |
| Along the lines of cardboard police cars...
I often wonder why the police don't install lots of radar (radio?)
beacons permanently at strategic points, eg blackspots, speed points
etc. Then every once in a while they turn off the permanent beacons and
get out the hair dryers and nab some people.
On the theory that only people who habitually speed buy detectors all
that category of drivers will have to moderate their speed all the
time. The radar detectors will have been rendered impotent - if the
beacons are powerful enough then the people who own the detectors may
well be impotent as well.
Andrew
|
329.90 | League table | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK | Wed Jan 22 1992 17:51 | 149 |
329.91 | | DCC::HAGARTY | Essen, Trinken und Shaggen... | Wed Jan 22 1992 20:27 | 7 |
329.92 | RADAR DETECTORS:-Anyone bought one recently? | BEAVER::MCKEATING | | Fri May 01 1992 15:18 | 12 |
| Has anyone bought/used any of the the radar detectors in note 329.90?
I'm looking to purchase one in the near future (it's getting a little hot on the
roads in Strathclyde)
I have seen adverts for the Uniden RD-3XL's big brother the RD-4XL for
220pounds I'm going to look around at the weekend to see if there are any price
variations in the car shops on these. Anyone got one these?
thanks in advance for any info...
Bob
|
329.93 | | BELFST::FLANAGAN | Bread + Fire = Toast | Fri May 01 1992 16:06 | 10 |
| Bob, I have a Uniden RD-4XL. I'd be happy to FAX or mail you all the
bumph that came with it on Tuesday if you like. I haven't had mine for
very long and haven't ben through any speed traps (that I know of :-)
with it. I's a nice compact unit with lots of flashig LEDs and comes
with a load of extras for mounting it just about anywhere.
I sent off for mine to Networx in Srathclyde. (The ad was in
Performance Car).
Gary.
|
329.94 | Encourages dangerous driving ? | PLAYER::WINPENNY | | Mon May 04 1992 18:37 | 23 |
|
<FLAME ON>
OK. There I was driving along a dual carriage way approaching a slower
moving vehicle than my own. A quick look round and I see this car
coming up pretty sharpish. I let him pass and start to pull out. There
are not any other cars on the road. The bloke in front slams his brakes
on and I pull back in. About a hundred or so yards down the road a police
car is hidden behind an earth mound. I can only assume that the driver of
the passing car has a radar detector and when it bleeped on went the
brakes. If this is the kind of driving that these things encourage (and
let's face it this is going to be the reaction of the majority of people
using them) then they should be banned.
<FLAME OFF>
I'm all for higher speed limits but while they exist they should be
obeyed or you just have to accept that sooner or later you are going to
get a ticket.
Chris
|
329.95 | | NEWOA::DALLISON | Kiss my axe | Tue May 05 1992 11:47 | 7 |
|
Sound like the A4 to me!
There is a stretch of dual carrigeway just before the Tadley/Padworth
turnoff and there is often a concelled copper there.
-Tony
|
329.96 | Cap'n P. Dantic | LARVAE::HUTCHINGS_P | Manchester City | Tue May 05 1992 17:26 | 2 |
| what is a concelled copper...???
|
329.97 | Why don't I feel sorry for Elizabeth? | BASCAS::NISBET_D | Are you on the right side? | Tue May 05 1992 17:46 | 8 |
| What bugs me is the namby pampby drivers who stand on the brakes when they
see a police car. How many speeders check their rear-view mirror when they
do this? It really annoyed me when it happened the other day. Happened just
at the moment Cameron Frazer had dissapeared to go to the Lavvie, and I
nearly missed the good bit.
Dougie
|
329.98 | Silly Girl! | NEWOA::SAXBY | Clever critters;Squirrels! | Tue May 05 1992 17:49 | 5 |
329.99 | | PAKORA::PMOON | I most certainly am not. | Tue May 05 1992 18:02 | 9 |
|
What are you two talking about in your last two notes......
Lavvies and stupid tart's what's this got to do with
radar detectors.
Peter
|
329.100 | | BASCAS::NISBET_D | Are you on the right side? | Tue May 05 1992 20:14 | 4 |
| I'm almost certain Cameron has one in his Jag.
Dougie
|
329.101 | | NEWOA::SAXBY | Clever critters;Squirrels! | Tue May 05 1992 20:21 | 3 |
| I would have thought that was taken as read! :^)
Mark
|
329.102 | Boggle! | BIS1::BHD161::HARRISON | International Band Of Smugglers | Tue May 05 1992 20:33 | 9 |
|
> I'm almost certain Cameron has one in his Jag.
What, a lavvie ?
Mike H.
PS. Perhaps we should move this to ::ARCHERS.
|
329.103 | Care to say 'naughty boy' ? | ESBS01::RUTTER | Rut The Nut | Wed May 06 1992 11:47 | 22 |
| >>What bugs me is the namby pampby drivers who stand on the brakes when they
>>see a police car. How many speeders check their rear-view mirror when they
For those that haven't found out in one way or another, there is a
fixed penalty ('spot') fine if exceeding the speed limit in an area
covered by temporary speed restriction signs [and not exceeding the
normal speed limit for the carriageway].
I found this out 'the hard way', by not braking when I reached the
temporary speed limit sign on the dual carriageway of the A3 as it
approaches a section of contraflow near Petersfield. I simply
coasted along and only used the brakes when I got to the bend(s)
and the real contraflow. Of course, the car that had caught up
with me on this stretch of road was a Police car !
The result is a ticket for a twenty-pound fine, with 3 or 4 weeks to pay.
J.R.
