Speed trap, flashing headlights offence?

Tahiti

rdwarr wrote:

It goes to show that, regardless of how many children are killed on our roads, speeding is still not considered a crime in the same league as drunk driving.

Reckless driving - whether it be drinking/on drugs while driving, or tearing past a school (at kicking out time) at 50 is totally unacceptable. I personally classify drink driving as idiocy rather than a crime though, but I am sure that I am in the minority with this view.

The problem that I have is that people who properly speed (rather than exceed the limit now and again - as EVERYONE does) spend their time scanning for cameras and traps rather than keeping an eye on the road. So how can that improve road safety?

Cameras are just there to make money and save costs (I see a lot less traffic police on the roads these days who could be stopping people for driving unfit/uninsured cars, as well as those people who speed). It's all a big scam, and until this changes, the majority of people will not support speed cameras. I genuinely don't believe that most people support speeding though, and certainly not dangerous driving.

I read somewhere that the only county that doesn't have any fixed speed cameras is the only one to have reduced deaths on the roads over the last few years. How can speed cameras be considered a success?

In answer to the original question though, I don't believe it is illegal to flash someone to warn them of a speed camera/trap, just like it isn't illegal to have certain road safety devices that warn the driver of speed cameras. Remember back in the old days, The AA would warn their members of speed traps!

vincefenlon

Some of the mobile speed cameras are run by civils not police or off duty police therefore the obstructions therefore shouldnt effect you.

How do they know that you didnt accidently flick your lights, just like you accidentaly leave your indicator on.

raymond

rdwarr wrote:

It goes to show that, regardless of how many children are killed on our roads, speeding is still not considered a crime in the same league as drunk driving. If you saw somebody burgling a house you wouldn't warn him if the police were coming, so why should an offence that kills far more people than housebreaking be treated differently?

Perhaps if the police and other authorities spent half the time combating drug dealing and burglaries that they do convicting motorists then we may feel differently about the "safety" camera scams.

rdwarr

raymond wrote:

Perhaps if the police and other authorities spent half the time combating drug dealing and burglaries that they do convicting motorists then we may feel differently about the "safety" camera scams.

I rest my case :rolleyes:

ariba10

When the AA Patrols on motor cycles started they used to signal to members if there were police about.

They were told that it was an offence. That was when they started to salute AA members and if they didn't salute you it was assumed that there were police about.

I have read that explanation a few times over the years but how true it is I don't know.

the_devil_made_me_do_it

Although I never speed :rolleyes: if I see a speed camera ahead, I generally slow down to a "legal" slow speed, so that the camera not only dosen't flash me, but the vehicles behind me are having to slow down too, so a few more unsuspecting drivers avoid being flashed at too

Might annoy those behind, but I'm possibly saving them a few quid too :T


For the record I don't agree with speeding, but I detest the sly ways in which the authorities go about catching those who do speed. End of point from me.

*!*HIBS*!*

jazzy wrote:

I think that if I was stopped for this offence. I would just say I knew the driver and was just saying hello!

Exactly.:D

Also sometimes its not the speeding that kills (although this is mainly true on most cases) its sometimes the person behind the speeding vehicle at the time and also what they were doing before the accident happened, and some othe factors include the condition of the vehicle, road conditions, day/nite etc..

moonrakerz

Just to expand slightly on the last e-mail.

The people in these "Safety Partnerships" have a vested intersest - it's paying their wages. I recently saw a senior police officer on TV saying that "speed was involved in over 30% of road accidents". This is rubbish ! Speed is involved in 100% of road accidents - if the vehicles were not moving there couldn't be an accident.
What he was probably trying to say was that "excessive speed was involved". But even this doesn't give a true picture, idependant organisations estimate that accidents where people were exceeding the speed limit represent somewhere between 2 & 3% of all accidents. All the speed cameras in the world are not going to prevent an inexperienced driver losing control of his overloaded car trying to go round a 40 mph bend at 55 mph in the wet and dark.

The truth is that speed cameras have become a quick and easy source of revenue and their true value in reducing road accidents is highly doubtful.

PS I don't have an axe to grind - I've never been flashed - touch wood ! I am just a natural born cynic.

claire23

"The truth is that speed cameras have become a quick and easy source of revenue and their true value in reducing road accidents is highly doubtful."


I agree - how many drivers actually slow down after being "flashed" many would just think -"I've been flashed now - so what!"

How does this reduce the amount of speeding drivers on the road?

aussielle

Twopints wrote:

Also, I think there is legislation going through which makes the use of speed trap detectors illegal.

Interesting to read in today's paper that Transport Minister Stephen Ladyman has admitted to having a speed camera detector fitted in his car