Old Radar Detectors are useless against NEW speed cameras (Video Footage)

Forums › Off topic › Old Radar Detectors are useless against NEW speed cameras (Video Footage)

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#423825 3-Jan-2011 22:01

i once nearly drove into a couple of idiots who decided to drive at 100kph (in open road) and suddenly come to a complete halt in the middle of a bridge.

and then, everybody speeds. every kind of bodies - http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/speeding-cop-claims-he-following-car-interest-3991271

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#423831 3-Jan-2011 22:21

tardtasticx: I don't understand why these haven't been banned here yet. The point of speed cameras is to deter you from speeding full stop. You speeders are only contributing to our road toll which is already dangerously high.

Good troll, but speeding in and of itself isn't dangerous... It's the sudden stop involved that hurts when a driver doing any legal (or illegal) speed hits something.

The _real_ problem is that it's easy to quantify speed, so it's an easy target. The real contributing factors to the road toll are almost impossible to quantify, and therefore it's pretty much impossible to legislate directly against them.

Stupidity, inattention, bad judgement and testosterone. If those could be controlled then I have a funny feeling that the road toll would plummet.

But alas, they can't be easily measured so let's just stick with the easy number.

Cheers - N

ps. Yes I know if someone has an accident at 120k vs 100k, then the damage will be higher and I happily accept this is a fact... Please bear in mind my points above relate to preventing the accident altogether would actually be a better outcome.

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

REDDOG

1 post

Wannabe Geek
Inactive user

#423838 3-Jan-2011 23:16

O.K thats pretty scary, but what make and model of radar detector were you using ?? Some are better than others.

Nokia2012

108 posts

Master Geek

#423840 3-Jan-2011 23:24

joker97: i once nearly drove into a couple of idiots who decided to drive at 100kph (in open road) and suddenly come to a complete halt in the middle of a bridge.

and then, everybody speeds. every kind of bodies - http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/speeding-cop-claims-he-following-car-interest-3991271

Trying not to go off topic here but the if the police officer was off duty he shouldn't have any powers as a police officer so he shouldn't be following a vehicle of interest. Shouldn't matter if he is in a unmarked police vehicle or not.

But on the other hand we must all keep in mind media can make things appear different then what they really are Just because it's written in print doesn't mean isn't the gospel.

The officer has the right to challenge the ticket in count just like everyone else does.

rscole86

4973 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#423843 3-Jan-2011 23:49

Nokia2012:
Trying not to go off topic here but the if the police officer was off duty he shouldn't have any powers as a police officer so he shouldn't be following a vehicle of interest. Shouldn't matter if he is in a unmarked police vehicle or not.

But on the other hand we must all keep in mind media can make things appear different then what they really are Just because it's written in print doesn't mean isn't the gospel.

The officer has the right to challenge the ticket in count just like everyone else does.

Not entirely true.

Firstly, I am not a Police Officer, so I do not know the actual standing, but I beleive they are required to act in the interest of public safety at all times. So using this scenario, assuming he had called Police Comms, and made it known who he was, who was in the car with him, and if he was driving a Police vehicle, he may have been allowed to continue following the vehicle until an on duty officer arrived. Obviously whatever they do off-duty, and especially in an unmarked vehicle, must not put themselves or the public at risk. What the Superintendent did in this situation is between himself and his supervisor to decide as whether it was in the best interest of the public.

tardtasticx

3075 posts

Uber Geek

#423852 4-Jan-2011 01:15

Talkiet:
tardtasticx: I don't understand why these haven't been banned here yet. The point of speed cameras is to deter you from speeding full stop. You speeders are only contributing to our road toll which is already dangerously high.

Good troll, but speeding in and of itself isn't dangerous... It's the sudden stop involved that hurts when a driver doing any legal (or illegal) speed hits something.

The _real_ problem is that it's easy to quantify speed, so it's an easy target. The real contributing factors to the road toll are almost impossible to quantify, and therefore it's pretty much impossible to legislate directly against them.

Stupidity, inattention, bad judgement and testosterone. If those could be controlled then I have a funny feeling that the road toll would plummet.