PS I was doing an average of 63mph in a temp. 50 limit, over a distance
of 3 tenths of a mile - on a dual carriageway, at 10pm, with hardly
any other traffic on the road. At least I don't get an endorsement.
|
329.104 | Not saying I don't, but I don't get caught | NEWOA::DALLISON | Kiss my axe | Wed May 06 1992 11:55 | 4 |
|
Yeah, but you broke the law and paid for it.
Tough luck I say!!
|
329.105 | | COMICS::WEGG | Some hard boiled eggs & some nuts. | Wed May 06 1992 12:41 | 13 |
329.106 | Hit them where it hurts the most - in the wallet | STAR::BLAKE | My hovercraft is full of eels | Wed May 06 1992 17:11 | 14 |
329.107 | | NSDC::SIMPSON | | Wed May 06 1992 17:22 | 10 |
329.108 | | BERN02::BYRNE | | Wed May 06 1992 17:37 | 5 |
| As far as I know in Switzerland you are allowed to subtract 10% of the
calculated speed (radar inaccuracy) i.e you were probably fined for
doing 1 km over the limit (unless they had already subtracted 10%)
Probably caught by a rookie!!
|
329.109 | Would 60kph also have been "ok" | STAR::BLAKE | My hovercraft is full of eels | Wed May 06 1992 17:40 | 7 |
329.110 | | ESBS01::RUTTER | Rut The Nut | Wed May 06 1992 17:41 | 25 |
| Replies were as expected. But I'm not complaining about that.
I would like to repeat that I wasn't speeding in the contraflow
itself, but only in the dual carriageway approaching it. Then again,
that is speeding, and that is the law.
My view is that the copper probably needed to 'pot a red' at that time.
In his 'chat', he pointed out that differences in stopping distances
between keeping to the limit and exceeding it can be very important.
Maybe so, but I could see that there was no traffic ahead of me at
the time, whereas there was a car 'not too far' behind me which I
did not want to find up my boot if I put on the brakes for no
obvious reason. Simply decelerating along the stretch of road
would normally make sense - and is much more economical AND SAFER !
Another point on that stretch of road, my wife was recently driving
along there and overtook a police car on the dual carriageway section,
but at 'about' 50mph. Upon reaching the single carriageway contra-flow,
she looked in her mirror just in time to see someone else failing to
overtake the cop car - by driving into the offside rear of it !!!
I'm sure that would net more than a twenty quid fine.
J.R.
|
329.111 | | LEECHS::hilton | Beer...now there's a temporary solution | Thu May 07 1992 13:41 | 10 |
| Hmm!
I think the inconsistency is the problem. Late last week I was driving
down to London. We hit a contraflow, I slowed down, the guy in front
carried on at approx 80 mph, he saw a police car in the 50mph zone, but
must have gone past at 70mph. The police did nothing. The contraflow
was empty, so I suppose they could say that he wasn't driving
dangerously, just breaking the law!
Greg
|
329.112 | Smile.... | DOOZER::JENKINS | Wearing an Armitage Shanks headset | Thu May 07 1992 17:36 | 11 |
|
I think the police sometimes just adopt a very visible position
at contraflows so as to discourage speeding in general.
On a different subject...
I noticed a "box" camera (the ones that photograph you speeding)
at the entrance to the elevated section of the M4 London bound
at the weekend. It's set to photograph the back of the car as you
pass, so it's not too obvious. Has it been there long?
Richard.
|
329.113 | | VANGA::KERRELL | Dave Kerrell @REO 830-2279 | Thu May 07 1992 22:35 | 10 |
| Sometimes I think we (as a nation) are too obsessed with speeding and as
such fail to put as much emphasis on more dangerous practices, such as, the
idiots that drive a cars length behind the car in front, or people who carry
children in their car with no protection (chair or belt).
As to speed restrictions, I can not have much respect for a law that
restricts me to the same speed as an 30 ton truck and does not differentiate
between wet and dry roads!
/Dave.
|
329.114 | | PLAYER::BROWNL | A penknife, a shilling, a piece of string | Fri May 08 1992 12:32 | 3 |
| Well said, Mr. Kerrell, well said.
Laurie.
|
329.115 | | ESBS01::RUTTER | Rut The Nut | Fri May 08 1992 12:37 | 10 |
| >>idiots that drive a cars length behind the car in front, or people who carry
>>children in their car with no protection (chair or belt).
Agreed. Two cases I am not guilty of...
Saw Plod pull up an Astra the other day, [apparently] because the
children were standing up in the car. Worse than speeding on a
clear section of road, wouldn't you [law-abiders] agree ?
J.R.
|
329.116 | | FUTURS::WATSON | Rik Watson | Fri May 08 1992 12:55 | 5 |
| I agree completly with Mr Kerrell, Mr Brown and Mr (?) Rutter.
Rik
Speed doesn't kill; it's incompetant drivers.
|
329.117 | Three agreements in a row. A record? | POMROL::WINPENNY | | Fri May 08 1992 13:14 | 15 |
|
More agreement, but the discussion is not whether it's speed or
anything else that kills that's been covered elsewhere. The point is
radar detectors are an aid to illegal driving otherwise why have one.
The current law is that 70 mph is the speed limit on motorways and
should be obeyed as should all other speed limits. Break them and take
the consequences.
Also there are different limits for different types of vehicles. The
limits are maximums for good weather conditions, you are expected to
have enough sense to drive more carefully (I leave the interpretaion of
carefully to yourselves) in bad weather conditions.
