The government has a measure in a bill under consideration to make laser and radar detectors illegal. The reason, sometimes they 'interfere' with the speed detectors.

They originally took someone to court using that argument, and it was thrown out as a passive detector in no way 'interferes' with a transmission, it simply recieves it.

They also argue that this will stop "extreme speeders" who use them when street racing from benefitting from the devices.

:loopy: how stupid are the people proposing these reasons.


If someone is breaking any number of laws to street race cars, a ban on radar detectors a) will not stop them using them, and b) I expect that they don't use them anyway, they probably check the road in advance and don't race where there are speed cameras.

So, what will the law actually do. In my opinion it stops the legitimate use of these devices. Afterall speed cameras are only situated in dangerous areas right? So an audible warning when you approach one of these locations makes you doubly aware that you should be cautious and reminds you to be aware of your speed and the conditions.

Stats indicate that drivers with these devices fitted have 27% less accidents (figure from memory, may not be 100% accurate).

My mates Tom-Tom tells him where the speed cameras are without using a radar detector, will he have to have it changed so it doesn't tell him where they are ?

The GPS (tomtom etc) things have the camera sites programmed in. They dont detect cameras as you approach them, so I reckon there's nothing wrong with that.

So I suppose the law wouldn't cover them. You could just say you have them programmed in as areas of special interest - the same way you might have museums, or even Burger Kings or Little Chefs programmed in...


The radar detectors are for mobile speed traps more than anything these days, surely?
What with the proliferation of Truvelo, surely they aren't that effective anymore.

Originally posted by jackthedog
The GPS (tomtom etc) things have the camera sites programmed in. They dont detect cameras as you approach them, so I reckon there's nothing wrong with that.

So I suppose the law wouldn't cover them. You could just say you have them programmed in as areas of special interest - the same way you might have museums, or even Burger Kings or Little Chefs programmed in...


The radar detectors are for mobile speed traps more than anything these days, surely?
What with the proliferation of Truvelo, surely they aren't that effective anymore.

quite true, gps only devices will not be covered.

and yes, for mobile traps, as they don't detect truvelos and the other more modern types.

They are also considering having to compensate everyone who owns one. Which is only right I think.

To be honest I'm suprised they were ever made legal in this country. Things like this are very rarely made available over here. It doesn't come as a shock to me they are trying to ban them at the slightest.

I have friends with Jammers/Detectors/Scanners etc and when you get pulled over you get just as much grief for the cop not being able to get a reading on his gatso. Banning them won't do anything as people will still be able to get hold of them.

Originally posted by J-Blaze
To be honest I'm suprised they were ever made legal in this country. Things like this are very rarely made available over here. It doesn't come as a shock to me they are trying to ban them at the slightest.

I have friends with Jammers/Detectors/Scanners etc and when you get pulled over you get just as much grief for the cop not being able to get a reading on his gatso. Banning them won't do anything as people will still be able to get hold of them.

things don't have to be made legal, fortunately things are legal until they are explicitly made illegal, not the other way around.

If you have a jammer then you are breaking the law and the grief will include a trip to the station and being charged.
Banning them will prevent most law abiding motorists using them. I certainly won't be risking a £1000 fine because a policeman happens to glance through my windscreen and see it.
They are already illegal in France, and apparently lots of British motorists are caught out by this. They are generally then escorted to a cash point by the french police to pay the "fine".

Check this out:

http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=9728

Originally posted by Cyclone
things don't have to be made legal, fortunately things are legal until they are explicitly made illegal, not the other way around.

If you have a jammer then you are breaking the law and the grief will include a trip to the station and being charged.
Banning them will prevent most law abiding motorists using them. I certainly won't be risking a £1000 fine because a policeman happens to glance through my windscreen and see it.
They are already illegal in France, and apparently lots of British motorists are caught out by this. They are generally then escorted to a cash point by the french police to pay the "fine".

Actually I think things brushing the lines of breaking the law have to be given the OK before going on sale. I've been in a car when a Police officer has failed to take a speed reading and all he said was "Have you got anything on your car?" We said no and off we went.