But alas, they can't be easily measured so let's just stick with the easy number.

Cheers - N

ps. Yes I know if someone has an accident at 120k vs 100k, then the damage will be higher and I happily accept this is a fact... Please bear in mind my points above relate to preventing the accident altogether would actually be a better outcome.

Troll? Hardly.
When you speed your reaction times are significantly reduced.
Go 80 in a 50 zone, kid runs out onto the road in front of you. If you went 50 you would probably have enough time to slam the breaks on and swerve without losing control. Do it at 80, you approach the kid faster and have less time to realize and slam the breaks on. Stopping distance is significantly increased, loss of wheel traction, spin out of control, take out said kid, go into on coming traffic.

I dont know why you try to justify that speeding isn't dangerous. The speed limits are there for a reason, to protect you and other drivers. If you dont agree with that, then don't drive and make it safer for the rest of us out there who have patience. Thats why our road toll over christmas is so high. People lose patience and feel they have to speed. Take a chill pill and think about what can happen.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#423854 4-Jan-2011 01:32

cool down fellas, i think what talkiet was trying to say was (correct me if wrong), speeding is far less likely to kill than unlicenced teens, newly licenced teens on drugs or alcohol carrying passengers, fatigued drivers, brainless drivers, etc etc etc ...

but you're correct, speeding kills better than not speeding. BUT i must say trying to tell an unlicenced teen who is stone drunk carrying passengers not to speed? what are the chances? if everyone who is not drunk, not on drugs, not fatigued, not distracted, not an idiot (many ways to be one) does not speed (ie those aforementioned will continue to speed or drive like they do), i'd say the road toll will be exactly the same. sorry for going off topic

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

michaelmurfy

meow
13240 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#423855 4-Jan-2011 01:38

Ah I know the stretch of road in that video, never actually seen speed cameras along it before. Normally the speed cameras we get in Nelson are in a Red Van so this is slightly new.

Michael Murphy | https://murfy.nz
Referral Links: Quic Broadband (use R122101E7CV7Q for free setup)

Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by subscribing.
Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#423856 4-Jan-2011 01:40

tardtasticx:
Talkiet:
tardtasticx: I don't understand why these haven't been banned here yet. The point of speed cameras is to deter you from speeding full stop. You speeders are only contributing to our road toll which is already dangerously high.

Good troll, but speeding in and of itself isn't dangerous... It's the sudden stop involved that hurts when a driver doing any legal (or illegal) speed hits something.

The _real_ problem is that it's easy to quantify speed, so it's an easy target. The real contributing factors to the road toll are almost impossible to quantify, and therefore it's pretty much impossible to legislate directly against them.

Stupidity, inattention, bad judgement and testosterone. If those could be controlled then I have a funny feeling that the road toll would plummet.

But alas, they can't be easily measured so let's just stick with the easy number.

Cheers - N

ps. Yes I know if someone has an accident at 120k vs 100k, then the damage will be higher and I happily accept this is a fact... Please bear in mind my points above relate to preventing the accident altogether would actually be a better outcome.

Troll? Hardly.
When you speed your reaction times are significantly reduced.
Go 80 in a 50 zone, kid runs out onto the road in front of you. If you went 50 you would probably have enough time to slam the breaks on and swerve without losing control. Do it at 80, you approach the kid faster and have less time to realize and slam the breaks on. Stopping distance is significantly increased, loss of wheel traction, spin out of control, take out said kid, go into on coming traffic.

I dont know why you try to justify that speeding isn't dangerous. The speed limits are there for a reason, to protect you and other drivers. If you dont agree with that, then don't drive and make it safer for the rest of us out there who have patience. Thats why our road toll over christmas is so high. People lose patience and feel they have to speed. Take a chill pill and think about what can happen.

What you've done is confused my rational approach for a rant.

For a start, you're simply wrong about reaction times being increased (you said reduced but I assume you mean increased) when you drive at a faster speed. For a start, I have a degree in psychology where I studied response times in a variety of species (incl human) and there are a whole bunch of things that affect reation time but velocity isn't one of them.