Chris
|
329.118 | | MAJORS::ALFORD | | Fri May 08 1992 13:36 | 10 |
|
> Also there are different limits for different types of vehicles. The
> limits are maximums for good weather conditions,
Anyone else see that Top Gear exercise in braking distances ?
especially the last bit with the car and the lorry...
thought provoking wasn't it ?
|
329.119 | Yes, but nothing to do with radar detectors | PLAYER::WINPENNY | | Fri May 08 1992 15:51 | 1 |
|
|
329.120 | Maybe you were just driving too close to the car in front! | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK | Fri May 08 1992 16:28 | 10 |
| Re: Radar Detectors are dangerous
So tell me then, how come someone braking violently because their detector has
"gone off" is any more dangerous than someone braking violently because they
have just seen a Police car?
Maybe soon it will be an offence to slow down when you see one of the white
painted VASCAR lines on a motorway!
mb
|
329.121 | | FUTURS::WATKINS | Milky, Milky. Lovely | Fri May 08 1992 16:52 | 9 |
| >So tell me then, how come someone braking violently because their detector has
>"gone off" is any more dangerous than someone braking violently because they
>have just seen a Police car?
And presumably the braked down to the speed-limit ? How come it was dangerous
and you were likely to hit them ? Surely you weren't exceeding the speed limit ?
8-)
|
329.122 | Twiddle, twiddle... | PLAYER::WINPENNY | | Fri May 08 1992 17:17 | 18 |
|
No difference between slamming brakes on for a radar detector bleeping,
seeing a police car, seeing an animal or for any other reason. It is
just plain bad driving. The difference is that in the case of a radar
detector it is a positive action that the owner has taken thereby
consciously increasing the number of elements for which he/she might
brake harshly by one.
If I was driving too close I would have hit the car, I wasn't and I
didn't.
I have got no objections to exceeding the speed limit. But if I get
caught then it's tough luck. It happens and in many ways it's like a
lottery. I don't believe I have a right to exceed the limit just
because I don't agree with it.
Chris
|
329.123 | | JANUS::BARKER | Jeremy Barker - T&N/CBN Diag. Eng. - Reading, UK | Tue May 12 1992 16:09 | 22 |
| Re: .103
> The result is a ticket for a twenty-pound fine, with 3 or 4 weeks to pay.
>
> J.R.
>
> PS I was doing an average of 63mph in a temp. 50 limit, over a distance
> of 3 tenths of a mile - on a dual carriageway, at 10pm, with hardly
> any other traffic on the road. At least I don't get an endorsement.
You will find that in addition to the fixed penalty you will have earned
three penalty points on your licence.
Re: .122
You should always drive on the basis that the next vehicle in front will
stop suddenly for no apparent reason at any time. There's no reason why it
should not do so.
jb
|
329.124 | I'm getting tired of saying this | PLAYER::WINPENNY | | Tue May 12 1992 18:34 | 11 |
|
Re: .123
I do drive on that assumption. I was at the time, he did brake for no
apparent reason and I didn't hit him.
However there is always some DH who will in insist on overtaking into
your safe gap and then braking harshly. But this is another subject.
Chris
|
329.125 | | ESBS01::RUTTER | Rut The Nut | Wed May 13 1992 00:58 | 23 |
| >>You will find that in addition to the fixed penalty you will have earned
>>three penalty points on your licence.
When the Copper filled out the form, he said "you're lucky, it's
only a white one" ! When I questioned this, he said that there is
no endorsement for this particular offence. Perhaps because I was
not exceeding the 'normal' limit for that piece of road ?
As a matter of interest, I have driven at the temporary speed limit
on this bit of road on some occasion of late and found it felt *VERY*
dangerous !!! Since no-one else wants to drive at 50mph, it is
not very pleasant to have a queue of cars driving on your boot, is it ?
I feel aggrieved that I was nicked for not putting my brakes on at a
point when there was a car which had just caught me up and did not go
past me, even though it could have - when we had just entered the
temporary speed restriction. I did not of course know that it was
a copper straight away, but I prefer to avoid a rear-end collision
instead of using brakes on a clear stretch of road. As I simply
coasted along the road (travelling downhill) I did not lose enough
speed to please PC Plod behind me, so he nicked me. My tough luck.
J.R.
|
329.126 | | VANGA::KERRELL | Dave Kerrell @REO 830-2279 | Wed May 13 1992 12:50 | 6 |
| re.125:
Slowing down without using your brakes is very dangerous as there are no brake
lights to wake up the prat behind.
/Dave.
|
329.127 | | NEWOA::DALLISON | | Wed May 13 1992 13:31 | 5 |
|
Therefore it usually gives said pratt a sufficient fright to make him
keep his distance.
-Tony (Handbrake turn-er extrordinaire)
|
329.128 | | FORTY2::BETTS | X.500 Development | Wed May 13 1992 13:34 | 10 |
|
Slowing down without the brakes (aka deceleration sense) is smoother,
more energy efficient and gives people behind more time to react. It
also reduces the ripple effect often seen on motorways - when one
person brakes gently, the drivers behind brake more firmly (the cause
of erratic flow on congested motorways?).
Of course, if you intend to slow without using the brakes you need to
anticipate the speed limit ahead, rather than entering it and then
braking...
|
329.129 | Braking is for self-presevation, sometimes! | NEWOA::SAXBY | Clever critters;Squirrels! | Wed May 13 1992 13:55 | 6 |
|
You also don't need someone right up your exhaust! I've had at least
one very narrow escape this week when the bloke behind me was watching
my brake lights and not the queue of traffic ahead...
Mark
|
329.130 | | ESBS01::RUTTER | Rut The Nut | Wed May 13 1992 14:15 | 27 |
| Two conflicting replies that I agree with !
First, it can be dangerous to slow down without using brakes if
being closely followed.
Second, it is more efficient and can be safer to slow down gently,
without using the brakes.
And yes, I should start decelerating on approach to a lower speed limit.
