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

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#424364 5-Jan-2011 18:04

oxnsox: SPEED is obviously the most contributory factor to the outcome of any crash... but the major, and unaddressed issue is driver skill. [snip]

I see what you're saying in general, but consider this...

I'm driving along in my rally prepared WRX (for arguments sake let's say on a touring stage in a rally)... I have a full cage, bucket seats strongly attached to the body and 6 point harnesses. I'm not wearing my helmet though because I think (not sure) they may be illegal for general car road use - happy to be corrected on this.

I have an accident at 100kmh and the car rolls, then hits a lamp-post. (I was avoiding a kitten let's say)

Another scenario...

My service crew in their 1988 Subaru Justy is following a few k behind and have a similar accident, also avoiding that damn kitty and roll and hit a lamp-post.

SAME speed, probably a HUGE difference to the outcome. Speed is far from the obviousl major contributor to the outcome of any crash.

I know someone is going to say "but ahh, what if you had the crash in the same car at a higher speed, surely that would cause more damage"... Well of course it would.

But there are a number of contributing factors....

- How good is the car, how new, how many airbags
- How good is the driver? Many accidents can't be completely avoided, but a good driver can wash off more speed or prevent a roll - perhaps even ensure the car hits a particular thing (bunch of bushes rather than a tree)
- Was I buckled in?

My point is that at some point, the speed is an important contributory factor to the outcome of an accident. Saying it's obviously the most contributory factor doesn't make sense to me... I think I've outlined above a few cases where it won't be the most contributory factor.

Cheers - N

ps. Substitute 2008 Volvo for Subaru Rally car above and the principle still holds - just a change in the magnitude of the effect.

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.

savag3

188 posts

Master Geek

#424385 5-Jan-2011 19:14

Talkiet: I'm driving along in my rally prepared WRX (for arguments sake let's say on a touring stage in a rally)... I have a full cage, bucket seats strongly attached to the body and 6 point harnesses. I'm not wearing my helmet though because I think (not sure) they may be illegal for general car road use - happy to be corrected on this.

Helmet isn't illegal but might get you some strange looks and perhaps unwanted attention (remember the Hoppers and Motorway Patrol). Might be worth a laugh doing it one day though. 6 point Harness is illegal without an Authority Card - offence is not wearing a seatbelt. Although its legal to wear both the ordinary road seatbelt and the harness as far as I know. Pretty silly if you ask me.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#424402 5-Jan-2011 20:22

hey this is going to be wayyy off topic but - this guy (http://www.news.com.au/technology/mustafa-al-shakarji-uses-google-earth-to-appeal-his-speeding-fine/...)

says that speed detectors must only be used with cars coming directly head on towards camera and it is not accurate when cars are heading at an angle (not head on towards camera) for example when car is coming down a hill but police device is not right at bottom of hill

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#424430 5-Jan-2011 22:09

joker97: hey this is going to be wayyy off topic but - this guy (http://www.news.com.au/technology/mustafa-al-shakarji-uses-google-earth-to-appeal-his-speeding-fine/...)

says that speed detectors must only be used with cars coming directly head on towards camera and it is not accurate when cars are heading at an angle (not head on towards camera) for example when car is coming down a hill but police device is not right at bottom of hill

He's right (sort of). Can't recall the name of it but it has to do with the "Doppler Effect". In short the radar measures the direct approach speed of a target vehicle, if the target vehicle is approaching on any type of angle the direct approach speed (to the radar) is reduced according to the angle. Therefore the radar will always read a lesser speed than actually is the case (it's always in your favour).

Where the officer appears to have come unstuck is that he didn't follow the guidelines (as in NZ as well) of getting 'visual' target identification.

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

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#424436 5-Jan-2011 22:34

ah i see ... cheers!

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek

#424439 5-Jan-2011 22:41

Talkiet:
oxnsox: SPEED is obviously the most contributory factor to the outcome of any crash... but the major, and unaddressed issue is driver skill. [snip]

I see what you're saying in general, but consider this...

