The French Ban SatNavs with Speed Camera Databases!

[gshaw]

Apparently there is a brilliant trick for beating speed cameras in every country.

First you look at the road signs which tell you the maximum speed you can travel at.
Next you look at the instrument panel to find the bit that tells you the speed you are traveling at.
Finally, you make sure you use the pedals that make cars go faster or slower in such a way that you don't go faster than the speed limit.

I know ... it is an amazing concept and I am so surprised that more isn't said about it instead of people talking about tools used to spot cameras so you don't get caught speeding.

Just saying!

There's an amazing way to run someone over as well...

- check speed limit constantly for sneaky changes in limit, temporary roadworks etc
- stare constantly at speedometer to make sure you haven't gone 2mph over
- miss car \ child \ donkey walking out in front of you
- clear entrails from front grille, replace front bumper

I've always wondered why cars don't have an extra instrument in the dash that knows the limit of each road and changes your dials colour \ image on screen if you go over. Just seen one or two that have started doing it now, one for the inventions thread maybe

Then again as we all know, speed cameras are naff all to do with safety but just how much more £££ Governments can extract from motorists. Personally I prefer the Clarkson method of dealing with Gatsos... nothing a good blast with a rocket launcher can't fix

[gtg93]

I was reading about this a few weeks ago - they've also introduced in the law that all vehicles must carry a breathaliser kit.

According to the AA, disabling the alerts on your SAT NAV is enough to comply with the new law. This is also the law in most
EU countries too now.

Speed camera databases aren't really needed in France as they post a sign (not a fake one like in the uk) so there will be a camera and its not hidden, it will be on either side of the road.

From what I read previously, they're also removing ALL speed camera warning signs.




EDIT:
Link to the AA page I mentioned
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice...in-france.html
&
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice...equipment.html

[gshaw]

I was reading about this a few weeks ago - they've also introduced in the law that all vehicles must carry a breathaliser kit.
According to the AA, disabling the alerts on your SAT NAV is enough to comply with the new law. This is also the law in most

Simple solution for IT geeks, change the bitmaps on your Tomtom etc to pictures of trees or something equally stealthy so anyone looking at it won't know the alerts are still on

[sted]

There's an amazing way to run someone over as well...

- check speed limit constantly for sneaky changes in limit, temporary roadworks etc
- stare constantly at speedometer to make sure you haven't gone 2mph over
- miss car \ child \ donkey walking out in front of you
- clear entrails from front grille, replace front bumper

I've always wondered why cars don't have an extra instrument in the dash that knows the limit of each road and changes your dials colour \ image on screen if you go over. Just seen one or two that have started doing it now, one for the inventions thread maybe

Then again as we all know, speed cameras are naff all to do with safety but just how much more £££ Governments can extract from motorists. Personally I prefer the Clarkson method of dealing with Gatsos... nothing a good blast with a rocket launcher can't fix

there are also odd cars around that have the speed on a hud in the windscreen that is in theory a good idea (and the focus at least top models) "reads speed signs" and warns you

[GrumbleDook]

I got my first speeding ticket a week after I passed my test, driving back from a hospital at around midnight I missed the 40 sign as it wasn't illuminated and I hadn't been driving long enough to be familiar with the road. Thought it was still a 60 and got caught doing 52

I would rather all speed cameras be removed and replaced with Tailgating Cameras instead, though.

If the sign was not properly placed or properly illuminated then contest it.

It is catch 22. If we trusted people to stay in the limit then the money spent on cameras, hospitals dealing with injuries which are worse, etc could be spent on better lighting and signage.

[PICNIC]

From what I read previously, they're also removing ALL speed camera warning signs.

Surely a speed limit sign is enough?

[GrumbleDook]

There's an amazing way to run someone over as well...

- check speed limit constantly for sneaky changes in limit, temporary roadworks etc
- stare constantly at speedometer to make sure you haven't gone 2mph over
- miss car \ child \ donkey walking out in front of you
- clear entrails from front grille, replace front bumper

I've always wondered why cars don't have an extra instrument in the dash that knows the limit of each road and changes your dials colour \ image on screen if you go over. Just seen one or two that have started doing it now, one for the inventions thread maybe

Then again as we all know, speed cameras are naff all to do with safety but just how much more £££ Governments can extract from motorists. Personally I prefer the Clarkson method of dealing with Gatsos... nothing a good blast with a rocket launcher can't fix

And that is the wonderful thing about the next part of the plan ... not only do you not speed but by driving *below* the speed limit (by 2-3 mph is a good idea) then you can use experience and judgement, combined with the occasional glimpse at the speedo, to decide if you are going that bit too fast.