May I point out that I often feel quite paranoid when I have to slow
down in traffic, whether using brakes or not. I recall having to
slow down and stop a while ago, looking in the mirror to watch the
driver behind failing to notice that my car and others ahead were
stopping. I then braked more gently, getting closer to the car
ahead, until I saw the driver behind actually realised what was
happening. The look of horror on her face indicated that this was
a real shock. The resultant panic braking managed to put her car
almost sideways across the road behind me, but didn't make contact.
Overall, if traffic ahead is slowing or stopping (or if a speed limit
is coming up) I think it better to lose speed gently. If there is a
car up your boot, braking harder is much more likely to result in a
problem, isn't it ?
J.R.
|
329.131 | Can't pay, won't pay? | DOOZER::JENKINS | Wearing an Armitage Shanks headset | Wed May 13 1992 14:28 | 7 |
|
I would like to know what would have happened if you'd refused
to pay on the spot. Would they have gone to the trouble of
taking you to court?
Richard.
|
329.132 | Eventually. | BAHTAT::DODD | gone to Helen's land | Wed May 13 1992 14:39 | 6 |
| One does not pay fixed penalty fines "on the spot". Anyone stopping
you, writing a ticket and asking for the money is a crook impersonating
a police officer. You are given a few weeks to pay and then the full
might of British justice swings into action.
Andrew
|
329.133 | | ESBS01::RUTTER | Rut The Nut | Wed May 13 1992 15:11 | 3 |
| That's right. Fine is imposed 'on the spot'. Payment made by post.
J.R.
|
329.134 | | VOGON::KAPPLER | Spontaneity is fine in it's place.... | Wed May 13 1992 17:22 | 7 |
| and the loophole of no penalty points was caused by someone screwingh
up the legislation regarding temporary speed limits. Penalty points
only come if you also exceed the normal limit.
However, Im told they intend to correct the error sometime!
JfK
|
329.135 | Clarification please | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK | Wed May 13 1992 17:41 | 18 |
| Can i just confirm one or two things them please ...
Take a stretch of road whose NORMAL speed limit is 60mph.
Two kinds of temporary speed limit can be applied:
1) Advisory, whereby the advised speed appears in black on a white background
surrounded by a black rectangle.
2) Compulsary, which is the normal black lettering on a white background
surrounded by a RED circle.
Was the "fine but no points" offence under an Advisory or Compulsary limit?
I always thought that 1) didn't have any legal status (other than dangerous
driving) but 2) carried the full penalty of the law.
mb
|
329.136 | | ESBS01::RUTTER | Rut The Nut | Wed May 13 1992 18:01 | 19 |
| >>2) Compulsary, which is the normal black lettering on a white background
>>surrounded by a RED circle.
It was this form of sign that was used. Normal limit on that stretch
of road would have been 70mph, temp. limit was 50mph. I was doing 63mph...
>>I always thought that 1) didn't have any legal status (other than dangerous
>>driving) but 2) carried the full penalty of the law.
From reply .134, it looks like your understanding may have been correct
but for some mishtake in the law-makers (to be changed it seems).
I'm not sure if the 'advisory' limit can actually be used as an
offence, other than 'undue care and attention' or some variation.
I certainly don't know all the 'ins and outs', and wouldn't mind if
someone who does know would care to describe some of them.
J.R.
|
329.137 | | JARRY::HULLIN | Ibant obsuri sola sub nocte | Thu May 14 1992 13:38 | 12 |
| Re. 130
Here in France, when you're confronted with an emergency braking
situation (accident on the motorway, car in front spinning, ...)
we usually switch the warning light as we brake (this is just
a general habit, it's not a rule or part of the highway code).
This way, the car behind knows, when seing your brake lights
flashing, that you're not just trying to slow down a bit but that
there is "greatest peril afoot". It usually works pretty well.
Pierre
|
329.138 | Gertcha. | DOOZER::JENKINS | Wearing an Armitage Shanks headset | Thu May 14 1992 13:54 | 9 |
|
At the moment changes in speed limit require planning permission.
"Temporary" speed limits have been imposed without planning
permission. As someone suggested earlier, there was a screw up
when the law was changed. Endorsements can still only be given
where the official speed limit has been broken.
Richard.
|
329.139 | | BERN02::BYRNE | | Thu May 14 1992 16:06 | 2 |
| In Switzerland 30 km over the speed limit and you lose your licence for
30 days plus you get a big fine!!
|
329.140 | Finland the same | EEMELI::HAUTALA | Greasy Joe's Bottomless Grill Pit | Thu May 14 1992 16:47 | 10 |
|
re -1:
In Finland the same thing! You'll easily get fine big as months salary.
Hannu
|
329.141 | Not big w.r.t. the excessive speed...' | NSDC::SIMPSON | | Thu May 14 1992 17:06 | 15 |
329.142 | | MAJORS::ALFORD | | Thu May 14 1992 18:38 | 15 |
|
Re: .137
Yeah, same here in the UK....use of hazard warning lights when braking tends
to mean...."I'm stopping fast and not bothering what's behind me" type thing...
or "please realize that I'm travelling at least 40+ mph slower than you are"
or "I'm stopped at the back of a queue"...
get's peoples attention a lot faster than just brake lights...
|
329.143 | What's a radar detector anyway? | PLAYER::WINPENNY | | Thu May 14 1992 19:07 | 16 |
|
This is what happens "on the street". Last I heard though was that
using hazard warning lights while moving was a no no.
I can't find the usual speed kills file but this topic seems to be well
and truly ratholed.
Tomorrows World last night said, so it must be true, "Speed does not
kill." It's the how fast you stop that does the damage.
For those who saw the program. Maybe they should put those bar code
thingies on the passengers as well as the suitcases, so that even if
your suitcase does get lost at least you end up in the same place.