I'm driving along in my rally prepared WRX (for arguments sake let's say on a touring stage in a rally)... I have a full cage, bucket seats strongly attached to the body and 6 point harnesses. I'm not wearing my helmet though because I think (not sure) they may be illegal for general car road use - happy to be corrected on this.

I have an accident at 100kmh and the car rolls, then hits a lamp-post. (I was avoiding a kitten let's say)

Another scenario...

My service crew in their 1988 Subaru Justy is following a few k behind and have a similar accident, also avoiding that damn kitty and roll and hit a lamp-post.

SAME speed, probably a HUGE difference to the outcome. Speed is far from the obviousl major contributor to the outcome of any crash.

I know someone is going to say "but ahh, what if you had the crash in the same car at a higher speed, surely that would cause more damage"... Well of course it would.

But there are a number of contributing factors....

- How good is the car, how new, how many airbags
- How good is the driver? Many accidents can't be completely avoided, but a good driver can wash off more speed or prevent a roll - perhaps even ensure the car hits a particular thing (bunch of bushes rather than a tree)
- Was I buckled in?

My point is that at some point, the speed is an important contributory factor to the outcome of an accident. Saying it's obviously the most contributory factor doesn't make sense to me... I think I've outlined above a few cases where it won't be the most contributory factor.

Cheers - N

ps. Substitute 2008 Volvo for Subaru Rally car above and the principle still holds - just a change in the magnitude of the effect.

Ok... in this example your driving skills were clearly not up to the challenge and your rally license should be revoked. If you were correctly focued on your driving you would have run the kitten over to avoid the crash.... (had you done that your crew in the following vehicle would also have avoided their crash)

But I get your point. Pedantry aside my comment was meant to reflect that it is generally accepted that impact speed has a direct relationship to the outcome of a crash.
And whilst people accept that premise it's easier to justify policing of speed as a major contributing factory. If we ever reach the stage, as a community, where we're all driving Volvos (or rally cars) then I'll accept you can challange that premise.

Meantime I'll drve as safely as I feel my vehicle, the road conditions, and my ability (and ego) allow.... But I'll never be able to completely allow for the folk in other vehicles (either traveling in the same or opposite direction) as I can never know what they think their skills and abilities are, or if they're simply relying on their Radar detector (and GPS?), and other drivers to compensate for them

photoman

217 posts

Master Geek

#424600 6-Jan-2011 11:51

BlakJak:
--- I do not exceed the 10km/h threshold much at all

And this is yet another example of the attitude to driving that people here have. "If the speed limit is 100kph, then I'm allowed to drive at 109kph" - Rubbish, the speed limit is 100kph. If you exceed it, you're speeding. Doesn't matter if you have 2 years or 2 decades of driving behind you, you're still breaking the law.

If I'm on a 100kph stretch of road and conditions are favourable (weather, traffic etc), then I'll drive at 100kph, even though I know that my speedo registers 6kph over (all cars overstate the speed). So, in reality I'm only at 94kph. If I had the same attitude that most people seem to have, then I would be driving along with the speedo reading 115kph. That would equate to driving at 109kph, which is the 100kph speed limit plus the so-called 9kph grace before I would be ticketed.

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.

BlakJak

1275 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#424614 6-Jan-2011 12:15

photoman:
BlakJak:
--- I do not exceed the 10km/h threshold much at all

And this is yet another example of the attitude to driving that people here have. "If the speed limit is 100kph, then I'm allowed to drive at 109kph" - Rubbish, the speed limit is 100kph. If you exceed it, you're speeding. Doesn't matter if you have 2 years or 2 decades of driving behind you, you're still breaking the law.

If I'm on a 100kph stretch of road and conditions are favourable (weather, traffic etc), then I'll drive at 100kph, even though I know that my speedo registers 6kph over (all cars overstate the speed). So, in reality I'm only at 94kph. If I had the same attitude that most people seem to have, then I would be driving along with the speedo reading 115kph. That would equate to driving at 109kph, which is the 100kph speed limit plus the so-called 9kph grace before I would be ticketed.