I do agree that constantly looking at something other than the road something that needs to be avoided (anyone would think this is an area that could be covered with lessons or a test or something) ... and one of the useful things about satnavs is that the can often be set with speed warning alarms. from what I have seen most people tend to set them (if they do set them) will have it want them if going several mph over the limit ... why not do it for if you are 1 mph below the limit? That way you don't go over.

Drive to a few mph below the limit ... not to the limit.

Just saying.

[sonofsanta]

If the sign was not properly placed or properly illuminated then contest it.

This was about a decade ago now so probably not worth it now tbh (although I could still do with the £60 back)

I'm still of the opinion that speed is never a factor, simply the misapplication of speed and poor driving. Speed is sometimes an indicator of poor/aggressive driving, but it is an effect, not necessarily a cause. Once upon a time speed limits were set based on the 85th percentile - that is, the limit was what 85% of people drove at or under when left to their own devices, as that was what the road allowed. Sadly that has been discarded recently for whatever reason; conspiratorially, in order to give an appearance of "doing something" and improve the profitability of speed cameras, but I couldn't say. As a result there's now entire journeys where the speed limits are unnecessarily restricting - Skegness to Boston, for example, has no destricted zones anymore, in a 23 mile journey. Ten years ago it had a number of 40s going through villages and the rest was at the national speed limit, with the journey taking maybe 40 minutes. Now it's over an hour because of an artificial limit. As far as I'm aware, it's not made much difference either - the problem is a poor quality road and bad driver judgement wrt blind corners (somewhat of a Lincolnshire affliction, I fear).

Driver education is the only way to properly lower the risks on the roads. Deterrents clearly don't work - how many people do you see talking on mobiles still? - and technical solutions can never properly mitigate human stupidity. A proper driving test, though, that taught driving skills not test-passing skills, followed up with an advanced course and regular re-testing, would do much more than speed cameras ever have.

The government'd even be making money out of it still, and providing employment with the required expansion at test centres. It'd cause too much uproar though. Much easier to sticky plaster the problem with big yellow boxes.

[SimpleSi]

@GD
I thought about adding fixed cams to my speedsign database but then realised it was redundant - if I'm speeding and ignoring my flashing red light and beeping noise, I'm probably not going to notice any other warnings either

As you say, removal of right foot from the pedal is the way forward - I wonder if you could get it trending on twitter

Si

[SimpleSi]

've always wondered why cars don't have an extra instrument in the dash that knows the limit of each road and changes your dials colour \ image on screen if you go over

I've written an android app that does this.
Problems is I don't know of any public databases that have this information in them.

I'm currently using a combination of recording speedsigns when I'm a passenger and feeding info into OpenStreetmap and then parsing the data to produce .kml files which my app reads.

Of course, when the highways dept go on a Jihad, like they've done for the past month, and blanket pepper 20MPH all over Souths Lancs (and throw a few National Speed Limit to 40MPH changes as well) then its a full time job keeping up withthe database changes!

Si
But if anyone fancies a change in hobby from trainspotting , please send me your kml files and I'll add them in (or if your REAL geeky) try getting to grips with JOSM and put them in directly yourself

Si

[nicholab]

I never under stood what the French and other Europeans put up with such stupid laws like letting criminals vote and having to having every your rescue kit in your car.

[pcstru]

The government'd even be making money out of it still, and providing employment with the required expansion at test centres. It'd cause too much uproar though. Much easier to sticky plaster the problem with big yellow boxes.

RTA's have reduced over the last 10 years. Since few seem to think that speed cameras are effective, what DO they think is driving down the number of accidents (in all fatal/serious/slight categories)?

It's often said that speed cameras are a revenue generating mechanism, raising over £120million a year (2003). Estimates of the cost of road traffic accidents run to around £15 billion. While speeding fines do not directly mitigate accident costs, overall the cost of accidents is far in excess of revenue generated by speed cameras. Fatal accidents require detailed investigation by specialist assessors and out of about ~60 odd factors which can be cited, excess speed (~30%) is by far the most frequent. So even if we just take a portion of the costs of accidents, the revenue raised by speed cameras doesn't seem to cover a fraction of the accidents that are caused by excess speed.

