BIBs - is my snooper legal?

[swisss]

conflicting stories abot my detector. Legal or no? not a GPS linked system.

Not that fussed tbh, always forget to use it.

what's the story?

[Hollywood Wheels]

Stick this question in the SP&L section mate, I haven't the foggiest myself, too busy dealing with criminals to be bothered by such things. I'm sure one of our resident Rats there will be able to give you the answer....

HW

[Dwight VanDriver]

Coming soon an outright ban under the Road Safety Bill which is due to hit the streets very soon.

Cue Google - Road Safety Bill.

dvd

[vonhosen]

GPS will be allowed, not radar jammer/detectors etc.

[puggit]

Of course, the devices are banned in the interests of 'safety'...

Or as the Mail On Sunday reveals today - they are banned in the interests of cash generation, eh vonhosen?

Edited by puggit on Sunday 15th October 09:55

[vonhosen]

puggit said:

Of course, the devices are banned in the interests of 'safety'...

Or as the Mail On Sunday reveals today - they are banned in the interests of cash generation, eh vonhosen?

Edited by puggit on Sunday 15th October 09:55

Or of course, you not being able to evade justice for a crime you are commiting, by simply employing a lookout.

[puggit]

vonhosen said:

puggit said:

Of course, the devices are banned in the interests of 'safety'...

Or as the Mail On Sunday reveals today - they are banned in the interests of cash generation, eh vonhosen?

Edited by puggit on Sunday 15th October 09:55

Or of course, you not being able to evade justice for a crime you are commiting, by simply employing a lookout.

So why are they illegal if you are not speeding?

[vonhosen]

puggit said:

vonhosen said:

puggit said:

Of course, the devices are banned in the interests of 'safety'...

Or as the Mail On Sunday reveals today - they are banned in the interests of cash generation, eh vonhosen?

Edited by puggit on Sunday 15th October 09:55

Or of course, you not being able to evade justice for a crime you are commiting, by simply employing a lookout.

So why are they illegal if you are not speeding?

Because of how they are misused.
There are many items that could be said to have a justifiable useful purpose, but they are banned from simply being carried because some people do misuse them.

[puggit]

vonhosen said:

puggit said:

vonhosen said:

puggit said:

Of course, the devices are banned in the interests of 'safety'...

Or as the Mail On Sunday reveals today - they are banned in the interests of cash generation, eh vonhosen?

Edited by puggit on Sunday 15th October 09:55

Or of course, you not being able to evade justice for a crime you are commiting, by simply employing a lookout.

So why are they illegal if you are not speeding?

Because of how they are misused.
There are many items that could be said to have a justifiable useful purpose, but they are banned from simply being carried because some people do misuse them.

So then we should ban the LTI 20-20 because of it's blatant mis-use?

[Tafia]

vonhosen said:

puggit said:

Of course, the devices are banned in the interests of 'safety'...

Or as the Mail On Sunday reveals today - they are banned in the interests of cash generation, eh vonhosen?

Edited by puggit on Sunday 15th October 09:55

Or of course, you not being able to evade justice for a crime you are commiting, by simply employing a lookout.

Crime? Where is the victim?

[Tafia]

vonhosen said:

puggit said:

vonhosen said:

puggit said:

Of course, the devices are banned in the interests of 'safety'...

Or as the Mail On Sunday reveals today - they are banned in the interests of cash generation, eh vonhosen?

Edited by puggit on Sunday 15th October 09:55

Or of course, you not being able to evade justice for a crime you are commiting, by simply employing a lookout.

So why are they illegal if you are not speeding?

Because of how they are misused.
There are many items that could be said to have a justifiable useful purpose, but they are banned from simply being carried because some people do misuse them.

How does one misuse a radar detector?

It says, "Cash collection camera ahead" Now to be made illegal.

GPS says, "Cash collection camera ahead". Legal.

Why?

Edited by Tafia on Sunday 15th October 11:06

[mr_annie_vxr]

Tafia said:

vonhosen said:

puggit said:

Of course, the devices are banned in the interests of 'safety'...

Or as the Mail On Sunday reveals today - they are banned in the interests of cash generation, eh vonhosen?