If you read what I wrote, you'll also see that I assert that our speed limits are too low (in places), that I drive to the conditions (to a point, I agree with TalkieT regarding the selection of arbitrary speed limits, but perhaps not in such absolute terms), and that I also have no qualms dealing with the consequences of my actions.

I also take the attitude that I drive in a manner least likely to piss off other motorists. This means I won't glue myself to an arbitrary speed limit if it's quite obvious that the flow of the traffic is 4 or 5km/h faster.
On the other hand if im doing 109km/h on the open road and someone still thinks i'm travelling too slowly, I have little sympathy (but will give way if opportunity presents).

And I know that the speedo in my Wagon over-reads by ~2km/h at 100km/h and in my hatchback, by more like 4km/h. So I use my speedo, not what I know my true speed to be, as additional insurance (the tolerance is as much there to allow for margins of error on speedometers as it is for anything else).

So if you're using me as an example, consider that the 'attitude to driving that people here have' actually has some grounding in reality.

No signature to see here, move along...

photoman

217 posts

Master Geek

#424623 6-Jan-2011 13:00

BlakJak:
photoman:
BlakJak:
--- I do not exceed the 10km/h threshold much at all

And this is yet another example of the attitude to driving that people here have. "If the speed limit is 100kph, then I'm allowed to drive at 109kph" - Rubbish, the speed limit is 100kph. If you exceed it, you're speeding. Doesn't matter if you have 2 years or 2 decades of driving behind you, you're still breaking the law.

If I'm on a 100kph stretch of road and conditions are favourable (weather, traffic etc), then I'll drive at 100kph, even though I know that my speedo registers 6kph over (all cars overstate the speed). So, in reality I'm only at 94kph. If I had the same attitude that most people seem to have, then I would be driving along with the speedo reading 115kph. That would equate to driving at 109kph, which is the 100kph speed limit plus the so-called 9kph grace before I would be ticketed.

If you read what I wrote, you'll also see that I assert that our speed limits are too low (in places), that I drive to the conditions (to a point, I agree with TalkieT regarding the selection of arbitrary speed limits, but perhaps not in such absolute terms), and that I also have no qualms dealing with the consequences of my actions.

I also take the attitude that I drive in a manner least likely to piss off other motorists. This means I won't glue myself to an arbitrary speed limit if it's quite obvious that the flow of the traffic is 4 or 5km/h faster.
On the other hand if im doing 109km/h on the open road and someone still thinks i'm travelling too slowly, I have little sympathy (but will give way if opportunity presents).

And I know that the speedo in my Wagon over-reads by ~2km/h at 100km/h and in my hatchback, by more like 4km/h. So I use my speedo, not what I know my true speed to be, as additional insurance (the tolerance is as much there to allow for margins of error on speedometers as it is for anything else).

So if you're using me as an example, consider that the 'attitude to driving that people here have' actually has some grounding in reality.

Apologies BlakJak. I was not using YOU as an example, I was using your statement. It's a statement that I've heard countless times here. In hindsight, I should have either removed your name from the quote or stated that it was not specifically aimed at you.

insane

3239 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#425363 9-Jan-2011 04:01

I don't think it's hard to drive in a manner that's not going to piss every other motorist off, only requires common sense and an appreciation for the road conditions, your car and your ability to control said car.

I certainly drive more aggressively than most however I do pull over and let faster cars go past, specially on off beat country roads where they are more comfortable driving faster as I know what it's like being behind that 'slow' car. As much as I enjoy winning and being in the lead I prefer to have a enjoyable drive and clear mirror.

One thing that does hack me off though more than fast drivers is drivers who take up a full passing lane to overtake a car, or those that overtake one car and then remain in the right hand lane after their woeful overtaking maneuver to ensure only they get through... gurr

BlakJak

1275 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#425408 9-Jan-2011 11:52

^ +1

No signature to see here, move along...