Chris
|
329.144 | | JARRY::HULLIN | Ibant obsuri sola sub nocte | Thu May 14 1992 19:11 | 15 |
|
Re: 142
>> Yeah, same here in the UK....use of hazard warning lights
>> when braking tends to mean...."I'm stopping fast and not
>> bothering what's behind me" type thing...
Very, very strange kind of attitude indeed... Or may be my
knowledge of your mother tongue is so poor I don't quite get
all the intricacies and understatements conveyed by such an
idea. In no way could there be any aggressiveness in the use
of hazard warning lights while braking in a situation where
there's some great ahead.
Pierre
|
329.145 | 8^) | NEWOA::DALLISON | | Thu May 14 1992 20:01 | 7 |
|
Pierre,
You speak better English than most of the cavemen in here so worry not
my friend!
-Tony
|
329.146 | now allowed for emergencies | TIMMII::RDAVIES | An expert Amateur | Fri May 15 1992 16:49 | 14 |
| >> <<< Note 329.143 by PLAYER::WINPENNY >>>
>> This is what happens "on the street". Last I heard though was that
>> using hazard warning lights while moving was a no no.
Used to be the law stated you can only use Hazard warning lights whilst
stationary.
The new Highway code now states that they can be used whilst moving to
indicate a dangerous hazard such as e.g. emergency braking on a
motorway.
Richard
|
329.147 | | MAJORS::ALFORD | | Fri May 15 1992 21:36 | 4 |
|
Re: .144
It's not meant to be agressive....just wake those behind you up...
|
329.148 | "Academic interest" | SHIPS::DUGGAN_K | A. Battler | Thu Oct 22 1992 21:19 | 11 |
|
Back to the original topic, if I may.
Does anyone know if the detectors detect these box cameras
being installed at said 'black spots' all over the country ?
z There are many claims that state they will in various car
magazines.
|
329.149 | | UPROAR::EVANSG | Gwyn Evans @ IME - Open DECtrade -> DTN 769-8108 | Fri Oct 23 1992 12:17 | 6 |
| From what I hear, the newer (three-band?) detectors will detect the
radar GATSO's but as they'll detect the rader reflections from cars in
front of you, they'll only be of use if you've got other traffic there!
One tip is to buy direct from the States via mail-order as the
import prices are much higher than the US+duty+shipping prices.
|
329.150 | Address ? | KERNEL::SALMONJ | Jason Salmon | Fri Oct 23 1992 12:26 | 5 |
| Has anyone got the names'addresses of any such mail order companies ?
Jason.
|
329.151 | It works for me | BRUMMY::MATT | A tiny, but exciting....... | Fri Oct 23 1992 17:14 | 9 |
329.152 | | NEWOA::SAXBY | Mean and Brooklands Green! | Fri Oct 23 1992 17:17 | 8 |
| > PS its saved me once already !
How do you know this? Are you judging by the fact that it's gone off?
I don't know, but you'd have a lot more happy customers if these things
went off when they detected overactive microwave ovens! :^)
Mark
|
329.153 | I like my license. | KERNEL::SALMONJ | Jason Salmon | Fri Oct 23 1992 18:04 | 8 |
| The way I'm looking at it is that if I do get one if it saves me just
once it'll be worth the money - on the subject of money does anyone
know how much cheaper - or not - it is to buy mail order from the
states, and if there are any differences in terms of quality
reliability between the US and UK models ?
Jason.
|
329.154 | US and UK frequencies are _supposedly_ the same | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK | Fri Oct 23 1992 18:13 | 12 |
| They are quite a bit cheaper in the US (there is more of a market over
there!), but you will get hit by greater P&P, VAT and import duty. Also
it is more difficult to sort out if something goes wrong.
Novembers Car and Performance Car carry a _lot_ of adverts for radar
detectors (including US sources), and the UK price seems to be dropping
substantially, as more competition develops.
Get yours now, before they are banned!!!!!
mb
|
329.155 | | NEWOA::SAXBY | Mean and Brooklands Green! | Fri Oct 23 1992 18:13 | 10 |
|
Re .153
I don't doubt the wisdom of your decision. Saving you a fine, as you
say, just once, will probably pay for it.
However, if the thing goes off every now and then, how are you to know
if it's just payed for itself or if you've just passed a taxi? :^)
Mark
|
329.156 | False alarms. | KERNEL::SALMONJ | Jason Salmon | Fri Oct 23 1992 20:25 | 5 |
| I can live with the false alarms as long as it works when it's the real
thing. I know some building security systems set them off and the
sensors on traffic lights but taxis ?
Jason.
|
329.157 | Looking on the bright side of life | SUBURB::FRENCHS | Semper in excernere | Fri Oct 23 1992 20:25 | 39 |
329.158 | Phew that wos close | BRUMMY::MATT | A tiny, but exciting....... | Sat Oct 24 1992 16:24 | 12 |
| RE: .152
Cos there was a plod with a gun further down the road.
(Waterloo Road in Crowthorne just past the Waterloo hotel (Barracane
drive) a couple of Saturdays ago)
You use common sense to tell wether it is a 'real' or 'false' alarm.
House alarms etc tend to only get to one on the strength scale,
real alarms get to three near enough immediately.
Matt.
|
329.159 | details please | SHIPS::DUGGAN_K | Illinois E. Bandit for President | Tue Oct 27 1992 20:35 | 9 |
| re; -1
Matt,
What type (make/model) of detector you have. And while you're
at it, do you have the address you bought it from ?
