Conference terri::cars_uk

      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

Did i understand that?

mb

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

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!!!!

>>>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

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

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?

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.

    
    	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.

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
 

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

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?

      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???)
      

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 .\

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.

� 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
    
    So much for the burden of proof being with the prosecution!.
    
    Mark

Re: .27

There are a lot of laws which say something like "...will be convicted unless
it can be shown that...".

jb

    
    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

    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.  

    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.

The law is getting somewhat out-of-hand these days ...

If you have a satellite disk connected to a receiver connected to a television
that CANNOT receive terrestrial (BBC, ITV and C4) TV (eg a RGB Barco monitor)
then you didn't need a TV licence. They have now changed the law so that if
you receive any transmission from a UK based company then you must pay the fee!

Sounds like a licence to prosecute people.

Back to Radar Detectors ...

You are allowed to RECEIVE X and K band frequencies (the ones typically used
by Police radar) but your cannot ACT on that information received, so if you
slow down then that is an offence.

The Ka band frequencies, used in the new photo-traps (legal in a couple of
months) are WAY outside the X and K bands, and thus are illegal to receive,
even though they are being shot through your car and body (and Grandma!).

But ignoring that, if Mr Beak is deciding on your fine for a minor speeding
offence, and it is brought to his attention that you had "Radar Detection
Equipment" in your car, then he is probably more likely to place the fine
nearer the �400 maximum (�1000 maximum from December) limit (plus the 6 points
n'all).

Stand by for dash-mounted machine-guns!

mb

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

>    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

    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.

    
    Yeah, I got this too.
    
    Mark

    
    	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...!

Some guy got taken to court over this.

He won because he proved his television was incapable of recieving ITV,BBCetc


Greg

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??

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 .\

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

    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.

    
    Don't they have to take your name and address anyway?
    
    Best bet is to only buy second-hand teles! :^)
    
    Mark

    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.

    I've just bought a licence as I've just moved into a new house.
    
    But if I were immoral (which I ain't!) what's to stop me buying a B/W	
    licence and save �50. I mean who's going to check, I assume all their 	
    computers do is to find adresses with no record of a licence; if there
    is one (albeit a B/W) then surely the matching algorithm skips your
    entry and hey presto! no nasty letters!
    
    Huw
    PS. I know its a rathole, and shouldn't it be in UK_TV?
    
    

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.

    
    But have YOU ever seen a detector van? :^)
    
    Mark

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

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

    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

    Also a few years back - they only had about 3 vans for the entire
    country !!

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!

    
    	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...

    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

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

    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.

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.

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

    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.
                         

    
    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
     

>>    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.

    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

    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.

    What did .63 say and who wrote it ??
    
    It wasn't me this time !
    
    Gary (completely innocent).

               <<< 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

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

    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.

> 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.

>>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)

    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.

               <<< 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   (                            --- " ---                        )
  

    
    Police used to use my driveway for radar traps. I used to take them
    cups of tea and biscuits.
    
    You think I'm joking ?

   <<< 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

 

    
>>  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...

I can hannel that ... :-)

    :^)
    
    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.

    
    >> As has been said, if motorists were to concentrate more, then
    >> joyriding, radar detectors and global warming could all be avoided :-)
    
    And indeed hairdryers.

Re: .68

Gary,

i never said that i _had_ a detector, after all they are illegal ;-)

According to Car, X and K band a legal frequencies for anybody to receive,
so the law would have difficulty prosecuting you for having a two-band
detector. Mr Beak may give you a stiffer fine for the actual offence of
speeding of course!

Ka band (as used in photo traps) is outside the legal frequencies, so if
you have a three-band detector then you are potentially setting yourself
up for a fine of up to �2000.

Obviously the Police have a fair idea about the way that detectors work,
so may install photo-traps pointing in the SAME direction as the traffic,
thus you get the beam hitting from the rear. They also have auto-on guns
that fire a radar burst and determine the speed almost instantaneously.
They also have VASCAR, Police Pilot, unmarked cars, helicopters etc!

Re: .69

Nigel,

Several small articles have appeared in various car magazines, and as far as
i can remember there are three changes to the "speeding" laws.

