Speed camera jammers

[Alan galbraith]

Anyone know anything about them?

[medullanocte]

Yep, they're a bit illegal now and you'll get in trouble if you get caught with one.

[MGB Boy]

Think someone in Scotland recently got banned for having one?

Pleading ignorance doesn't work either.

[XLR8ED]

If its the Later Diffuser based products:

1. Legal to Buy
2. Legal to own
3. Legal to install on your car
4. ILLIGAL to use to interfear with Police / VOSA equipment. - You will get the normal points and fine

[ginettajoe]

XLR8ED said:

If its the Later Diffuser based products:

1. Legal to Buy
2. Legal to own
3. Legal to install on your car
4. ILLIGAL to use to interfear with Police / VOSA equipment. - You will get the normal points and fine

... and if you have the one made by Snooper, it comes with a warning buzzer & switch to disconnect the system as soon as it has scrambled the signal. Plod then has to prove it was your equipment that created the "Error"!!

[Efbe]

we've had quite a few of these threads recently.

just one thing...

would you trust a jammer to work no matter what?

if not, then its meaningless to get one. end of story

[Boosted LS1]

Its not the end of the story at all.

If it works just the once then it's worth having imo. Most victims are only making small mistakes, they're the soft under belly of the driving fraternity who make the occasional error.

[motco]

MGB Boy said:

Think someone in Scotland recently got banned for having one?

Pleading ignorance doesn't work either.

I think it was Norfolk but what's the difference?

[Paul_M3]

Efbe said:

we've had quite a few of these threads recently.

just one thing...

would you trust a jammer to work no matter what?

if not, then its meaningless to get one. end of story

Of course it's not the end of the story. What a strange thing to say.

I'd imagine many of the people who fit them don't suddenly drive around like complete lunatics.

I'm sure many still drive in exactly the same way, observe limits in built up areas, and use observation as their primary means of protection. The laser jammer would be a back up for time they may not see a camera van half a mile away whilst doing 90 mph on an empty dual carriageway.

Think of it as multi-layered protection. I have to wear PPE at work, but I don't deliberately do dangerous things and rely on it. It's purely there for if the worst happens. Same principle.

[Efbe]

Paul_M3 said:

Efbe said:

we've had quite a few of these threads recently.

just one thing...

would you trust a jammer to work no matter what?

if not, then its meaningless to get one. end of story

Of course it's not the end of the story. What a strange thing to say.

I'd imagine many of the people who fit them don't suddenly drive around like complete lunatics.

I'm sure many still drive in exactly the same way, observe limits in built up areas, and use observation as their primary means of protection. The laser jammer would be a back up for time they may not see a camera van half a mile away whilst doing 90 mph on an empty dual carriageway.

Think of it as multi-layered protection. I have to wear PPE at work, but I don't deliberately do dangerous things and rely on it. It's purely there for if the worst happens. Same principle.

I disagree. it offers you a level of protection that stops you you looking out quite so keenly; and so making you more likely to be caught speeding.

I have noticed that If I am using satnav, with the camera database in there I don't look out for cameras as much as driving without. Yes you can say you will keep looking out for them just a much, but you won't. And given the fact they are not infallible, cameras will get through the net.

I would stretch to say that many of the driver aids in cars do this. I have had more close calls due to skidding whilst braking in cars with ABS than not. I've also had more issues with cornering RWD cars when TCL has been engaged than not.

Basically, anything that takes away from your complete concentration of the road, makes out more prone to accidents, and anything that gives you a false sense of security greatly impairs your chances to detect potential issues, whether a speed camera, a police car or a mobile camera unit.

sidenote:
In 10 years of diving I have never been caught speeding on camera once. not even close. compared to almost every one else I know, I drive much faster. Personally I view being caught by a camera as incompetent driving. There are no excuses whatsoever for not seeing a camera, whether specs, gatso or whatever. Even not noticing a police-car, or suspiciously clean car coming up behind you on the motorway. Anyhow, that argument is for another thread.

[Ry_B]

Efbe said:

Paul_M3 said:

Efbe said:

we've had quite a few of these threads recently.

just one thing...

would you trust a jammer to work no matter what?

if not, then its meaningless to get one. end of story

Of course it's not the end of the story. What a strange thing to say.

I'd imagine many of the people who fit them don't suddenly drive around like complete lunatics.

I'm sure many still drive in exactly the same way, observe limits in built up areas, and use observation as their primary means of protection. The laser jammer would be a back up for time they may not see a camera van half a mile away whilst doing 90 mph on an empty dual carriageway.

Think of it as multi-layered protection. I have to wear PPE at work, but I don't deliberately do dangerous things and rely on it. It's purely there for if the worst happens. Same principle.

I disagree. it offers you a level of protection that stops you you looking out quite so keenly; and so making you more likely to be caught speeding.