Thanks,
Kevin
|
329.160 | | MILE::JENKINS | Suitably refreshed | Wed Oct 28 1992 01:46 | 32 |
|
A trip from Guildford -> Greenwich -> Reading last night reveals
that these damn Gatsos are everywhere, some radar trigerred some
road triggered. On the few occasions that I noticed them early
enough I slowed down to the speed limit and was very amused by
the volume of traffic passing me (everyone!). The question is
which car appears in the picture? Coz the damn thing couldn't
have taken enough pictures (across 3 lanes!!) to catch everybody.
Rather than trying to detect the radar (which won't alert you to
the road trigerred ones anyway) I thought we ought to get a list
going of other ways of avoiding observation by this 1984 police
state.... no doubt all illegal of course...
Fit a bike carrier to block out part of the number plate
Fit a bike carrier and carry a childs bike
Fit a towbar and move the position of the number plate
Put the number plate in the back window
Use a "Gardfield" in a strategic position
Cover part of the number plate in mud
Fit false plates
etc.
Richard.
|
329.161 | Time for the 7th Cavalry..... | HEAVY::DRAPER | | Wed Oct 28 1992 12:47 | 4 |
| Possibly a good opportunity to get in some practice with one of those
"war games" paint guns!!!
Steve
|
329.162 | Hazard lights on the move - not me! | BASLG1::GORDON | CQ, CQ, de G6ENU/A | Wed Sep 08 1993 19:25 | 10 |
| Waking up a slightly old one, but anyway.
I would not, of course, do this whilst moving, because in order to
switch on my hazard warning lights I have to reach THROUGH THE STEERING
WHEEL and press the switch which is mounted on top of the steering
column a couple of inches behind the plane of the wheel-rim.
What better arrangements do other people's cars have for this switch?
Ian Gordon
|
329.163 | | WELSWS::HEDLEY | Conquistador Instant Leprosy | Wed Sep 08 1993 19:41 | 7 |
| Near the rear window demister in my Rover. Unfortunately they aren't very
well labelled, so it's pot luck which one gets switched on. Not as bad
as the Cavalier though, I remember having endless fun trying to find the
hazard switch in one of those the first time I drove it (it's between the
two centre air vents, obvious really!)
Chris.
|
329.164 | | UFHIS::GVIPOND | | Wed Sep 08 1993 19:56 | 4 |
|
On the Porsche you have to reach over to the passenger side for the
hazards, Still it gives a good reason for a quick fumble of the
passenger.
|
329.165 | | LARVAE::DRSD20::PATTISON_M | Bored, Bored, Bored ... | Wed Sep 08 1993 20:47 | 8 |
| >... I have to reach THROUGH THE STEERING WHEEL and press the switch ...
Reminds me of a colleague who was reversing out of the drive, and
noticed that the facia over the speedo was dusty, so tried to wipe it
clean throught the centre of the steering wheel while still reversing,
then found it impossible to turn the wheel because the arm was in the
way and ended up demolishing a wall!
|
329.166 | | WOTVAX::HARRISC | Put that chicken down madam | Wed Sep 08 1993 21:11 | 9 |
| re -2
"Still it gives a good reason for a quick fumble of the passenger."
Your not the driver mentioned in note 2142.19 by any chance are you?
..Craig 8-)
|
329.167 | | TRUCKS::BUSHEN_P | I've won a paper clip!!!! | Wed Sep 08 1993 22:51 | 13 |
| > Reminds me of a colleague who was reversing out of the drive, and
> noticed that the facia over the speedo was dusty, so tried to wipe it
> clean throught the centre of the steering wheel while still reversing,
> then found it impossible to turn the wheel because the arm was in the
> way and ended up demolishing a wall!
>
>
this idiot reset the milage counter after filling up in Sainsbury's - no
problem normally, only I pushed the button while turning the roundabout, hand
got stuck, ended up going around the roundabout twice!!
Paul.
|
329.168 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Thu Sep 09 1993 12:46 | 5 |
|
Well, I have to put my hand through the wheel too, but as it's only
legal to use them when stationary, it's not a problem.
Heather
|
329.169 | its a bit naughty !! | NEWOA::CROME_A | | Thu Sep 09 1993 13:05 | 6 |
| Well I know we/I shouldn't, but ....
The Hazard lights are a usefull warning when on the motorway and everybody has
to stop "more urgently"
Andy - open to verbal attack !!
|
329.170 | OH YES YOU CAN!!!!!!! | ALBURT::LEWIS | | Thu Sep 09 1993 13:20 | 11 |
| Corretion! Yes you can use your hazard warning lights when moving but
ONLY use them whilst driving if you are on a motorway or unrestricted
dual carraigeway and you need to warn drivers behind you of a hazard or
obstruction ahead. Only use them long enough to ensure that your
warning has been observed.
For confirmation of this fact read the NEW highway code (page 33).
Happy motoring,
Neil
|
329.171 | | PEKING::ATKINSA | PRC Vauxman. | Thu Sep 09 1993 13:50 | 8 |
|
RE-Haz-lights.
I'll second that,I've seen the "old bill" switch their hazard lights
on many times when traffic slows down.
Andy..I do to.
|
329.172 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Thu Sep 09 1993 13:58 | 9 |
|
Well, if you're going along a straight line, it'll be easy to put your
hand through the wheel.
However, I'd rather have both hands on the wheel if I had to stop
quickly....so it wouldn't matter where the switch was.
Heather
|
329.173 | times they are a changin' | UBOHUB::BELL_A1 | still they want more | Thu Sep 09 1993 14:12 | 13 |
|
re .168
Heather,
according to the Road Traffic Act, revised edition 1991. It is
nolonger a MVO (moving vehicle offence) to operate the hazard warning
lights when moving, being towed etc, aslong at the use reflects the
correct operation of the warning lights, ie your vehicle may be
causing a hazard, Vehicle(s) infront of yours may be causing a hazard.
