Safety Cameras speed camera detectors

[civvie06]

anyone tried the snooper sapphire speed camera detector yet? I think I like the look of the unit almost as much as I like the look of the Civic, but I'm just wondering whether it is style over substance. still deciding betweeen that and the road angel plus. Also, do the laser detector units actually work? By the time it picks up a laser signal, isn't it too late?

[Bigian]

I have had a Microfuzion unit fitted to my current car for over a year. This is GPS based and alerts you by voice of static and mobile camera sites it only cost £90 and all updates are free, it has never let me down. The logging of mobile sites is excellent and several times I have been alerted then turned around the corner and a speed van is waiting. You can get a £60 microfuzion radar detector that’s work with the standard unit but unless you are lucky enough for the radar to be focused on the car in front(on behind you) by the time it detectors activates your speed would have been taken so I did not buy this option.When my new car finally arrives I will either move the microfuzion unit to the rear boot shelf or use the internal aerial (that can be bought as an accessorily) and then fit the unit out of site, to be honest I never look at the display anyway as the voice is adequate and I do not wish to spoil the look of the civics’ dash.

[WoolyCiv]

Originally Posted by Bigian

I have had a Microfuzion unit fitted to my current car for over a year. This is GPS based and alerts you by voice of static and mobile camera sites it only cost £90 and all updates are free, it has never let me down. The logging of mobile sites is excellent and several times I have been alerted then turned around the corner and a speed van is waiting. You can get a £60 microfuzion radar detector that’s work with the standard unit but unless you are lucky enough for the radar to be focused on the car in front(on behind you) by the time it detectors activates your speed would have been taken so I did not buy this option.When my new car finally arrives I will either move the microfuzion unit to the rear boot shelf or use the internal aerial (that can be bought as an accessorily) and then fit the unit out of site, to be honest I never look at the display anyway as the voice is adequate and I do not wish to spoil the look of the civics’ dash.

I can confirm all of the above. The only quirk seems to be how close to a school you have to be before it warns you, I am literally in the playground before the alert sounds. The Microfuzion also gives the posted speed limit for the road, ths is the feature I really like.

Prior to the Microfuzion I used TomTom on a PDA with the speed camera overlay loaded.

[Bigian]

Camera detectors can be a bit of a taboo subject with car manufacturers but I recon all cars should have a device that’s alerts you of at least danger zones; I am surprised that Honda’s Sat Nav does not carry this information as I believe some of the portable GPS car units can.
I get annoyed at the present system and this can be summed up by the following: I live very close to a school which is situated on a dual carriage way the speed limit due to the school is 30 MPH. Every few days a police van sits at the end of this road catching people doing over the limit. The school signs and speed signs are small and can easily be missed and motorist especially strangers to the area can put children’s life in danger simply by missing the signs and interpreting the road speed incorrectly. The police van is not preventing speeding as most people are unaware of it until they get the letter through the door. In another area on a similar road they have a big flashing light saying School ahead if you are over the speed limit entering this zone the sign will tell you have much over the limit you are. The cars in this zone always slow down to travel through it so which is the best method of control for the school children? If the same van monitored this zone every few days and anyone was caught speeding they would have no defence and deserve what they get.
But until someone has the sense to change the system from profiting from motorist to making them more aware of safety then I believe that any device that can help - cannot be bad.

[WonkySights]

Try here;

http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/

[Pottsy]

Bigian: spot on!

[basegreen]

Originally Posted by Bigian

Camera detectors can be a bit of a taboo subject with car manufacturers but I recon all cars should have a device that’s alerts you of at least danger zones; I am surprised that Honda’s Sat Nav does not carry this information as I believe some of the portable GPS car units can.
I get annoyed at the present system and this can be summed up by the following: I live very close to a school which is situated on a dual carriage way the speed limit due to the school is 30 MPH. Every few days a police van sits at the end of this road catching people doing over the limit. The school signs and speed signs are small and can easily be missed and motorist especially strangers to the area can put children’s life in danger simply by missing the signs and interpreting the road speed incorrectly. The police van is not preventing speeding as most people are unaware of it until they get the letter through the door. In another area on a similar road they have a big flashing light saying School ahead if you are over the speed limit entering this zone the sign will tell you have much over the limit you are. The cars in this zone always slow down to travel through it so which is the best method of control for the school children? If the same van monitored this zone every few days and anyone was caught speeding they would have no defence and deserve what they get.
But until someone has the sense to change the system from profiting from motorist to making them more aware of safety then I believe that any device that can help - cannot be bad.

Couldn't agree more. Warning signs are really useful, as often in areas where the limit changes frequently on the same road, you can get caught out by a quick/poorly signed change.

[Bungle]

Hmm, speed camera detectors....