Edited by puggit on Sunday 15th October 09:55

Or of course, you not being able to evade justice for a crime you are commiting, by simply employing a lookout.

Crime? Where is the victim?

That would be the person you run over at 50 in a 30 and instead of injuring them you kill them. They would be the victim.

[Tafia]

mr_annie_vxr said:

Tafia said:

vonhosen said:

puggit said:

Of course, the devices are banned in the interests of 'safety'...

Or as the Mail On Sunday reveals today - they are banned in the interests of cash generation, eh vonhosen?

Edited by puggit on Sunday 15th October 09:55

Or of course, you not being able to evade justice for a crime you are commiting, by simply employing a lookout.

Crime? Where is the victim?

That would be the person you run over at 50 in a 30 and instead of injuring them you kill them. They would be the victim.

That could be dangerous drivng or a jaywalking pedestrian. The fine and points is for driving with the wrong number on a dial, not for hitting some ficticious jaywalker. Of the millions of folks caught by speed traps, how many were involved in a crash at the time they were trapped. None I guess

Edited by Tafia on Sunday 15th October 11:13

[mr_annie_vxr]

Tafia said:

mr_annie_vxr said:

Tafia said:

vonhosen said:

puggit said:

Of course, the devices are banned in the interests of 'safety'...

Or as the Mail On Sunday reveals today - they are banned in the interests of cash generation, eh vonhosen?

Edited by puggit on Sunday 15th October 09:55

Or of course, you not being able to evade justice for a crime you are commiting, by simply employing a lookout.

Crime? Where is the victim?

That would be the person you run over at 50 in a 30 and instead of injuring them you kill them. They would be the victim.

That could be dangerous drivng or a jaywalking pedestrian. The fine and points is for driving with the wrong number on a dial, not for hitting some ficticious jaywalker. Of the millions of folks caught by speed traps, how many were involved in a crash at the time they were trapped. None I guess

Edited by Tafia on Sunday 15th October 11:13

Yes it would be but it would be the speed of the impact that killed them. Are you saying no-one was ever killed because of speed? Its is no matter what anyone says about speed the ammount of energy involved in a crash that kills people. Sorry it just is. Bad driving etc cause the crash speed only does that sometimes but speed (or energy) is what decides how the crash evolves. Anyone who does not realise the part that speed has to play in any fatal crash is really putting their head in the sand. Once you understand that then you can make decisions based on your undersatnding about how fast you drive in relation to your own personal limits and skills. Thats presuming that all drivers know thier limits. I'd suggest a great many drivers think they are better drivers than they are.

[mr_annie_vxr]

Tafia said:

mr_annie_vxr said:

Tafia said:

vonhosen said:

puggit said:

Of course, the devices are banned in the interests of 'safety'...

Or as the Mail On Sunday reveals today - they are banned in the interests of cash generation, eh vonhosen?

Edited by puggit on Sunday 15th October 09:55

Or of course, you not being able to evade justice for a crime you are commiting, by simply employing a lookout.

Crime? Where is the victim?

That would be the person you run over at 50 in a 30 and instead of injuring them you kill them. They would be the victim.

That could be dangerous drivng or a jaywalking pedestrian. The fine and points is for driving with the wrong number on a dial, not for hitting some ficticious jaywalker. Of the millions of folks caught by speed traps, how many were involved in a crash at the time they were trapped. None I guess

Edited by Tafia on Sunday 15th October 11:13

How many people involved in fatal accidents have convictions for speeding..? If none whatsoever then you make an interesting point. However I think you'll find thats not the case. Now how many in serious injury accidents? Either way the law is that its a speed limit. if you chose to break it then you know the penalty. There is a need for speed limits but some need re-thinking but we need sensible debate. My view would be less low limits but in the correct places that are strictly enforced but dual carriageways etc higher limits and less enforcement.

[andmole]

mr_annie_vxr said:

Tafia said:

mr_annie_vxr said:

Tafia said:

vonhosen said:

puggit said:

Of course, the devices are banned in the interests of 'safety'...

Or as the Mail On Sunday reveals today - they are banned in the interests of cash generation, eh vonhosen?

Edited by puggit on Sunday 15th October 09:55

Or of course, you not being able to evade justice for a crime you are commiting, by simply employing a lookout.

