This ref has crept in under another post, but I was surprised to see lack of comment.
The government are looking to ban Radar & Laser detectors.

 

Yep, just got a mail about this - read below
"Bad News folks.

The DETR are going to be banning the use of Radar Detectors, I have put a
new page on the site with the content of their Draft Statutory Instrument.
Have a gander at it and if you can send Mr. Edwards a mail, with over 1500
members on here it will give him a little reading to do.

They plan to give out points and big fines....

On this note I have just installed a Bel 966r in my car I have a review
already on it fitted on a motorbike but I needed to do a car. The 966r can
be hidden and initial results are that it walks all over the 990 and the
Valentine One. The review will be up in a week or so.

There is also consultation paper out on the new Road Traffic Penalties as
well this is real bad news for drivers, page to follow on the site very
soon."

What a mare!

 

The Bel966R is a very good detector.
Hidden and very loud.
The only upsetting thing is the amount of Gatso's I have found on my travels.
Unbelievable. the amount of gatso's within eyeshot of each other or hidden behind signs etc.
Absolutely ridiculous

 

More 'speed kills' cr*p.

I do not disagree that speed is a contributory factor in SOME accidents, but then so is the poor standard of driving displayed by a percentage of motorists, the poor state of the roads, the lack of signing/road markings in some areas, people driveing when they are too tired... the list goes on.

I think the Government latch onto the 'speed kills' idea because it is the only one they can been seen to do anything about with relatively little investment or public outcry (how many old people do you know who drive when they can't even see properly?). If they were really serious about wiping out speeding they would make the penalty a real deterrent, lets face it a small fine and three points is not really that much of a threat.

The fact is that Gatso's and the speeding laws as they stand are a nice source of revenue and radar detectors are reducing that revenue, so they want to ban them.

On a purely selfish note, will they have to compensate people who brought detectors while they were legal?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ed the dead:
<B>On a purely selfish note, will they have to compensate people who brought detectors while they were legal?[/quote]

Well those nice DETR folks reckon that detectors only cost GBP50-60 upwards, and they can't assess the size of the trade, so expect compensation to be minimal!!!! btw, how many legal hand-gun owners are STILL waiting for a payment?

See

 

How does this law stand against the new generation of GPS based gatso detectors?

They don't give out a signal, only recieve it and the morpheous unit is marketed as an accident blackspot warning device. Because, as we all know gatso's are only placed at blackspots.

If it's possible to hook up these units to provide satnav then how can they argue it's a radar detector?

I read the paper and it says 'using one' not owning one. A quick pull of the cable in *** lighter and they've no proof..

 

Note: as i mentioned in a previous topic, if the make "detection devices" illegal, they will be NO WAY for the general innocent population (members of the public) to know where, for example, LIVE speed cameras are operating. Just as important, then will not know where the DEAD cameras are, thus will not be in a position to determine whether the authorities are actually trying to reduce accidents, or trying to maximise revenue.

Please, visit

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Neil Smalley:
<B>How does this law stand against the new generation of GPS based gatso detectors?
[/quote]

Neil,

the proposed statue says (sh*t, you can't ctrl-V a PDF) "any device designed, adapted or intended to be used in order to avoid the detecton by or frustrate the operation of a camera..."

So you are GUILTY, the gun is against your head already - any questions?

Big (VERY farcking BIG) brother is here!

mb

 

How long untill the 5th of Nov?

 

Now I know what the centre console is for in the scooby. It's for hiding the detector in!

I think this govt will be too busy fighting the election to worry too much about this. How are they going to prove I was using it. Laser Jammers, yes.

Any device for detecting camera's huh. Umm what about eyes? I know ban em.

You'll get 3 points and a fine for driving around with your eyes open. That'll teach em.

 

It only says "with out a licence". So where can I get one of these licences. After all, the Gatsos are only put in places where there are accidents and I want to know where these accidents are so...
"where can I get one of these accident blackspot detectors ?" or am I being naive ?

cheers
Andy

 

Neil,

the "govt" don't give a toss once it is law - they just bask in the statistics (such as (For Example) 30,000 _new_ police officers, although 45,000 have actually left) or whatever?

Lies, damn lies and anti-car propaganda!

mb

 

I was thinking of actually getting onto the statute books. This session of parliment the govt have only left in the really important bills such as foxhunting and shelved the less important ones of law and order. I can't see it happening in the life of this parliment.

I've long suspected that the govt wants to reduce congestion by banning all the drivers from being able to drive. Only soccer managers, senior policemen and ministers will have a clean driving license at all in a few years time.

One thing it will achieve is a massive increase in the numbers of people driving without a license and hence insurance. Which will in turn cause law abiding motorists policies to skyrocket in price, which in turn will raise more revenue becuase of the insurance policy tax.

Just reading blow dogs's account of how the psycho who trashed his rear wing has been dealt with makes me wonder sometimes if it's better to be scum than a humble tax payer.

