Best Speed Camera Detector

desweller

rozzer32 wrote:

If that is the equation he is talking about then more energy will be produced at 70mph than 30mph. So his argument that going over 30 is way worse than 70 isn't valid.

But that energy equation isn't valid anyway as it doesn't account for things like tyre friction coefficient, crash structures that disparate energy at different rates etc etc.

The point is that the 30mph limit is selected to mitigate the amount of energy involved in an unforseeable (i.e. one where no braking is involved) collision involving a pedestrian. As kinetic energy increases as a square of speed, it reaches a lethal level for only a small speed increase over 30mph.

Hence all the road safety ads that declare the percentage likelihood of survival at 30mph vs 40mph etc. etc.

There are very few pedestrians on motorways.

Smokin Joe

You should have posted this in commuting.

They like a good foam at the mouth.

rozzer32

DesWeller wrote:

rozzer32 wrote:

If that is the equation he is talking about then more energy will be produced at 70mph than 30mph. So his argument that going over 30 is way worse than 70 isn't valid.

But that energy equation isn't valid anyway as it doesn't account for things like tyre friction coefficient, crash structures that disparate energy at different rates etc etc.

The point is that the 30mph limit is selected to mitigate the amount of energy involved in an unforseeable (i.e. one where no braking is involved) collision involving a pedestrian. As kinetic energy increases as a square of speed, it reaches a lethal level for only a small speed increase over 30mph.

Hence all the road safety ads that declare the percentage likelihood of survival at 30mph vs 40mph etc. etc.

There are very few pedestrians on motorways.

Oh do you mean those adverts with the little girl saying there's a 90% chance I'll live at such a speed etc etc? Weren't those the one based on really old data from like the 1970's or 80's? I'm not saying speeding is a good thing and it is law braking. But some people come on here and act like the a car driving god and they have never done anything wrong in a car ever.

Wasn't there a recent study that showed accidents in the new 20mph zones has actually increased while 30mph zone accidents went down?

If the OP wants to get a device to alert him to speed cameras then so be it. Some of the new models alert you to accident black spots and when you're on roads with a high accident rate which is a good thing I think. Most people have it without realising in their satnav, even satnav on phones are starting to have it. Doesn't the government actually have a list online somewhere with all speed camera locations?

To the OP I think the snooper range are meant to be quite good.

Yellow Peril

NapoleonD wrote:

Everyone I know who has a 'speed camera detector' has got points since using them. (A vast n=3 survey).

None of those are colleagues by the way...

They were already banned for drink driving

Yellow Peril

bartman100 wrote:

Just to back that up, seriously, no hard feelings and sorry for anyone who thinks I am trying to get away with driving like a tw@t.

Here's a picture to cheer us all up:

Great picture Bartman, I am cheered. Ta muchly

rolf_f

Smokin Joe wrote:

You should have posted this in commuting.

They like a good foam at the mouth.

Now this is a post worthy of a "YAAWWWNNNNNNNN"

rozzer32

Smokin Joe wrote:

You should have posted this in commuting.

They like a good foam at the mouth.

Surprised they haven't got a helmet cam/speed camera combo invented for their helmets by now.

desweller

rozzer32 wrote:

DesWeller wrote:

rozzer32 wrote:

If that is the equation he is talking about then more energy will be produced at 70mph than 30mph. So his argument that going over 30 is way worse than 70 isn't valid.

But that energy equation isn't valid anyway as it doesn't account for things like tyre friction coefficient, crash structures that disparate energy at different rates etc etc.

The point is that the 30mph limit is selected to mitigate the amount of energy involved in an unforseeable (i.e. one where no braking is involved) collision involving a pedestrian. As kinetic energy increases as a square of speed, it reaches a lethal level for only a small speed increase over 30mph.

Hence all the road safety ads that declare the percentage likelihood of survival at 30mph vs 40mph etc. etc.

There are very few pedestrians on motorways.

Oh do you mean those adverts with the little girl saying there's a 90% chance I'll live at such a speed etc etc? Weren't those the one based on really old data from like the 1970's or 80's? I'm not saying speeding is a good thing and it is law braking. But some people come on here and act like the a car driving god and they have never done anything wrong in a car ever.

Is there a statute of limitations on experimental data from the 70s and 80s? Just because it's old doesn't mean it's invalid.

Nobody is perfect, but if people will only take advice from those who have never committed a mistake themselves then we'd never learn anything from anyone.

Anyway, the OP's analysis is invalid. He's thought, 'I keep speeding in 30mph zones...I know, I'll get something to allow me to do so', instead of trying to find a better way to remain beneath the speed limit.

rozzer32

Well when you compare to modern vehicles then yes. We now have better brakes, better tyres, better ABS, better impact protection etc etc.

Maybe the OP has learnt his lesson, but everyone isn't concentrating 100% all the time at the wheel, maybe you change the radio station, think about family etc, and we all know it doesn't take much to go from 30 to 33. Anyway if the OP wants a speed camera detector then get one.

DrKJM

My point was that a fixed amount over the limit is more of a problem the lower the speed. The energy increase going from 30 to 34 mph is around 28 %. 70 to 74 only leads to an 11% increase. That's why it's more of an issue speeding 'a little bit' in areas where there are vulnerable road users. But i made my peace with the op having overreacted a little. This is just to clarify.

bartman100

Thanks for all the input. I guess this was always going to go the way of a general debate on the use of camera detectors.

I don't want to be seen to justify speeding. I'm a cyclist too of course and always consider myself a careful driver. I need my car (sadly) for work and keeping in contact with my daughter. Like someone pointed out, sometimes all the best intentions in the world cannot prevent you occasionaly creeping over the limit (yes, sometimes even in a 30 zone). The alternative is to spend so much time watching the speedo as to negate any safety benefits from driving slower. So, I was looking for an automated solution to help regulate a human failing and help me keep my licence and thus my job etc...

I absolutely do not want to find something to let me keep speeding and/or circumvent the law. I guess all I needed all along was a sat nav with a speed warning voice - solution found.

daviesee

bartman100 wrote:

I absolutely do not want to find something to let me keep speeding and/or circumvent the law. I guess all I needed all along was a sat nav with a speed warning voice - solution found.

I gave you the answer a few days ago, and you don't even have to buy a sat nav.

daviesee wrote:

bartman100 wrote:

I don't have a sat nav currently, nor cruise control; just use my smart phone, but probably time to get one!

I use this:-
http://www.copilotlive.com/uk/
No need to buy a dedicated satnav.

StillGoing

Try using the two things just under your eyebrows and either side of your nose. Should be able to spot a speed limit sign or a camera van then.