Originally posted by J-Blaze
Actually I think things brushing the lines of breaking the law have to be given the OK before going on sale. I've been in a car when a Police officer has failed to take a speed reading and all he said was "Have you got anything on your car?" We said no and off we went.

firstly, who decides what's brushing the line. If your product doesn't break an existing law then you can sell it.
secondly these don't brush the edges of the law, they are perfectly legal at the moment.

Radar Jammers are already illegal and the copper must have had more pressing matters to not search your car and prosecute you if they thought you had one. They really don't like such things!

Originally posted by neeeeeeeeeek
Radar Jammers are already illegal and the copper must have had more pressing matters to not search your car and prosecute you if they thought you had one. They really don't like such things!
yeah, sorry, i meant detectors were legal, jammers are not.

Originally posted by Cyclone
firstly, who decides what's brushing the line. If your product doesn't break an existing law then you can sell it.
secondly these don't brush the edges of the law, they are perfectly legal at the moment.

I'm not going to start bickering with you but I think you will find if you have a new product that doesn't currently exist for sale in a country you have to check whether sale of that product is allowed. Breaking current laws or not, introducing a new product that's brushing the lines of legality would no doubt be the cause for new laws.

Originally posted by J-Blaze
I'm not going to start bickering with you but I think you will find if you have a new product that doesn't currently exist for sale in a country you have to check whether sale of that product is allowed. Breaking current laws or not, introducing a new product that's brushing the lines of legality would no doubt be the cause for new laws.

check with who? if it's not breaking any laws, what are they going to say. Well it's legal, but we'd rather you didn't sell it. Or what do they do if a company doesn't check? Check themselves, find out that it's legal and do nothign because it's not illegal.

Of course a company might choose to consult it's legal department to confirm that it's not illegal, but once that's done there is no requirement to inform any government department that it will be for sale.

OK I'll give you an example.

A company currently selling high powered paintball guns as training rifles to law enforcement agencies accross the globe. The rilfes have recently been made available to the public in a number of places. These rifles fire at a rate of up to 650fps.

Now these guns are not real guns they are just paintball guns. So this must class them as toys. Yet they have the power to do serious injury. As there is currently no law on high powered paintball guns would it be fine to ship them to other countries? Checking with law enforcement wouldn't be neccisary as there's no law against them. It's just something that could possibly kill. Must just be a toy then eh.

OO, getting confusing this! Jammers ARE already illegal. Detectors are NOT illegal. Jammers will contravine some radio law or other where as detectors don't emit anything so currentry are not against the law. So how much will they give me for my snooper then??

They say they are going to be made illegal blah blah but if you have it well hidden in your car I'm sure they are not going to pull over every driver on the road to check if he has one.

If you do get caught just play ignorant; "Illegal officer? I had no idea"

Originally posted by J-Blaze
They say they are going to be made illegal blah blah but if you have it well hidden in your car I'm sure they are not going to pull over every driver on the road to check if he has one.

If you do get caught just play ignorant; "Illegal officer? I had no idea"

well hidden means it has no chance of picking up laser and a much reduced chance of picking up radar.
If it's passed i'm sure they'll publicise it, so ignorance will be no defence.
I guess i'll be getting a GPS only version if it's passed.

If you abide by the speed limits/ the law, you don't need one at all.

Originally posted by t020
If you abide by the speed limits/ the law, you don't need one at all.

Words from a wise man. Speeders deserve what they get imo.

As all things go, they will make them more advanced, you wont even see the unit in your car, it will just make an audible sound through the cars speaker system, and will have a sensor fitted behind the front grille, and the rest of it behind the head unit to allow for the sound to come over the ICE.

Even a search of the car wont find it, bit like the TRACKER system which DOES emit a signal.

Hmm, not a bad idea me thinks :)

Originally posted by t020
If you abide by the speed limits/ the law, you don't need one at all.

so the evidence to indicate that speed camera detectors reduce accidents by bringing a dangerous zone to your attention means nothing to you.

Remind me again, can you drive?

Originally posted by J-Blaze
Words from a wise man. Speeders deserve what they get imo.

it's another device for helping you not to speed, maybe you'd like to see speedo's removed and people get what they deserve then if they are speeding?

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
As all things go, they will make them more advanced, you wont even see the unit in your car, it will just make an audible sound through the cars speaker system, and will have a sensor fitted behind the front grille, and the rest of it behind the head unit to allow for the sound to come over the ICE.