Maximum fine is up from �400 to �1000
Penalty points per offence up from 3 to 6
Photo traps are now legal in court

... but i don't have any confirmation of this!

    
    
     
    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
                      

Ahhh Gi'day...�

    The bit  about  "black  spots" is BS.  They set them up where they know
    people  are  speeding,  and  where they'll catch the most people.  Most
    people don't speed through "black spots".

    There are all sorts of tricks the police use to defeat radar detectors.
    One  of  them  is the dual beam system, whereby a mobile car will use a
    low power beam to hit the road in front, and get the patrol cars speed.
    When  you come in range, they turn on the full beam, and have have very
    little  time to get on the brakes to slow down.  However, they must get
    a  few  constant readings to show a speed, so if you are heavily on the
    brakes,  they  won't get a reading.  Most radar detectors try to detect
    this "pilot" beam.

    Another thing  is that they turn the unit off all together, and turn it
    on  when you are in range.  This is technically an inappropriate use of
    the device, because it needs some tuning and settle time.  Try to argue
    it  in court.  "Constable Plod is a highly trained member of the force,
    aware of the limitations of the device.  He is trained to use it in the
    appropriate manner"

       <<< Note 329.81 by DCC::HAGARTY "Essen, Trinken und Shaggen..." >>>
                                 -< blah blah >-

Ahhh Gi'day...�

    The bit  about  "black  spots" is BS.  They set them up where they know
    people  are  speeding,  and  where they'll catch the most people.  

On what do you base this assertion? Perhaps you could provide a couple of
examples.

                     [ ... ] Most people don't speed through "black spots".

On the contrary. They wouldn't be Blackspots if people didn't speed through
them in the first place. How do you think they got their reputation? 

Admittedly the phrase 'blackspot' is difficult to define, but in most cases
I would suggest that the phrase is used for areas where there is a higher
than average incidence of accidents, due to drivers travelling at excessive
speeds, which are _probably_ above the legal limit for that area.

[ ... ]

    little  time to get on the brakes to slow down.  However, they must get
    a  few  constant readings to show a speed, so if you are heavily on the
    brakes,  they  won't get a reading.  

This sounds a bit dangerous. Standing on the brakes is something which I
observe people doing frequently around Marked police cars, and seems to be
usually done in panic. I've seen more close shaves around marked police
cars than I have when travelling fast. 

Dougie

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...

Re: .80

I think the new law was from 1-Nov-1991 (or maybe 1-Dec-1991)

mb

Taken from What Car - October 1991


*Tough traffic act in December*

Higher fines for dangerous driving are on the way when the Road Traffic Act
takes effect from December.

Maximum fines for speeding will go up from �400 to �1000.

A new offence of dangerous driving replaces death by reckless driving.
Convicted drivers will have to face a re-test after imprisonment up to
a maximum of 5 years,

Camera technology will be used increasingly to catch speeding offenders
and penalty points will be increased from three to six. The speed sensors
mounted on traffic lights can be used to catch urban speedsters with traffic
summonses by camera a ...



At this point the article just stops!

    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
    
    
    

    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

    Too late again...Damm phones
    
    ..Craig

    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

Re: .56

Extracted from Performance Car - September 1991 (without permission)


DETECTOR TEST


Maxon RD-21A

A reasonably smart X and K band  detector with simple controls. A highway/city
switch varies the range of X band detection for urban use, although it is
difficult to see which position this is in at any time. The alert consists
of a flashing red "ALERT" logo on the front panel combined with a bleeper, the
rate of this increasing with the strength of the signal.. No 'mute' switch but
the easily-used volume control may be used here when needed. No noticeable
false alerts due to radio signals - the Maxon's metal case helps.

Verdict:	Good performance at a reasonable cost
Price		�70
Features	**
Performance	**
Ease of use	****
Value for money	****


Superhawk SH-7

Priced at just below �50, this must be one of the lowest cost detectors on the
market. No On/Off switch, no volume control, just a no-nonsense unit operating
on X and K bands. It gives a good detection range, although it sometimes
triggers on other signals than radar, such as some radio transmitters. The
alert consists of a flashing LED combined with a bleeper with the rate of this
signifying the radar strength signal.