What you probably meant to say was that stopping distances would be increased, which I would then agree with.

However, there is a COMPLETELY arbitrary bit in your argument above... You say that if you do 80 in a 50 zone and etc... Well, what if it was an 80 zone? Kid is still just as taken out, you're still having to deal with the situation, but at least you're travelling the legal speed.

The same argument could extend to doing 50 in a 50 zone but the kid times it really badly and you have almost no time to react and hit him anyway... Would you now advocate that the only safe speed is perhaps 10kmh, to account for kids running out from anywhere? Of course not...

So, with that in mind, why is 50k safe, why is 70k safe, why is 100k safe? They are _NOT_ safe in all cases - they are an incredibly general rule of thumb.

My driving experiences range from an 850cc mini, to a real Formula 1 car, and I can tell you the biggest predictor of being able to avoid an accident (apart from good driver skills and attention which are head and shoulders above ANY other contributing factor) is the quality of the car and braking system / tyres. But again, it's too hard to actually legislate on this apart from an incredibly low level minimum standard.

Case in point - I recently rented a new Daihatsu Charade to drive from Akl to Cambridge... It scared me. It was a brand new car, with legal tyres (and yes I checked the pressures) and the damn thing wandered around at 90k on the open road to the extent I felt unsafe driving it. I've driven the same road many times in different cars and they were fine - yet a brand new, ultra budget vehicle with the cheapest tyres available felt awful.

If I had a kid run out in front of me when doing 80k in the Daihatsu vs doing 100k in my Legacy, I can virtually guarantee you a better outcome in the Legacy.

I have been driving for 20 years this year, and I have owned a number of very quick cars. I'm not a hoon, but have been involved in motorsport for some of that time. I have never had an accident on or off the road. In that entire 20 year period I have 4 speeding tickets. Two from speed cameras in 50 zones (62 and 64kmh) and 2 from being pulled over on the open road (111 and 121k I think).

I am not ashamed to admit I pay more attention to driving safely than I do to slavish adherence to somewhat arbitrary speed limits designed to cater to the lowest common denominator drivers, cars and conditions - and I'll continue to place my safety and the safety of other drivers more highly that strict adherence to the speed limit. This means I will always make sure my car is well maintained, windscreen cleaned, don't drive while under the influence of anything or while too tired, and I'll never buy a daihatsu charade. I'll even drive under the speed limit when the conditions dictate.

Anyone parroting the line that exceeding the speed limit is dangerous without also taking fully into account all the other factors is in my opinion a MUCH more dangerous person to have on the road. If that's your opinion, then I honestly don't care what else you have to say about the topic.

Cheers - N

TL;DR - You're wrong.

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

littleninjaman

104 posts

Master Geek

#423861 4-Jan-2011 02:31

Some of you people will like this video :D But i think spending does cause crashes on straights only around corners but it is true if some think comes out in front of you it makes it harder for you to stop or miss the other object but its not the speeders fault that the other object decided to go onto the road with an unsafe distance. But also slow people also indirectly cause crashes as well from pissing off other drivers. If they can't drive at the speed limit they shouldn't be on the road because what else can't they do? like decent reactions when kid runs out onto the road? most of the time slow people don't even notice who and what is around them they are in like gaga land and no not lady gaga well they probably in the same world as her :P well thats my rant and btw i don't speed my car takes long enough to get to 100kmph lol oh and i also hate when people slowly pull out in front of you and slowly speed.

mentalinc

3225 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#423879 4-Jan-2011 08:21

Talkiet: Well said.

I was driving along the new toll road and the upper part of the northern motorway the other day and was wondering why the limit is only 100. The road is basically straight with long gentle bends. 120 would be fine here. If people cant handle/dont like driving at the speed, fine stay in the LEFT lane.

But as said above speed isn't what causes accidents, its people doing dumb things. Look at motorsport, they drive very fast have great equipment which makes most crashes survivable.

o and here is some more info (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10697763) these 16 people were most likely put into the death due to speed category. It wasn't just the speed that killed them it was running from the cops. speed was a factor but not likely the one that killed them (their inablity to make good decisions killed them).