A recent survey showed that people who have them are over 300% more likely to be convicted of speeding. Why? Cos people who have them are seriel speeders.
Generally, people who have camera (or 'accident black-spot' ) detectors drive way too fast, and rely on being told to slow down when a camera is near. New cameras go up all the time, and police do have mobile units.

Why not just drive at the speed limit? It saves you money as you don't need to buy a detector, and saves you money and points from being caught. And, you will be less likely to be invloved in an accident. It seems like a no-brainer to me.

With regards to speed limit signs not being obvious enough, a good, observant driver will see them. If there is a school, lamp posts at regular intervals, and no repeaters saying that the limit is >30, then it is most likely a 30 limit.

Yes I do drive at 30 in a 30, 20 in a 20 and so on. I try to keep at or below 70 on motorways. I occasionally get flashed, tail-gated and overtaken badly because I am doing the speed limit by some drivers. 95% of the time, they shoot off and you catch them up at the next traffic light. Makes you think 'what was the point?'

Now I will duck and cover...

Sorry if this turned into a bit of a rant, but I do feel strongly about dangerous driving and feel there is no excuse for it. And what makes it worse are the people who say they only speed 'safely'. Yes, they may be able to control the car quite safeky doing 50 in a 30, but it's other people and situation they cannot control.

[elfa7]

Whilst I agree with a lot of that, I don't think you can say that if I was doing say 75--80 on a very quiet motorway, that it was dangerous. I think people on 'phones while driving, not signaling on roundabouts, blocking box junctions, going through red lights. Things like that are to my mind, dangerous. Lets have more police presence on the roads, and get rid of the idiots. Oh, and an even worse one, but getting more common. Driving without a licence and insurance.

[Pottsy]

Bungle, I'll bite! Well, a little nibble maybe.

Whilst everything you say is true, there's a little more to add. And it's the addition that's important.

The limits are the lowest common denominator. They're designed to be safe for the idiot driver, in his crappy car, in poor conditions. Speed, of course, does not kill in itself*. Inappropriate speed for the conditions does. In fact it is responsible for 7.3% of accidents.

So, stick to the speed limit, and you now can worry about the remaining 93% of causes. But the rub is that conditions may change. I am in my 911, on a stretch of road in northern Scotland and I can see that there's nothing on the road for miles ahead (and no animals, side roads, people and so on) - so is it dangerous to break the law and go 67 mph in a 60? No, it isn't, but I sure as hell would like to have a camera detector for just that moment, especially when the local police are on a revenue collection day!

As usual, the old system was better. A real person (policeman) can easily establish whether the driver is going too fast for the conditions, and then use the speed limit law to prosecute the driver. A camera, or hidden camera, is automated and has no such computational power.

Pottsy

* I do 170 mph in a wheeled vehicle several times a day - I steer it with my feet, it has no brakes on the front wheels and it weighs 60 tonnes!

[elfa7]

Thats one hell of a soapbox !!

[civvie06]

A real person (policeman) can easily establish whether the driver is going too fast for the conditions, and then use the speed limit law to prosecute the driver. A camera, or hidden camera, is automated and has no such computational power.

Sorry to be annoying, but that's also not strictly true. It certainly wouldn't be difficult to build a speed camera that could detect light levels, rain and even volume of traffic. The computational power, or common sense, is available but not used because that would imply a system of variable speed limits open to interpretation, which I think you will agree will just land us in a whole load of trouble. Imagine the debates in court where one person's interpretation of light rain at dusk is at odds with the cameras interpretation of pissing down at night.

[Bungle]

Civvie06, that's kinda already the case. The speed limits in place are for perfect conditions only. If the road is wet, stopping distances double, and speed should be reduced accordingly. In poor light, it will take longer to recognise, therefore react to a hazard, so speed should be reduced. You can get done for using innapropriate use of speed, even if you are below the speed limit. Imagine flying round a blind bend on a single track road at the national speed limit- 60mph. You are not speeding, but you are driving too fast for the conditions.

With regards to doing 67mph in a 60, if you can see the road to be clear and safe I can see your point. The only extra danger you face is that you are carrying the extra speed should something unexpected happen. But that could happen at 70 on a motorway. But what is to stop somebody saying on an empty motorway that 130mph is OK becasue nobody is around and you can stop well within the distance they can see to be clear?

The only fool-proof way, and the way the DSA say it, is that the speed limit is the maximum speed you can drive at on a road in perfect conditions, not a target you must reach.

[elfa7]

Am I correct in saying that the speed limit was brought in during the oil crisis in the sixties ?.

[Honda100]

Seems like it was a little more complicated although I have always thought that it was the oil crisis. Read more about it here:
http://www.abd.org.uk/motorwayspeedlimit.htm#background