Verdict:	For the budget minded who doesn't mind the lack of options
Price		�50
Features	*
Performance	**
Ease of use	*****
Value for money	*****


Snooper SRD-370

This one's a plastic cased two-band detector, rather on the large side compared
with others. Front-mounted power-on and audible alert sonds from an internal
bleeper, the volume being controlled by a front panel mounted slider. An easily
read bar-graph shows the strength of received signals. In use it gave
reasonable performance with good immunity from false signals from non-radar
sources, the controls being easy to use on the move.

Verdict:	There are better units for this money
Price		�180
Features	**
Performance	**
Ease of use	****
Value for money	*


Uniden RD-3XL

This comes with a unique guarantee from the UK distributers - if you get a
ticket you keep the unit and get a refund of the purchase cost! A large bright
alert indicator is complemented by an LED signal strength bar-graph showing
the band being detected. Distinctly different audible alerts with a 'mute'
mode, visual/audible only modes, and a City/Highway switch. High rejection of
traffic light radar due to narrow band width detection, and the grey metal case
also gives good immunity from carphone signals although the odd alert was
received from high-power signals.

Verdict:	Very easy to use; a good choice
Price		�220
Features	****
Performance	****
Ease of use	*****
Value for money	*****


Bel Legend 966

A Multi-feature unit, though push-button controls are difficult to use when
visor mounted. A digital LED 1-8 signal strength readout is given, together
with small X, K, and Ka logos to indicate the band being received. 'Bird Call'
type audible alerts are sounded, but even at maximum volume these aren't very
loud and get lost in background music from the car stereo. Frequently triggered
from carphones and wide open to traffic light radar, but has a good range.
Difficult to use without constantly taking your eyes off the road.

Verdict:	Good performance but user-unfriendly
Price		�280
Features		*****
Performance	****
Ease of use	**
Value for money	****


Bel Express 3 Cordless

Broadly similar features and performance to the Bel Legend 3 but with a
difference. This one's powered from an internal 9V battery, and a unique
clip-on reflector even lets you use it in your top pocket! An LED bar-graph
is the signal strength indicator, much better than the 7-segment numerical
display. The buttons again were difficult to use when the visor mounted. Along
with its 12V cousin, this also suffered from low volume 'bird call' alerts and
false alerts from carphone transmissions although the detection range was good.

Verdict:	Expensive but handy if you need the mobility
Price		�300
Features	*****
Performance	****
Ease of use	**
Value for money	***


Snooper SRD-710 Triband

This is one of the lower cost models covering Ka as well as X and K bands. With
its streamlined styling it should look good anywhere. Mute, Filter (City), and
Dark (LEDs off) buttons are provided. The indicator LEDs (difficult to see in
daylight) automatically dim at night. Three coloured LEDs indicate the band
being detected, and a digital LED gives a 1-8 readout of received strength.
Slightly different audio tones indicate which band is received, but these are
difficult to tell apart. Good range with very few false alerts, and very good
immunity from traffic light radar due to its narrow detection bandwidth.

Verdict:		Space-age style but difficult to use.
Price		�200
Features		***
Performance	****
Ease of use	**
Value for money	****


Cobra Trapshooter RD-3168

Covering X and K bands, it's an attractive styles unit in a smart grey finish.
The buttons are difficult to use when the unit's clipped to your sun-visor but
you can easily mount it upside down for this. Multi-coloured LEDs indicate the
received signal strength. The audible alert and coloured LEDs differentiate
between X and K bands, Sometimes gives false alerts and volume control and
slide switch for Audible/Visual only alerts are badly placed.

Verdict:	Good looking but frills which don't improve performance
Price		�130
Features	****
Performance	**
Ease of use	***
Value for money	**

Ahhh Gi'day...�

      I base my assertions on 10 years experience avoiding speed traps.

    You can  go  through  a  blackspot  within the speed limit and still be
    dangerous.   The  fact  it's  a  blackspot  may have NOTHING to do with
    exceeding the speed limit.

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

    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.

    
    <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
    
                                           

    
    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

    what is a concelled copper...???
    