CPU: AMD 5900x | RAM: GSKILL Trident Z Neo RGB F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC-32-GB | MB: Asus X570-E | GFX: EVGA FTW3 Ultra RTX 3080Ti| Monitor: LG 27GL850-B 2560x1440

Quic: https://account.quic.nz/refer/473833 R473833EQKIBX

old3eyes

9119 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#423882 4-Jan-2011 08:44

tardtasticx:

Troll? Hardly.
When you speed your reaction times are significantly reduced.
Go 80 in a 50 zone, kid runs out onto the road in front of you. If you went 50 you would probably have enough time to slam the breaks on and swerve without losing control. Do it at 80, you approach the kid faster and have less time to realize and slam the breaks on. Stopping distance is significantly increased, loss of wheel traction, spin out of control, take out said kid, go into on coming traffic.

I dont know why you try to justify that speeding isn't dangerous. The speed limits are there for a reason, to protect you and other drivers. If you dont agree with that, then don't drive and make it safer for the rest of us out there who have patience. Thats why our road toll over christmas is so high. People lose patience and feel they have to speed. Take a chill pill and think about what can happen.

Have you ever driven outside NZ and seen the more realistic speed limits on city street?? NZ Version = 50K in dual lane road, median divider thru industrial area. Oz same thing 70K, US 70 ~ 80K. In NZ the Gov treats every driver as an idiot and when you treat people like that you get idiots. Driver education in NZ is a joke and by driver education I don't mean those Gov social engineering ads on TV every nite..

So many of NZs low speed limits are there purely for revenue gathering exercise same with the placement of fixed speed cameras on safe straight pieces of road..

Regards,

Old3eyes

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#423886 4-Jan-2011 09:02

So many of NZs low speed limits are there purely for revenue gathering exercise same with the placement of fixed speed cameras on safe straight pieces of road..

...a significant portion of serious and fatal accident happen on straight roads, in fine sunny weather, in the middle of the day, so not sure where you get your idea that this is safe.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#423887 4-Jan-2011 09:10

mentalinc: o and here is some more info (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10697763) these 16 people were most likely put into the death due to speed category. It wasn't just the speed that killed them it was running from the cops. speed was a factor but not likely the one that killed them (their inablity to make good decisions killed them).

Disagree entirely. Speed was a significant contributing factor. It's the reason they died (basic physics) and most likely the reason why they couldn't keep it on the road in the first place, if they were complying with the road rules do you think they would have lost it? Nope!

It's hard to Police stupidity, so they just have to Police stupid behavior.

I however agree with old3eyes speed limits should be reviewed in many places (motorways)

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

tardtasticx

3075 posts

Uber Geek

#423928 4-Jan-2011 13:05

Talkiet:
tardtasticx:
Talkiet:
tardtasticx: I don't understand why these haven't been banned here yet. The point of speed cameras is to deter you from speeding full stop. You speeders are only contributing to our road toll which is already dangerously high.

Good troll, but speeding in and of itself isn't dangerous... It's the sudden stop involved that hurts when a driver doing any legal (or illegal) speed hits something.

The _real_ problem is that it's easy to quantify speed, so it's an easy target. The real contributing factors to the road toll are almost impossible to quantify, and therefore it's pretty much impossible to legislate directly against them.

Stupidity, inattention, bad judgement and testosterone. If those could be controlled then I have a funny feeling that the road toll would plummet.

But alas, they can't be easily measured so let's just stick with the easy number.

Cheers - N

ps. Yes I know if someone has an accident at 120k vs 100k, then the damage will be higher and I happily accept this is a fact... Please bear in mind my points above relate to preventing the accident altogether would actually be a better outcome.

Troll? Hardly.
When you speed your reaction times are significantly reduced.
Go 80 in a 50 zone, kid runs out onto the road in front of you. If you went 50 you would probably have enough time to slam the breaks on and swerve without losing control. Do it at 80, you approach the kid faster and have less time to realize and slam the breaks on. Stopping distance is significantly increased, loss of wheel traction, spin out of control, take out said kid, go into on coming traffic.