Guess what. I can murder a two year old. Have a free 1.6 million quid 8 yr vacation, with free 1-1 tuition AND after i'm let out nobody will know who I am now.

Or I can do 71Mph twice on a clear day , get banned, maybe lose my job and therefore home
, get a crap credit rating so when I do try and rebuild my life nobody will give me a
mortgage etc etc.

This is'nt a comment on the police themselves, but the insane and perverse justice system we have created where you are better off being a murderer than a motorist(tongue firmly in cheek and bad taste mode on).

 

After a quick scan through, will read it properly later (and send a suitable e-mail (hope you have all done likewise)) it seems to be saying that it is OK to own, but not use one. In which case fit a cut off switch in the car so that it is disabled when the ignition is off, therefore when stopped and you switch off your engine (not good for the Scooby I know, but ignore now for arguements sake) the detector will not be in use, and it will be up to the officer to prove that it was.
I am unsure, but it may be possible to claim the cost of your detector back from the government if this went through as they are effectively removing your right to use something which you own and was legal to use when you bought it. I'm sure Mr Squire would be able to point us in the right direction for a suitable law firm

 

My e-mail has been sent, for those lacking inspiration I have pasted a copy:


'Mr. Edwards,

I have just read the above proposed draft and find myself disagreeing with what is proposed.

I myself have a speed camera detector which I have paid hundreds of pounds for. The detector simply detects the presence of speed cameras, and other devices using similar band signals, such as automatic doors. This gives me warning should I be approaching an accident black spot (as speed cameras are only located here) and especially on motorways the petrol stations, thus allowing me to adjust my speed so that it is suitable for a hazard which I may or may not be able to see. For me in these circumstances it operates as a safety device, letting me know that I am approaching an area where other road users are more likely to become a hazard. So by banning the use of speed camera detectors, for me and many other people you are actually increasing the risk of an accident by removing that extra warning of danger.

These proposed changes to the acts are stated to be in response to the Governments target of a 40% reduction in deaths and serious injuries, followed by stat that one third of these accidents have speed as a major contributory factor. I would appreciate it if someone could provide me and the general public with these statistics, as to my knowledge only a limited number of police forces keep such information regarding all of the accidents in their area, and any of these sets of figures that I have seen have had speed as a single figure percentage. A far higher figure is down to driver error, in order to solve this problem more driver training is required, I am on a course in a weeks time, paid for by myself, and done off my own back; yet only a very small percentage of the population are willing to try to improve their driving in such a way.
The only way I can see of reducing the number of accidents on the roads by a significant margin is to insist on further driver education, however, such a course of action would cost the Government money, not like introducing on the spot fines for speed camera detectors, which would generate revenue.

If things continue in their current way; with more cameras appearing (on clear stretches of road, behind signs, etc) increasing the points total so that more revenue can be generated by fining the motorist, being tolled for using roads which we already pay for with our road tax; the only option I can see for myself is to move abroad. I know of a few other people that feel this way (surprisingly enough, it is those same people who value their car and driving, taking pride in it, those that go on training courses to improve their driving) and not the average I don't need to improve my driving I am safe already brigade.

If nothing else I hope this e-mail helps you think about what you are doing and consider the points I am making.

Thank you for your time

Yours


Mr. R. Calder'

Please send your own points to him, our opinions may not affect what happens, but as long as it make them think at least we have tried.

 

So are they proposing to require you to have a licence to operate a receiver in the X, K, Ka and Ku bands? These are unlicensed parts of the spectrum, and used for other things.

As far as 'detection devices' goes, how are they to police this? If I have a Magellan GPS in my car (a useful thing if you get lost a lot), what's to stop me having a waypoint set for every known speed camera in the UK (well, I'd probably run out of waypoints but you get the gist)?

 

Chaps,

I have sent my mail off. If it's of any use to anyone, you may borrow what you will - the more mail he gets, the harder it will be to ignore. Don't complain about detectors being banned if you didn't do anything about it.....

Ta,

Matt.

EMAIL::::

Mr. Edwards,

I am writing to you to express my concern after having read the Speed Enforcement Detectors - Consultation Document published on 8th January 2001. I do not myself have a speed detection device such as a Radar detector but I disagree wholeheartedly with the proposals set out in the above document. GATSO speed cameras are sighted only at known accident blackspot locations and are designed to slow traffic down to reduce the accident rate at these locations. The possession of a device that can detect these speed cameras gives the driver advance warning of an approaching accident black spot and enables them to adjust their speed appropriately in anticipation of the seen, or indeed, unseen hazard. These detection devices are therefore clearly a safety device giving the driver advance warning. By banning the use of speed camera detectors, you are actually increasing the risk of an accident by removing that extra warning of danger.