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

    �                -< Why don't I feel sorry for Elizabeth? >-
    
    'coz she's a stupid tart and got what EVERYONE knew she would!!!!
    
    Mark

    
    
     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

    I'm almost certain Cameron has one in his Jag. 
    
    Dougie
    

    I would have thought that was taken as read! :^)
    
    Mark

    
    > I'm almost certain Cameron has one in his Jag. 
    
    What, a lavvie ?
    
    Mike H.
    
    PS. Perhaps we should move this to ::ARCHERS.
    

>>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.

    
    Yeah, but you broke the law and paid for it.
    
    Tough luck I say!!

    � 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.  
    
    	Nothing personal, but I'm pleased to hear it!
    
    	When that contraflow was put in place, the police gave a lot of
    	publicity to the fact that they would be rigourously enforcing the
    	speed limit. Consequently, I have always keep to it, and I'm usually
    	overtaken by a handfull of cars doing 70+ who always seem to get
    	away with it.
    
    	Ian.

re: .103

Nothing personal, but a twenty quid fine? What a joke!! For a measley �20 I
think I'd be encouraged to take the calculated risk and speed.

The minimum speeding fine should be at least �100 and an automatic 3 points
on your license. And more than 50% over the limit should be an automatic ban
(yes, even for 45 in a 30 limit).

I was in the UK last week and drove almost 1000 miles, a lot of it on motorways.
I'd say many people were driving 85-95mph. What's the chance of them getting
pulled up, and if they were, what would the fine be? �25 maybe?

Colin.

RE: -.1 (minimum speeding fine of at least �100)

I got my first speeding fine on Monday (in Switzerland) - doing 56kph in a 50 
zone (35 mph in a 31 mph area). �8 on the spot fine.

I was speeding and I broke the law - fair enough. However a �100 quid fine 
seems a bit steep for my error.

Steve

    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!!

re: .-1
    
> I was speeding and I broke the law - fair enough. However a �100 quid fine 
> seems a bit steep for my error.
    
    A �100 fine would make you think twice before you broke the law again.
    I doubt an �8 fine would deter the average driver.

    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.

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

    
    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.

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.

    Well said, Mr. Kerrell, well said.
    
    Laurie.

>>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.

    I agree completly with Mr Kerrell, Mr Brown and Mr (?) Rutter.
    
    	Rik
    
    Speed doesn't kill; it's incompetant drivers.

    
    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
    

>    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 ?

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

>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-)

    
    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
                  

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

    
    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
    

>>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.

re.125:

Slowing down without using your brakes is very dangerous as there are no brake
lights to wake up the prat behind.

/Dave.

    
    Therefore it usually gives said pratt a sufficient fright to make him
    keep his distance.
    
    -Tony (Handbrake turn-er extrordinaire)

    
    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...

    
    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

    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.

    
    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.

    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

    That's right.  Fine is imposed 'on the spot'.  Payment made by post.
    
    J.R.

    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

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

>>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.

	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 

    
    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.
     

    In Switzerland 30 km over the speed limit and you lose your licence for
    30 days plus you get a big fine!!

    
    re -1:
    
    In Finland the same thing! You'll easily get fine big as months salary.
    
    
    
    Hannu
    
    

RE: .139

The fine isn't that big really (at least in Neuch�tel) - I know 'cos I asked my
friendly policeman whilst he was booking me!

6-10 kph over limit 20 Fr (�8)
11-15 kph over limit 40 Fr (�16)
.
.
.
30-35 kph over limit 320 Fr (�125) and one month's ban.

(I didn't ask what happens after this!)

Steve

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...

    
    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
    

	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

    
    Pierre,
    
    You speak better English than most of the cavemen in here so worry not
    my friend!
    
    -Tony

>>                    <<< 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

Re: .144

It's not meant to be agressive....just wake those behind you up...

    
    
    	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.
    
    

    	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.

    Has anyone got the names'addresses of any such mail order companies ?
    
    
    
    Jason.

I have just bought a 3 band radar detector from a company in Scotland.
Cost �195 + vat (�230 approx)
Ordered Wednesday, delivered Thursday.

I havent got the address with me but will post it here later.