Alan.
|
329.174 | That makes me legal ........ | NEWOA::CROME_A | | Thu Sep 09 1993 14:49 | 3 |
| Glad to hear it - I think its a good idea !
Andy
|
329.175 | | UFHIS::GVIPOND | | Thu Sep 09 1993 15:57 | 8 |
|
Is it not possible for you to just put your hand on the center boss and
depress the switch without having to put your whole arm up to shoulder
level through the wheel ?
Ps talking about 2142.19 and puting your arm through upto shoulder
level,
..... maybe not.
|
329.176 | Try falling asleep doing this! | CHEFS::MARCHR | | Thu Sep 09 1993 18:34 | 7 |
| To amuse myself on longer jouneys I put my head through the spokes of
the steering wheel and try to reset the mileage trip with my tongue.
I've managed it a few times.
Also I never try this will I have passangers - I'm not that stupid!
Rupert
|
329.177 | Radar detectors? | KERNEL::HANNANS | | Thu Apr 14 1994 14:35 | 15 |
| Hi all,
I would like to know a bit more about Radar detectors for cars.
I know they are illegal to use, but not illegal to buy.. ( as if I
would break the law? and use one?.. :-)..)
Anyway, since the Very nice Police are so adamant on increasing the
size of their bank balances by catching anyone who breaks the speed
limits. I would like to know what devices there are available that will
detect speed traps in their various guises, ie whether radio, Laser or
what ever they use?..
Any information greatly appreciated..
Steve
|
329.178 | Limited use | YUPPY::SEDTU6::KORMAN | tgif!! | Thu Apr 14 1994 14:46 | 23 |
|
Well,
Stating the obvious - they only work against radar! There are some new video
based traps that use a sort of bar code painted on the road and a TV camera with
infra-red floodlamps - you see them in 50MPH roadworks mostly.
Also, many GATSO cameras use radar but are (mostly) rear firing - so you have to
hope to pick up a reflection from the car ahead. If your are tanking along a
clear road and pass a GATSO, you won't know until it's too late. The ones that
use cable loops need a different approach - a big LF transmiter to jam them!
Speed guns you might detect if it's being used on vehicles ahead of you - again,
if there is no one in front, the pulse you detect will be the one that nicks you
- a bit like never hearing the shot that kills you!
BTW - I trust everyone who travels the M25 CW between the M3 and M4 has noticed
the two large grey cabinets on the overhead gantry just after the M3 junction!
They seem to have YELLOW flash units?!
Dave
|
329.179 | whilst in the area ..... | NEWOA::CROME_A | | Thu Apr 14 1994 14:55 | 8 |
| and what about the overhead gantry loaded with speed camera's on the M4 when
heading towards London - just passed the M25 juntion !
If you are wondering why the white lines have got lots of little lines across
them then slow down. Have a look at the gantry on your way home and you will
see it is loaded to the hilt with camera equipment - one for each lane !
Andy
|
329.180 | | COMICS::FISCHER | Life's a big banana sandwich | Thu Apr 14 1994 16:24 | 7 |
| Steve,
Drive slower and that way you save money by not buying a
detector and using less petrol!
|
329.181 | thought provoking? | KERNEL::HANNANS | | Thu Apr 14 1994 16:35 | 10 |
| Ian,
MMM? I never thought about that?,,
Thanks Ian,
Better still can I borrow "your" car?
:-)
|
329.182 | Re.179 - this what you mean Andy? | CMOTEC::POWELL | Nostalgia isn't what it used to be, is it? | Thu Apr 14 1994 17:11 | 7 |
| >>>see it is loaded to the hilt with camera equipment - one for each lane !
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>Andy
Drive between lanes then? Astride the lines?
Malcolm.
|
329.183 | Not me guv ! | NEWOA::CROME_A | | Thu Apr 14 1994 18:14 | 11 |
| >>>Drive between lanes then? Astride the lines?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WHAT and have two pictures taken and recieve two fines - No Ta !
Then top it all of with a Driving-without-due-care jobby - nah not me
I just keep to the speed limit where I know there are speed camera's !!
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Andy
|
329.184 | | UPROAR::EVANSG | Gridlocked on the Info Highway | Thu Apr 14 1994 19:53 | 3 |
329.185 | sure enough not to risk it ! | NEWOA::CROME_A | | Thu Apr 14 1994 20:14 | 2 |
| yeh pretty sure, the traffic master sensors hang down, where as these are
obviousley cameras - check it out next time your passing !
|
329.186 | Tailgaters beware! | MILE::JENKINS | Norfolk enchance | Thu Apr 14 1994 22:50 | 5 |
|
The 'extra white lines' are normally for cameras that catch you for
driving too close to the person in front, not speeding.
Richard.
|
329.187 | | NEWOA::CROME_A | | Fri Apr 15 1994 13:10 | 6 |
| MMMMmmmmm....
That would explain the little white lines, but I'll still treat that area with
the respect it deserves.
Andy
|
329.188 | Checked with info elsewhere. | UPROAR::EVANSG | Gridlocked on the Info Highway | Fri Apr 15 1994 22:56 | 5 |
329.189 | GATSO watch... | RDGE44::ALEUC1 | Barry Gates, 7830-1155 | Mon Apr 18 1994 17:34 | 15 |
| There are GATSO's pointing in both directions on the Finchampstead Road
south of Wokingham near the Two Poplars pub.
Also there is a GATSO on the road from Sandhurst to Camberley outside
the Catholic Church near the zebra crossing pointing towards Camberley
direction.
Is it council money that pays for these or police money? I use the
Finchampstead Road regularly and they have put the cameras in a place
where it is nearly impossible to speed due to the volume of traffic.