As is the case whenever speeding is to be blamed for various accident rates/casualty levels, the figures quoted are totally inaccurate and indeed misleading to the general public. The statement "Research suggests that around one third of these accidents have vehicle speed as a major contributory factor" is misleading at best as the Government's own commissioned study by the Transport Research Laboratory in partnership with the DETR produced the TRL Report 323 entitled "A new system for recording contributary factors in road accidents". This study states that in 7.3% of accidents, speed was one of many factors, and in only 6% of the accidents was it a definite causal factor. Why the goverment ignores it's own commissioned figures is beyond me but the cynical amoungst us would say that these figures do not support the current drive for producing revenue from the motorist - and are therefore brushed to one side. The recent Road Traffic Penalties consultation document also lays out the proposals for huge increases in the penalties for speeding offences, and it is clear to the average motorist that the government sees them as a cash cow that it will milk for all it's worth under the guise of improving road safety.

In summary, I think that the proposals should be withdrawn and some real effort put into improving driver education as this is the only real solution to improving road safety. I myself have passed my Advanced driving test and will continue to put myself though various other advanced driving training courses to ensure that I am the safest driver that I can be. It's about time the average motorist was encouraged to do the same.

Regards,

Matthew Collier.

 

I have just received the following reply to the comments I made on this draft (daft) proposal.

&lt;Thank you for your e-mail of 11 January in response to requests
for comments on the proposed draft legislation to ban the use of
speed enforcement detectors in motor vehicles.

Your views have been noted and will be taken into consideration
as part of the consultation process.

Ian Edwards&gt;

I don't know if expressing our views will make any difference, but at least the protest has been registered.

 

I got one of those today as well, surprisingly enough, exactly the same.

 

There is a Gatso in Tunbridge Wells just before a tight lefthand bend (in a 30mph) Drove past it the other day, then round the bend, and there with the speed camera warning sign attached to it.... is a bent lampost and lots of bits of car.

The Gatso 150 yards up the road had clearly made a marked impression on this particular driver. So there we go Gatso's really do work.

Dave

p.s. this Gatso is one of the better placed ones. The husband of an acquaintance died on the bend in question some years ago.

 

oh and another thing.... surely the point of a speed trap is to make you slow down.... if you slow down, it's worked..

 

Letter and response too:

Thank you for your e-mail of 9 January in response to requests for comments on the proposed draft legislation to ban the use of speed enforcement detectors in motor vehicles.

Your views have been noted and will be taken into consideration as part of the consultation process.

Ian Edwards
&gt;&gt;&gt; "Mick" &lt;myplaice@lineone.net&gt; 09/01/01 21:39:57 &gt;&gt;&gt;
Ian

I have received your name as being involved with the move to propose that radar detecting devices be made illegal.
If Gatso type devices are to be placed at 'danger spots' (and not merely as a money making device) to ensure that drivers slow down in dangerous areas, surely detectors are items of safety equipment! Why on earth are they painted grey and hidden away behind signpost and other obscuring objects?

Why is there not more done in proper dangerous areas like around schools and busy town roads. Only this year a schoolgirl was killed 50 yds from my house by a driver NOT speeding (although a lot do now due to double yellow lines being everywhere widening the road for a greater safety factor for speeding drivers!) No change has been made on this road since this event. Howe about bright orange speed cameras here?

Make some sense please! The public are not stupid! 'Speed Kills' is a blanket message which completely misses the point and is inflamatory and condescending in the extreme. Inappropriate use of excessive speed is likely to cause a more severe accident should one occur! - but it is a bit of a mouthful and doesn't appear quite so headline grabbing!

How do you expect drivers to react to these sort of messages when even the police themselves were proposing that the motorway speed limit be raised to 85 mph but politicians 'know that drivers cannot be trusted' and kept the limit at 70 because most drivers already drive at 80 - 85 on the motorways and if the limit were raised to 85 they assume that the average speed would move upward to 90 -100. Why not set an appropriate limit and enforce it properly. How about using all this high tech big-brother stuff to operate variable speed limits appropriate to the conditions. - It could work on some roads, but it MUST include at safe empty road times maybe 100 mph limits to show that it is being appropriate to the conditions !

I know you have a job to do but please be aware that most people (even if they don't merit it!) need to be treated like responsible adults and not schoolchildren to have a bit of respect.

All the best for the coming New Year. I pray the Lord will be with you and help you make good and true judgements.

Mick

************************************************** *******************
Department of the Environment, Transport & Regions

This E-mail and any files transmitted with it are private and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient,
the E-mail and any files have been transmitted to you in error
and any copying, distribution or other use of the information
contained in them is strictly prohibited.

Nothing in this E-mail message amounts to a contractual
or other legal commitment on the part of the Government
unless confirmed by a communication signed on behalf of
Secretary of State for the DETR.

************************************************** *******************

Mick

[This message has been edited by Mick (edited 16 January 2001).]