I would check the above site. Thanks all.

They are illegal once you cross the channel and are also illegal if they do nott conform to the specific regulations.Most do not although not illegal to buy them it is illegal to use them in such cases much easier to comply to the limits.

Which just proves they dont really want people to slow down on them stretches, if that was 100% all they wanted (as they claim) then they'd praise any method which made people do that. Like the person who got arrested in the UK for flashing his lights at drivers in the opposite direction to warn of a mobile speed trap up ahead, he made it so as they slowed down, surely thats what the police want?

It proves what they REALLY want is for you to drive too fast so as they can fine you, they have no interest in people slowing down what so ever.

I dont know about the French but i do know theres most definately a hidden agenda here in Britain which nobody with any brain cell would disagree with and anybody who cant see it has their words barely audible from beneath the sand in which their head is buried.

Just have some sort of maximum speed selection device in your, that senses what the limit is on the road you are driving on...and thats as fast as you can go. No need for cameras, plod with his mobile hairdryer device etc.

Great :)

@ Spud That kind of thinking only lets them off the hook. Its obvious they are out to catch people out or they wouldnt hide on blind bends, what about when they all used to be grey and behind a tree? The only reason you'd do that is to extract money from people not to slow people down. If all they wanted was for people to slow down on them sites then they'd praise speed camera detectors as it would slow them down, what they really want is for you to drive too fast and not see the camera is coming, or else they wouldnt make any money.

The slower we drive the more cameras appear, as they're 'losing money' if we dont speed, alot of jobs and pensions depend on people speeding and paying these fines, its in their interests for us to drive too fast so they put more cameras in, in more daft places, change the speed limit overnight, put a tree in the way to obscure the sign to purposely catch you out.

Accident statistics clearly show they've had no positive impact on accident rates, this is a fact, nobody would argue with fact so they're not saving lives, but they are raising money for someone, that much we do know. Im sorry to bleat about this and i know the whole 'if you dont go too fast you wont get fined' stuff but the fact is that its a tax. Its a tax on imperfections of being a human, any small imperfection they can find in a human they will tax you. And they tell you to avoid it you need to be perfect. Hitler also believed people should be punished for not being his view of perfect. Where will it go next? Three minutes late for a doctors appointment and a camera will flash you and send you a fine?

Its about time we started to encourage people to drive well and properly, not just slowly. Accident stats show all we've done is make accidents happen at a lower speed, thats hardly productive. A que of people staring at their speedo cos a Govt Piggy Bank is looming isnt good driving. People should be watching the road not staring at their speedo to protect their wallet because they might commit the unholy sin of doing 33mph! When i go past a speed camera i dont watch the road, i could take out an entire community of people, hearing heads going under the wheels and mangled wheelchairs and prams getting caught in the rear axle but i cant look at that i need to look at the speedo! This whole idea of the only way to improve road safety is by slowing people down is flawed and its too simple. Camera's are useless, i could drive past one on drugs, drunk, no tax, no mot, no insurance, no licence, a terrorist with 20 grand of cocaine and a machine gun in the car but so long as i do 29mph i'll be absolutely fine.

Remember one thing, it was a traffic officer who caught Peter Sutcliffe, not a camera.

Remember another thing, you're five times more likely to get away with rape in the UK than speeding.

*impersonates public information video*

Think. Always Stare At Your Speedo. Lives Depend On It

Im enjoying these rants, my cold at the weekend prevented me ranting, but now im back. Oh yes.

Edited by jamie745 on 07/09/2011 at 20:18

Loads of info on here:-www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/jamlaw.htm

you pay your money and make your choice, lots of info on various kit including Laser (LIDAR) jammers

HTH

It seems the only two 'facts' i got wrong were of speed camera numbers and of rape statistics. The latter isnt true because that was referring to PROBABILITY of being prosecuted for the offence i didnt say more people rape than speed so total strawman. So the only thing i got wrong was claiming theres more cameras and im probably right on that as well. So not a bad rant then with 99% factual and correct.

(Edit - personal attacks removed. Jamie and Collos - will you both please keep this to a debate on speed cameras - no need for insults. The less ranting and the more reasoned debate, the less others get annoyed.)

Edited by Avant on 07/09/2011 at 23:43

"Now what is that saying?"

That she can't see the speedometer.

I was distracted m'lord ..... and members of the jury.

Edited by fredthefifth on 10/09/2011 at 22:52

I have a better solution for cutting speeding. Who wants to hear my solution?

Instead of fining people who speed, the stick approach, why not go for the carrot approach? Make it so as every camera flashes every car regardless of speed and give a £1000 prize every day to a motorist who was recorded driving at or under the speed limit. Thats £365,000 a year which is a fraction of the cost of maintaining camera's and the red tape and jobsworths involved, and everybody would slow down, feeling a sense of entitlement to the prize.

Not only this but every camera would then have recorded evidence of any car without tax, mot, insurance etc which was on the road, they would be excluded from the prize draw obviously.