Matt.

PS its saved me once already !

> 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

    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.

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

    
    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

    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.

    ... or even better still, don't buy a detector, don't break the speed
    limit or other laws and save both the cost of detector and fine.
    
    As for use, make sure you have your receiving license! what, you mean
    you can't get one, oh well thats another �1000 spent. That is (I
    believe) the fine for using unlicensed radio equipment that should be
    licensed, plus confiscation of all radio equipment installed in the car,
    including hi-fi and if they really want to upset you they can confiscate
    the vehicle as well. If they want to go the whole hog, they can strip
    you house of every bit of recieving equipment and never give it back.
    This happened to an acquaintance of mine. He was using illegal CB from
    his van parked outside of his house, running about 1000 watts. The DTI
    took:
    
    	His van and all contents, he wasn't given a chance to remove
    	anything.
    
    	All his televisions, radios, stereos, CB radios, aerials from his house
    	including ones from his children's rooms.
    
    	And he was fined for using the CB:	From the van
    						From the house
    	
    	for the maximum �1000 (or whatever) for each offence.
    
    Admitedly he did cause quite some interference to the hospital system
    by running 1000 watts from his vehicle and best part of 3000 watts from 
    the house.
    
    They have to prove you were using the equipment of course, but they cover
    that with the "possession is tantamount to use" clause.
    
    Oh well, such is life.
    
    
    Simon (being very cynical)
    ;-)
    
    

    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.
    

    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

    
    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.
    

    Possibly a good opportunity to get in some practice with one of those
    "war games" paint guns!!!
    
    Steve

    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

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.

    
    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. 

    >... 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!
    

    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-)
     

>    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.

	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

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 !!

    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

    
    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.
    

	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

    
    
    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.
     

Glad to hear it - I think its a good idea !

Andy

    
    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.

    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

    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

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

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

Steve,

Drive slower and that way you save money by not buying a 
detector and using less petrol!

    Ian, 
    
      MMM? I never thought about that?,, 
    
    Thanks Ian, 
    
    Better still can I borrow "your" car?
    
    :-)
                                         

>>>see it is loaded to the hilt with camera equipment - one for each lane !
							^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>Andy

Drive between lanes then?  Astride the lines?

				Malcolm.

>>>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

    .179�see it is loaded to the hilt with camera equipment - one for each lane !
    
      Are you sure that those aren't TrafficMaster sensors?

yeh pretty sure, the traffic master sensors hang down, where as these are 
obviousley cameras - check it out next time your passing !

    
    The 'extra white lines' are normally for cameras that catch you for
    driving too close to the person in front, not speeding.
    
    Richard.

MMMMmmmmm....

That would explain the little white lines, but I'll still treat that area with 
the respect it deserves.

Andy

    .185�                       -< sure enough not to risk it ! >-
    
      Yes, you're right, there are GATSO's there.  The white lines at the
    side of the road are there to double-check the calibration of the
    cameras, btw.

    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.

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

    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

    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.

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

    ...or cover your car in tin foil and pretend to be a stealth bomber!

    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.

    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.

    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
    
    

    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.

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!

    Sorry Chris, couldn't resist!
    
    Laurie.

�.198 Perhaps they should put some effort into stopping people hogging the
�.198 centre and outside lanes. I'm sure that would help the accident
�.198 statistics more than a little.
    
      Laurie, I whole-heartedly agree with the above. 

      The thing is, if we get the UK to change, it's going to be an even 
      bigger job to get the mainland of Europe to change! ;-)

      Martin.

�.198 Perhaps they should put some effort into stopping people hogging the
�.198 centre and outside lanes. I'm sure that would help the accident
�.198 statistics more than a little.
    
>>>      Laurie, I whole-heartedly agree with the above. 

>>>      The thing is, if we get the UK to change, it's going to be an even 
>>>      bigger job to get the mainland of Europe to change! ;-)

>>>      Martin.

	I wouldn't mind if the situation wasn't already covered in the Motorway
Law - it just isn't enforced!

				Malcolm.

    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

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

    Yep, that's the one... cunningly hidden behind a bridge. Good. I've
    never seen it wink at me once yet :-)