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#425420 9-Jan-2011 13:20

scuwp:
joker97: hey this is going to be wayyy off topic but - this guy (http://www.news.com.au/technology/mustafa-al-shakarji-uses-google-earth-to-appeal-his-speeding-fine/...)

says that speed detectors must only be used with cars coming directly head on towards camera and it is not accurate when cars are heading at an angle (not head on towards camera) for example when car is coming down a hill but police device is not right at bottom of hill

He's right (sort of). Can't recall the name of it but it has to do with the "Doppler Effect". In short the radar measures the direct approach speed of a target vehicle, if the target vehicle is approaching on any type of angle the direct approach speed (to the radar) is reduced according to the angle. Therefore the radar will always read a lesser speed than actually is the case (it's always in your favour).

Where the officer appears to have come unstuck is that he didn't follow the guidelines (as in NZ as well) of getting 'visual' target identification.

The doppler effect has been a good argument in court againt mobile speed cameras in NZ in the past. There have been a number of people who have attempted to challenge the accuracy of a mobile cameras and the Police have chosen to waive the tickets rather than engage in court cases ever since they last one a number of years ago.

When a camera is located on the side of the road the true speed is the cosine of the angle between the camera and the road, ie 22.5 degrees. If camera vehicles are not setup precisely at the correct angle then speeds will ot be recorded accurately. The way that camera vans are set up is now significantly better than it used to be where speeds were routinely incorrect.

All the new digital cameras were also incorrectly configured when they entered service in NZ at the start of 2009 which resulted in hundreds of tickets having to be waived. It seems they hadn't bothered to learn anything from Victoria who deployed the exact same hardware and encountered the exact same problems!

MooPoo

251 posts

Ultimate Geek

#425801 10-Jan-2011 16:09

I am an Aussie living in NZ now and have to have my say on this matter.

I moved here from Canberra where they have camera vans. I think they have 3 of them. One for each area. Nth, Sth and Central canberra.

They are easy to spot as you come up to them and I dare say they do a lot toward slowing people down.

In Canberra the majority of roads are 60, 80km an hour and everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY does at least 10 - 15k's above the speed limit no matter what it happens to be.

You normally get 10% above the limit and then you get done. Radar detectors (not things that interfere with radars) are illegal in Australia and have been for many years.

Years ago (like 40) in QLD they used to use cardboard cutouts of police vehicles with police holding a speed gun to slow people down. It worked well and cost bugger all.

Anyone who has driven around Australia for any length of time will tell you it is commonplace for people to flash their highbeam at you a couple of times to warn of a speed trap ahead.

Of course this made everyone slow down, but it didnt raise any revenue for the police. it is illegal to flash your high beam to warn of an oncoming speed trap now.

They have speed and red light traffic cameras everywhere in Sydney. Mainly because they pay for themselves in a couple of months.

As someone else has said here, it is little deterrence to get a fine in the mail a few weeks after you speed.

I got a fine in the mail the other day for $30 as i had apparently been doing 55 in a 50 zone. What a joke. You can creep up to 5k's over without even knowing it, as in this case.

Ok my rant is that speeding cameras here (and in Australia) seem to be simply revenue raising opportunities. If police were serious about slowing people down there are many other methods they could employ that would cost a lot less and probably be a lot more effective, but not raise any money so they wont do them.

In australia you get around 3 speeding fines and your have lost your licence. If you get done once for over 40k over the limit, you lose your licence on the spot.

here you get a fine and no points!!

My 2c worth

A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history - with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila.

--------------------------------------------

Earthquakes. Shift Happens.

BlakJak

1275 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#425891 10-Jan-2011 19:48

Not following you MooPoo; in NZ 40k+ over the limit = loss of license for 28 days, along with a buncha demerit points.

No signature to see here, move along...

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#425922 10-Jan-2011 21:49

^ If you get pulled over by a cop, yes you'll get a fine + demerits...but not from a speed camera.

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