I dont know why you try to justify that speeding isn't dangerous. The speed limits are there for a reason, to protect you and other drivers. If you dont agree with that, then don't drive and make it safer for the rest of us out there who have patience. Thats why our road toll over christmas is so high. People lose patience and feel they have to speed. Take a chill pill and think about what can happen.

What you've done is confused my rational approach for a rant.

For a start, you're simply wrong about reaction times being increased (you said reduced but I assume you mean increased) when you drive at a faster speed. For a start, I have a degree in psychology where I studied response times in a variety of species (incl human) and there are a whole bunch of things that affect reation time but velocity isn't one of them.

What you probably meant to say was that stopping distances would be increased, which I would then agree with.

However, there is a COMPLETELY arbitrary bit in your argument above... You say that if you do 80 in a 50 zone and etc... Well, what if it was an 80 zone? Kid is still just as taken out, you're still having to deal with the situation, but at least you're travelling the legal speed.

The same argument could extend to doing 50 in a 50 zone but the kid times it really badly and you have almost no time to react and hit him anyway... Would you now advocate that the only safe speed is perhaps 10kmh, to account for kids running out from anywhere? Of course not...

So, with that in mind, why is 50k safe, why is 70k safe, why is 100k safe? They are _NOT_ safe in all cases - they are an incredibly general rule of thumb.

My driving experiences range from an 850cc mini, to a real Formula 1 car, and I can tell you the biggest predictor of being able to avoid an accident (apart from good driver skills and attention which are head and shoulders above ANY other contributing factor) is the quality of the car and braking system / tyres. But again, it's too hard to actually legislate on this apart from an incredibly low level minimum standard.

Case in point - I recently rented a new Daihatsu Charade to drive from Akl to Cambridge... It scared me. It was a brand new car, with legal tyres (and yes I checked the pressures) and the damn thing wandered around at 90k on the open road to the extent I felt unsafe driving it. I've driven the same road many times in different cars and they were fine - yet a brand new, ultra budget vehicle with the cheapest tyres available felt awful.

If I had a kid run out in front of me when doing 80k in the Daihatsu vs doing 100k in my Legacy, I can virtually guarantee you a better outcome in the Legacy.

I have been driving for 20 years this year, and I have owned a number of very quick cars. I'm not a hoon, but have been involved in motorsport for some of that time. I have never had an accident on or off the road. In that entire 20 year period I have 4 speeding tickets. Two from speed cameras in 50 zones (62 and 64kmh) and 2 from being pulled over on the open road (111 and 121k I think).

I am not ashamed to admit I pay more attention to driving safely than I do to slavish adherence to somewhat arbitrary speed limits designed to cater to the lowest common denominator drivers, cars and conditions - and I'll continue to place my safety and the safety of other drivers more highly that strict adherence to the speed limit. This means I will always make sure my car is well maintained, windscreen cleaned, don't drive while under the influence of anything or while too tired, and I'll never buy a daihatsu charade. I'll even drive under the speed limit when the conditions dictate.

Anyone parroting the line that exceeding the speed limit is dangerous without also taking fully into account all the other factors is in my opinion a MUCH more dangerous person to have on the road. If that's your opinion, then I honestly don't care what else you have to say about the topic.

Cheers - N

TL;DR - You're wrong.

No, I didn't word it wrong. Your reaction times ARE reduced when traveling at high speeds. Do you think you will be able to react to a car pulling out of a driveway in the same time going 80 instead of the legal 50?

The speed limits are there for a reason people. If you don't like them, then don't drive. Its pretty damn simple. Me being a restricted driver, nearly on my full, I think I drive considerably safer than most 16 year olds, and from the sound of the responses in this thread, I think I drive safer than quite a lot of you older folk out there.. Quite a lot of my mates have been pulled over for speeding. I haven't even gotten close to a parking fine.

And you also say people who think speeding is dangerous, are more dangerous drivers? If you think speeding is right and its your right to break the speed limit which is put there to protect people, then you basically think you're above the law and I think you should be banned from driving. I'm not saying that speeding is the only factor in crashes. I never did. But speed is one of the most common causes of crashes.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7