(apart from at night). It seems like a waste of money to me. I would
much rather they put them on the housing estates where people speeding
are more dangerous.
Barry.
|
329.190 | I am glad that i have a Frontera now! | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, Central PSC, Birmingham UK | Thu Sep 29 1994 12:21 | 19 |
| Well i saw my first LASER speed gun this morning on the way into work.
The "nice" plod had his car hidden out of view in a driveway, and wasn't
wearing a day-glo jacket. In his hand was a small rectangular shaped
device, about 3 inches by 6 inches by 8 inches, with what appeared to
be two lenses in the front.
Luckily i was in a stream of traffic all doing the same speed (just
over the 30mph limit), but it would have been possible for plod to
pick out individual cars if he wanted - a worrying thought!
For Brum-ites, the trap was at the end of the southbound road coming
out of Coleshill (just before joining the A446). It seems to be quite
a favourite area for speed traps, as i often see normal radar traps
on the other roads into and out of the village.
"May the force be with you"
mb
|
329.191 | | FORTY2::HOWELL | Just get to the point... | Thu Sep 29 1994 12:43 | 10 |
| Coleshill Police never have anything better to do, anway, except speed
trap people at that junction trying to speed up to join traffic, or
else sit outside The Swan or The Railway on a Saturday night.....
....looks like I'll be careful round there, now, though Martin. So
Coleshill got a grant to buy one of those detectors did they?! They
must be chuffed.... all squabbling to have a go I reckon...
;-D
Dan
|
329.192 | | PLAYER::BROWNL | A-mazed on the info Highway! | Thu Sep 29 1994 13:19 | 4 |
| I must say it's nice to see them concentrating on in-town, where speed
really is a problem, rather than on motorways, where it isn't.
Laurie.
|
329.193 | It works! | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, Central PSC, Birmingham UK | Fri Sep 30 1994 13:33 | 19 |
| Re: .191
> Coleshill got a grant to buy one of those detectors did they?! They
> must be chuffed.... all squabbling to have a go I reckon...
Dan,
i reckon that you are right there!
One of the guys in the office got "lased" on the way into work
yesterday (46 in the 30 zone), but was just given a warning.
Once the novelty has worn off, they will be out shooting to kill,
i'll bet.
Maybe i will buy one of those laser pointers (for flashy presentations)
so that i can get my own back!
mb
|
329.194 | | FORTY2::HOWELL | Just get to the point... | Fri Sep 30 1994 14:22 | 1 |
| ...or cover your car in tin foil and pretend to be a stealth bomber!
|
329.195 | Operation HASTE in October | SUBURB::DUCEP | Slowly we change the world..... | Fri Sep 30 1994 21:02 | 5 |
| Look out in the Thames Valley area this next month. There will be a
concentrated campaign to catch speeders, both in local and motorway
traffic. The Police have even given a name to the operation ...."HASTE".
Evidently October 13th will be a particularly heavy day .... so be
warned.
|
329.196 | | PLAYER::BROWNL | A-mazed on the info Highway! | Sat Oct 01 1994 14:12 | 6 |
| I wonder when they'll start the concentrated campaign to catch car
thieves, car radio thieves, burglars, drug pushers etc.
I'm not holding my breath...
Laurie.
|
329.197 | Easy meat | CHEFS::MARCHR | RUPERT MARCH | Fri Oct 07 1994 15:27 | 11 |
| I can agree with clamping down on suburban speeders - or
people doing 70mph+ in M-way roadworks - but whats the point
in putting extra focus on motorway speeders? Most fatel
motorway accidents happen on the hard shoulder? Driver
education is what's needed.
IMHO
Rupert
|
329.198 | | PLAYER::BROWNL | Coito ergo sum | Fri Oct 07 1994 15:48 | 5 |
| Perhaps they should put some effort into stopping people hogging the
centre and outside lanes. I'm sure that would help the accident
statistics more than a little.
Cheers, Laurie.
|
329.199 | | WELSWS::HEDLEY | Lager Lout | Fri Oct 07 1994 16:50 | 9 |
| The reason they put a lot of speed traps in roadworks on motorways
is apparently to improve traffic flow, ie if noone's going too fast,
there'll be less heavy breaking and therefore less snarl ups.
It's probably a handy way of raising money, too.
Chris.
PS Laurie, leave the .x00 alone!
|
329.200 | SNARF! | PLAYER::BROWNL | Coito ergo sum | Fri Oct 07 1994 17:02 | 3 |
| Sorry Chris, couldn't resist!
Laurie.
|
329.201 | My pet hate! | MOEUR5::SMITH_M | Martin Smith, Evry (F). - 858 4896. | Fri Oct 07 1994 17:15 | 10 |
329.202 | One of my pet hates too! | CMOTEC::POWELL | Nostalgia isn't what it used to be, is it? | Mon Oct 24 1994 16:52 | 15 |
329.203 | | FORTY2::HOWELL | Just get to the point... | Mon Oct 24 1994 16:55 | 5 |
| Anyone know if the speed-camera-looking box right next to the bridge
(central reservation) between junctions 11 and 12 on the M4 is ever
active ? Or is it something else.........?
Dan$shudder
|
329.204 | | BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL | Martin Bell, Central PSC, Birmingham UK | Mon Oct 24 1994 17:29 | 8 |
| Dan,
if you means the rusty "box" on the M4, i think that it was one
of the experimental speed cameras, but is no longer used. If it was
working then there would be very few people in the Thames valley with
driving licences 8-).
mb
|
329.205 | | FORTY2::HOWELL | Just get to the point... | Mon Oct 24 1994 18:14 | 2 |
| Yep, that's the one... cunningly hidden behind a bridge. Good. I've
never seen it wink at me once yet :-)
|