"Police reported ahead" on Waze

[Pelicula]

vonhosen said:

Chainsaw Rebuild said:

Mr Miata said:

Heaveho said:

It's a revenue stream, pure and simple, and until they come clean and admit it, I'll treat the system with the derision it deserves.

How is it a revenue stream when you never have to pay if you’re driving at the correct speed?

You’re paying out of choice.

It clearly is a revenue gathering exercise in some places. A road quite near me had a 60mph limit, for as long as I can remember, but a few years ago it changed to a 40mph limit. The old limit was fine, the road is safe at that speed. Which is why a lot of people drive on it at least 50mph perfectly safely.

However there is occasionally a speed trap there, presumably generating a lot of revenue and not making things safer. If anyhting, it just makes people view speed enforcement negatively. I can report that people will flash you to let you know there is a speed trap there and waze is always updated.

You're still choosing to speed though & open yourself up to the fine. You don't have to do it.
The fact it may be safe to travel faster than the limit doesn't alter that fact.
The limit doesn't tell you a safe speed to travel at, it tells you the legal limit.

Preachy AND selective in your replies on this thread.

[vonhosen]

Pelicula said:

vonhosen said:

Chainsaw Rebuild said:

Mr Miata said:

Heaveho said:

It's a revenue stream, pure and simple, and until they come clean and admit it, I'll treat the system with the derision it deserves.

How is it a revenue stream when you never have to pay if you’re driving at the correct speed?

You’re paying out of choice.

It clearly is a revenue gathering exercise in some places. A road quite near me had a 60mph limit, for as long as I can remember, but a few years ago it changed to a 40mph limit. The old limit was fine, the road is safe at that speed. Which is why a lot of people drive on it at least 50mph perfectly safely.

However there is occasionally a speed trap there, presumably generating a lot of revenue and not making things safer. If anyhting, it just makes people view speed enforcement negatively. I can report that people will flash you to let you know there is a speed trap there and waze is always updated.

You're still choosing to speed though & open yourself up to the fine. You don't have to do it.
The fact it may be safe to travel faster than the limit doesn't alter that fact.
The limit doesn't tell you a safe speed to travel at, it tells you the legal limit.

Preachy AND selective in your replies on this thread.

It's pointing out simple realities.

1. Speed limits don't tell you safe speeds to travel at.
2. Exceeding them, or not, are the driver's choice.
3. There are risks of well publicised sanctions where you choose to exceed.

I would quite happily, at what I would consider safely (in the absence of slow traffic in front of me) travel faster than most speed limits. Whether they be 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's or NSL's.
I don't most of the time because driving to the maximum safe speed for the conditions would see me losing my licence in short time.

So I have choice.
I can exceed the limit & risk sanction.
OR
I can adhere to the limit for no other real reason than to protect my licence.

I mostly do the second simply because I need my licence. I don't do it because I believe the posted limit is the maximum safe speed.
If I do the former then I make that choice fully aware of risks I run.
It's no good doing the former & whining about it. It serves no useful purpose.

If I have to pay any revenue then I have to do so knowing I made my choices with that possibility.
Or I can simply choose not to open myself to that possibility.
I've managed to avoid doing so for 40 years so far without slavishly adhering to limits.
These principles are not complicated or hard to work with.

It's daft to equate speed limits with it telling you what speed it's safe to travel at.
They are a simple control measure, a line in the sand that do not tell you the safe maximum speed.

You are preaching, you just don't like anything contrary to what you're preaching.

[Southerner]

drdel said:

Surely to obstruct an officer doing his duty you would need to know the motorist you 'flashed' was in fact speeding!

Apparently not! The authorities - the bastion of upstanding honour that they of course are - have made quite the job of twisting a PCOJ charge to fit various motoring offences that quite clearly, to anybody with any degree of common sense, don’t fit the crime. Ho hum.

[bigothunter]

bad company said:

theplayingmantis said:

Yes the report is often a bit late and i find that sometimes no audio warning just a visual which is easily missed.

Anyone know why you don't always get an audio warning, its not in the settings.

You only get the audio alert if you’re exceeding the speed limit.

Thanks - mystery solved. I just need to go faster

[bad company]

bigothunter said:

Thanks - mystery solved. I just need to go faster

Correct answer.

[healeyneil]

A side issue. How do you alert Waze to police cars, or broken down vehicles, etc ?
Do you rely on a passenger to do it for you ?

[soad]

healeyneil said:

A side issue. How do you alert Waze to police cars, or broken down vehicles, etc ?
Do you rely on a passenger to do it for you ?

Depends. Mine sits in an air vent holder. Wouldn’t dream of holding it in hand.

[bad company]

healeyneil said:

A side issue. How do you alert Waze to police cars, or broken down vehicles, etc ?
Do you rely on a passenger to do it for you ?

I have Waze running on the screen of my car, very easy to use the touch screen to send an alert. Over the years I’ve a Scamera van being set up just once and was able to alert other drivers.

[Snappy89]

SlimJim16v said:

Edited by SlimJim16v on Saturday 5th August 18:51

As it is, I believe it takes more than one person reporting "Not there" for the warning to disappear from the map for other users. I've read it's up to 5 or 6 separate users are needed to report it not there IIRC.
So said posters are just wasting their own time.

I have heard of coppers in the US at least, getting numerous patrol cars to drive past and report as "not there" however. I suspect we don't have those kind of resources available here.

Edited by Snappy89 on Tuesday 8th August 21:58

[omniflow]

Snappy89 said:

As it is, I believe it takes more than one person reporting "Not there" for the warning to disappear from the map for other users. I've read it's up to 5 or 6 separate users are needed to report it not there IIRC.
So said posters are just wasting their own time.

I have heard of coppers in the US at least, getting numerous patrol cars to drive past and report as "not there" however. I suspect we don't have those kind of resources available here.

Edited by Snappy89 on Tuesday 8th August 21:58

This is exactly why I posted my question originally - before the thread went down some kind of very predictable rat hole with all of the holier than thou posters chipping in about why it shouldn't be of any relevance to anyone.

I would imagine that the warning only disappears when there are significantly more "not there's" than there are "there's". It's possible that even one "there" is enough to keep the warning in place. This is why I was interested enough to ask the question as to what other people do.

[Griffith4ever]

I've done a little googling and it seems each user's "there" or "not there" has differing weights, depending on their previous contributions - i.e. if they go against the crowd often - then their contributions are given less weight.

So a habitual reporter of say, highway cars that then gets lots of "not there" responses will prob struggle to get their future reports of traffic cars regsitered.

[The Gauge]

I like how Waze are pretending that the 'Emergency vehicle on the road ahead' warning is to protect our First Responders and NOT to help prevent you getting caught speeding