Even a search of the car wont find it, bit like the TRACKER system which DOES emit a signal.

Hmm, not a bad idea me thinks :)

except that manufacturing and selling such a device will be as illegal as owning and using it.

Originally posted by Cyclone
except that manufacturing and selling such a device will be as illegal as owning and using it.
bah! ebay.de ;) hehe

Originally posted by Cyclone
so the evidence to indicate that speed camera detectors reduce accidents by bringing a dangerous zone to your attention means nothing to you.

Remind me again, can you drive?

:lol: I love your patronising tone, it never fails to make me chuckle.

In response to your point, speed camera detectors may reduce accidents around speed cameras - they alert the driver to the presence of a speed camera so the driver ensures they don't break the limit. However, if they weren't breaking the limit to begin with (which they shouldn't be) then accidents would be reduced overall, and those that do occur would be less serious. In answer to your question, yes I can drive, I just don't speed.

glad it keeps you amused.

Whatever 'should' be happening isn't the point. The devices do reduce accidents because most people do speed.
So banning them will increase accidents and therefore deaths on the road. Another example of the government acting before thinking.

PS - I've heard many drivers tell me they don't speed. Invariably they are either lying or deluded. I have never been driven anywhere by anyone who did not at one point break the limit, except maybe directly after they told me they don't speed.
A week later, wups, that's 35 in a 30 zone.

Originally posted by t020
I just don't speed.

You know speeding is an 'absolute offence' which means 1mph over the limit means you are breaking the law? Never done that then....?

Anyway, not only do these devices help detect blackspots, they ALSO warn you if you have exceeded the speed limit - speed cameras or not, so there is an element of safety to them aswell. Because the warning is audible, it helps the driver keep his eyes on the road, and not on the speedo.

Besides, I thought most speed cameras were to be made 'more visible' by being painted yellow, so whats wrong with these devices that do very much the same thing - afterall its about preventing accidents isnt it? :)

I tell a lie actually, I believe I've been driven by my gran and she never broke the speed limit.

She was more dangerous than most drivers of course because she was driving so much below the limit and hesitantly. But there we have it, my gran won't be made more dangerous by having camera detectors made illegal.
A clear victory for the forces of good over the evil motorists.

There is a site you can visit that tells you where all the static speed cameras are, and also were the mobile ones have been the previous day.

I thought radar detectors were already illigal to be honest so its news to me.

I think there banned in france but not sure, a guy in the Gumball rally was using one and after he had detected a speed camera he took off the radar and hid it, suggesting they are banned.

:lol:

Cyclone - just because most drivers break the limit doesn't make it acceptable. Would theft be treated in the same way if most people did that? The fact is, these detectors allow people to speed as much as they like because they know they're not going to get caught, unless the detector picks up a radar for them so they actually abide by the limit.

1man - of course I never drift 1mph over the limit... The aspect you point out with the audible notification of going over the limit is good - it should be built into speedos as standard. The other aspect however, with detecting radars, is bad - see above for why.

Originally posted by t020


1man - of course I never drift 1mph over the limit... The aspect you point out with the audible notification of going over the limit is good - it should be built into speedos as standard. The other aspect however, with detecting radars, is bad - see above for why.


Some cars (such as the newer Audis) have in build speed limitation, but you have to set the speed the audible warning goes off.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
Some cars (such as the newer Audis) have in build speed limitation, but you have to set the speed the audible warning goes off.

Yes, they'd have to auto-sense the speed limit using sat nav to know what road the car is on, and therefore knowing the associated speed limit.

Originally posted by t020
:lol:

Cyclone - just because most drivers break the limit doesn't make it acceptable. Would theft be treated in the same way if most people did that? The fact is, these detectors allow people to speed as much as they like because they know they're not going to get caught, unless the detector picks up a radar for them so they actually abide by the limit.

1man - of course I never drift 1mph over the limit... The aspect you point out with the audible notification of going over the limit is good - it should be built into speedos as standard. The other aspect however, with detecting radars, is bad - see above for why.

so because people shouldn't steal you'd like to see burglar alarms banned?

And of course speeding is victimless, stealing is not.
Speed cameras are placed where it's most dangerous, right? So if people do speed, giving them an audible alarm when they approach a dangerous spot causes them to slow down. The point is safety is it not, not to catch as many drivers as possible or make as much money as possible.
So tell me again, what is the argument to make this device illegal? Safety or Money.