So sticky plaster big yellow boxes? Maybe - but perhaps only because there are far too few of them.

[GrumbleDook]

This was about a decade ago now so probably not worth it now tbh (although I could still do with the £60 back)

I'm still of the opinion that speed is never a factor, simply the misapplication of speed and poor driving. Speed is sometimes an indicator of poor/aggressive driving, but it is an effect, not necessarily a cause. Once upon a time speed limits were set based on the 85th percentile - that is, the limit was what 85% of people drove at or under when left to their own devices, as that was what the road allowed. Sadly that has been discarded recently for whatever reason; conspiratorially, in order to give an appearance of "doing something" and improve the profitability of speed cameras, but I couldn't say. As a result there's now entire journeys where the speed limits are unnecessarily restricting - Skegness to Boston, for example, has no destricted zones anymore, in a 23 mile journey. Ten years ago it had a number of 40s going through villages and the rest was at the national speed limit, with the journey taking maybe 40 minutes. Now it's over an hour because of an artificial limit. As far as I'm aware, it's not made much difference either - the problem is a poor quality road and bad driver judgement wrt blind corners (somewhat of a Lincolnshire affliction, I fear).

Driver education is the only way to properly lower the risks on the roads. Deterrents clearly don't work - how many people do you see talking on mobiles still? - and technical solutions can never properly mitigate human stupidity. A proper driving test, though, that taught driving skills not test-passing skills, followed up with an advanced course and regular re-testing, would do much more than speed cameras ever have.

The government'd even be making money out of it still, and providing employment with the required expansion at test centres. It'd cause too much uproar though. Much easier to sticky plaster the problem with big yellow boxes.

I have been on interview panel a few years ago where an applicant (who might also have been approached to drive the school minibus) did mention that he had previous driving ban due to speeding offences and had gone through a serious of retraining as a result. His frustration with the stupidity of the ban was obvious but we did have to say that they fact that the ban was complete, that he had done a lot of work to change and had a glowing reference from the local constabulary on the charitable work he was doing around speed awareness course ... that was what we were interested in.

Afterwards he did explain though that 9 points had been on the same day, on the same stretch of road and was down to a change in the restrictions that were poorly signed (I've been along the road and would heartily agree) which would now be challenged and the points / fines dropped (as they were on many occasions and the signage has now changed).

Some of the decisions do seem very arbitrary but having spoken to a number of police and planners now I know that it tends to be for a variety of reasons ... some of them are down to reducing either the risk of incidents (speed is a factor), the severity of injuries / risk of fatalities (speed is a factor), to attempting to change / shape driving habits (create a sense of needing to be more aware of changes to the road and environment) or due to public requirement (noise / pollution / conservation / etc).

There are roads where the risk when driving at speed is not as an important factor as it is on other areas. Examples would be motorways, and we can see from other countries where the limit can be flexible enough so that higher speeds can be used at no increase in risk / incidents. Within the UK factor include reaction speed and distance between vehicles. Let's face it ... people drive too close and that is one of the problems. People then take the motorway driving style and apply it to most other roads ... it is not just Lincolnshire (though the quality of roads there doesn't help). Impatience, arrogance, the divine right to own the road ... you know the sort of thing I am getting at ... these are also problems. Talking with family, friends, police and others in places like Ireland, Australia, parts of France, Germany and Belgium ... they all seem to say there is a more friendly and positive attitude to other drivers ...

And yes ... re-testing ... please ... as soon as possible ...

[pcstru]

Talking with family, friends, police and others in places like Ireland, Australia, parts of France, Germany and Belgium ... they all seem to say there is a more friendly and positive attitude to other drivers ...

And yet, they have a worse record for safety.

(p25 of the link)

[SimpleSi]

Just to fully clarify my speeding position - some speed limits have been introduced to crack nuts at a lower cost - e.g reduce whole 3 mile stretch of road to 40MPH because it would be too expensive to properly hightlight/control the junction where incidents take place.

This causes drivers frustration as they know the stretch of road they are on doesn't warrant the restriction and therefore end up becoming criminals at times because they are using their brains. (And if new to the areas - get no warning of the incident prone areas.

On a personal note (if you remember my daughter was caught doing 55 in a 30 - but 200 metres from the NS sign!) is that she pleaded guilty but stated the above and was treated very reasonably by the magistrates (35 day ban - £50 fine - no points)

Si