Crime? Where is the victim?

That would be the person you run over at 50 in a 30 and instead of injuring them you kill them. They would be the victim.

That could be dangerous drivng or a jaywalking pedestrian. The fine and points is for driving with the wrong number on a dial, not for hitting some ficticious jaywalker. Of the millions of folks caught by speed traps, how many were involved in a crash at the time they were trapped. None I guess

Edited by Tafia on Sunday 15th October 11:13

How many people involved in fatal accidents have convictions for speeding..? If none whatsoever then you make an interesting point. However I think you'll find thats not the case. Now how many in serious injury accidents? Either way the law is that its a speed limit. if you chose to break it then you know the penalty. There is a need for speed limits but some need re-thinking but we need sensible debate. My view would be less low limits but in the correct places that are strictly enforced but dual carriageways etc higher limits and less enforcement.

What incredibly sensible thoughts regarding speed limits.

[Tafia]

mr_annie_vxr said:

Tafia said:

mr_annie_vxr said:

Tafia said:

vonhosen said:

puggit said:

Of course, the devices are banned in the interests of 'safety'...

Or as the Mail On Sunday reveals today - they are banned in the interests of cash generation, eh vonhosen?

Edited by puggit on Sunday 15th October 09:55

Or of course, you not being able to evade justice for a crime you are commiting, by simply employing a lookout.

Crime? Where is the victim?

That would be the person you run over at 50 in a 30 and instead of injuring them you kill them. They would be the victim.

That could be dangerous drivng or a jaywalking pedestrian. The fine and points is for driving with the wrong number on a dial, not for hitting some ficticious jaywalker. Of the millions of folks caught by speed traps, how many were involved in a crash at the time they were trapped. None I guess

Edited by Tafia on Sunday 15th October 11:13

Yes it would be but it would be the speed of the impact that killed them. Are you saying no-one was ever killed because of speed? Its is no matter what anyone says about speed the ammount of energy involved in a crash that kills people. Sorry it just is. Bad driving etc cause the crash speed only does that sometimes but speed (or energy) is what decides how the crash evolves. Anyone who does not realise the part that speed has to play in any fatal crash is really putting their head in the sand. Once you understand that then you can make decisions based on your undersatnding about how fast you drive in relation to your own personal limits and skills. Thats presuming that all drivers know thier limits. I'd suggest a great many drivers think they are better drivers than they are.

The offence is not "hitting people" It is not driving at some ( often ridiculously low) arbitrary limit set in 1930 when cars needed 200 yds to stop.

[Tafia]

mr_annie_vxr said:

Tafia said:

mr_annie_vxr said:

Tafia said:

vonhosen said:

puggit said:

Of course, the devices are banned in the interests of 'safety'...

Or as the Mail On Sunday reveals today - they are banned in the interests of cash generation, eh vonhosen?

Edited by puggit on Sunday 15th October 09:55

Or of course, you not being able to evade justice for a crime you are commiting, by simply employing a lookout.

Crime? Where is the victim?

That would be the person you run over at 50 in a 30 and instead of injuring them you kill them. They would be the victim.

That could be dangerous drivng or a jaywalking pedestrian. The fine and points is for driving with the wrong number on a dial, not for hitting some ficticious jaywalker. Of the millions of folks caught by speed traps, how many were involved in a crash at the time they were trapped. None I guess

Edited by Tafia on Sunday 15th October 11:13

How many people involved in fatal accidents have convictions for speeding..? If none whatsoever then you make an interesting point. .

I didn't say that. I asked how many - at the time they were trapped - were in the middle of an accident.

Edited by Tafia on Sunday 15th October 11:46

[turbobloke]

Drivers who use radar detectors are safer than those who don't, data used in detector adverts and proof against trade descriptions act in so doing

Hey let's get this brainy government to legislate against safety (again)

[bluepolarbear]

vonhosen said:

Or of course, you not being able to evade justice for a crime you are commiting, by simply employing a lookout.

what tripe, I better gauge my eyes out, I exceed an arbitary limit and slow down when passing a camera.

What's the difference between a Mk1 eyeball and a Radar Detector? Both do the same job, both allow the driver to make an informed decision and both are fallible.