Originally posted by Cyclone
so because people shouldn't steal you'd like to see burglar alarms banned?

A flawed, incorrect analogy - a correct analogy would be the burglars using some kind of radar to sense where the burglar alarms are/ are not in order to thieve from the unprotected houses (like the motorist being able to speed in the radar-free areas of road).


Originally posted by Cyclone

And of course speeding is victimless, stealing is not.


At 40mph, a child has an 80% chance of death. At 30mph, a child has an 80% chance of survival. Speeding IS dangerous and increases fatalities on the road. Hardly a victimless crime?


Originally posted by Cyclone

Speed cameras are placed where it's most dangerous, right?


Supposedly, but unfortunately they tend to be used more as revenue machines rather than being placed in danger areas such as near schools.


Originally posted by Cyclone

So if people do speed, giving them an audible alarm when they approach a dangerous spot causes them to slow down.


But people shouldn't be speeding in the first place, and these radar detectors encourage speeding in areas where there are no speed cameras. Just because an area hasn't been designated a camera doesn't mean it's a safe zone in which to speed.


Originally posted by Cyclone

The point is safety is it not, not to catch as many drivers as possible or make as much money as possible.
So tell me again, what is the argument to make this device illegal? Safety or Money.

Safety - to stop people from belting around in a false sense of security when they are kindly informed they are free from cameras.

the analogy was unfair to be fair.

however you are trotting out the line about speed without thinking it through. People drive at 30 or 40, 0.6% of pedestrians involved in accidents die, that's because drivers have breaks and do not hit people without slowing down.

You might have to excuse me from this debate.
A close friend of mine was killed on Monday morning crossing a pelican crossing. We don't know yet if the driver was doing anything wrong or not. But it's understandably made me a little upset.
I stand by my point that having a radar detector makes things safer, it has been statistically proven and makes sense as well. I'll accept that you disagree though.

Originally posted by Cyclone
the analogy was unfair to be fair.

however you are trotting out the line about speed without thinking it through. People drive at 30 or 40, 0.6% of pedestrians involved in accidents die, that's because drivers have breaks and do not hit people without slowing down.

You might have to excuse me from this debate.
A close friend of mine was killed on Monday morning crossing a pelican crossing. We don't know yet if the driver was doing anything wrong or not. But it's understandably made me a little upset.
I stand by my point that having a radar detector makes things safer, it has been statistically proven and makes sense as well. I'll accept that you disagree though.

Driving faster increases stopping distances, regardless of how hard the driver slams on the brakes.

I'm not disputing that a radar detector makes things safer, but it's the underlying reason behind this that makes my point. The reason a radar detector makes things safer by alerting the driver to a speed camera is because the driver then slows down. Therefore, if they weren't speeding AT ALL, things would be safer all of the time and not just near cameras. However, the technology could be applied in a more safety orientated way, as I suggested above, by building in audio alerts to speedos, therefore letting the driver know when he/she drifts over the limit without the need for constant speedo checking.

I always wonder which cars they test these 'stopping' distances on?? Still 60's cars or something when they say the speed limits :P

Todays vehicles are much better at stopping then they were back then.,

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
I always wonder which cars they test these 'stopping' distances on?? Still 60's cars or something when they say the speed limits :P

Todays vehicles are much better at stopping then they were back then.,

they were based on the ford anglia, they have never been revised.

Originally posted by jackthedog
[B


The radar detectors are for mobile speed traps more than anything these days, surely?
What with the proliferation of Truvelo, surely they aren't that effective anymore. [/B]

Wish I'd had one last Tuesday:sad:

I now eagerly await my first 3 points and £60 fine (hope they spend it wisely) :rolleyes:
Not bad after 18 years on the road I suppose:shakes:

Are the mobile cameras supposed to be hidden behind parked vehicles, on roads without warnings that detectors are in opperation? Also on a second viewing the 30mph sign on the left hand side of the road was obscured by trees, the one on the right blocked by a large removals van. :huh:Unfortunatly I was watching the actual road itself, as you do.
Just call me lucky:suspect:

Before I get set upon
Yes I now know I was over the speed limit.
Yes I'm coughing up
:(