I have noticed that If I am using satnav, with the camera database in there I don't look out for cameras as much as driving without. Yes you can say you will keep looking out for them just a much, but you won't. And given the fact they are not infallible, cameras will get through the net.

I would stretch to say that many of the driver aids in cars do this. I have had more close calls due to skidding whilst braking in cars with ABS than not. I've also had more issues with cornering RWD cars when TCL has been engaged than not.

Basically, anything that takes away from your complete concentration of the road, makes out more prone to accidents, and anything that gives you a false sense of security greatly impairs your chances to detect potential issues, whether a speed camera, a police car or a mobile camera unit.

sidenote:
In 10 years of diving I have never been caught speeding on camera once. not even close. compared to almost every one else I know, I drive much faster. Personally I view being caught by a camera as incompetent driving. There are no excuses whatsoever for not seeing a camera, whether specs, gatso or whatever. Even not noticing a police-car, or suspiciously clean car coming up behind you on the motorway. Anyhow, that argument is for another thread.

So are you saying that if you go onto a work site wearing a helmet, you would no longer be warey of anything falling from above because you are protected? Of course not

[Efbe]

Ry_B said:

Efbe said:

Paul_M3 said:

Efbe said:

we've had quite a few of these threads recently.

just one thing...

would you trust a jammer to work no matter what?

if not, then its meaningless to get one. end of story

Of course it's not the end of the story. What a strange thing to say.

I'd imagine many of the people who fit them don't suddenly drive around like complete lunatics.

I'm sure many still drive in exactly the same way, observe limits in built up areas, and use observation as their primary means of protection. The laser jammer would be a back up for time they may not see a camera van half a mile away whilst doing 90 mph on an empty dual carriageway.

Think of it as multi-layered protection. I have to wear PPE at work, but I don't deliberately do dangerous things and rely on it. It's purely there for if the worst happens. Same principle.

I disagree. it offers you a level of protection that stops you you looking out quite so keenly; and so making you more likely to be caught speeding.

I have noticed that If I am using satnav, with the camera database in there I don't look out for cameras as much as driving without. Yes you can say you will keep looking out for them just a much, but you won't. And given the fact they are not infallible, cameras will get through the net.

I would stretch to say that many of the driver aids in cars do this. I have had more close calls due to skidding whilst braking in cars with ABS than not. I've also had more issues with cornering RWD cars when TCL has been engaged than not.

Basically, anything that takes away from your complete concentration of the road, makes out more prone to accidents, and anything that gives you a false sense of security greatly impairs your chances to detect potential issues, whether a speed camera, a police car or a mobile camera unit.

sidenote:
In 10 years of diving I have never been caught speeding on camera once. not even close. compared to almost every one else I know, I drive much faster. Personally I view being caught by a camera as incompetent driving. There are no excuses whatsoever for not seeing a camera, whether specs, gatso or whatever. Even not noticing a police-car, or suspiciously clean car coming up behind you on the motorway. Anyhow, that argument is for another thread.

So are you saying that if you go onto a work site wearing a helmet, you would no longer be warey of anything falling from above because you are protected? Of course not

no thats just stupid. you're bad at this eh!

driver aid usually refers to something in addition to help out.
given a helmet is a legal requirement, it is not an aid, but essential

[Paul_M3]

Efbe said:

Ry_B said:

Efbe said:

Paul_M3 said:

Efbe said:

we've had quite a few of these threads recently.

just one thing...

would you trust a jammer to work no matter what?

if not, then its meaningless to get one. end of story

Of course it's not the end of the story. What a strange thing to say.

I'd imagine many of the people who fit them don't suddenly drive around like complete lunatics.

I'm sure many still drive in exactly the same way, observe limits in built up areas, and use observation as their primary means of protection. The laser jammer would be a back up for time they may not see a camera van half a mile away whilst doing 90 mph on an empty dual carriageway.

Think of it as multi-layered protection. I have to wear PPE at work, but I don't deliberately do dangerous things and rely on it. It's purely there for if the worst happens. Same principle.

I disagree. it offers you a level of protection that stops you you looking out quite so keenly; and so making you more likely to be caught speeding.

I have noticed that If I am using satnav, with the camera database in there I don't look out for cameras as much as driving without. Yes you can say you will keep looking out for them just a much, but you won't. And given the fact they are not infallible, cameras will get through the net.

I would stretch to say that many of the driver aids in cars do this. I have had more close calls due to skidding whilst braking in cars with ABS than not. I've also had more issues with cornering RWD cars when TCL has been engaged than not.

Basically, anything that takes away from your complete concentration of the road, makes out more prone to accidents, and anything that gives you a false sense of security greatly impairs your chances to detect potential issues, whether a speed camera, a police car or a mobile camera unit.

sidenote:
In 10 years of diving I have never been caught speeding on camera once. not even close. compared to almost every one else I know, I drive much faster. Personally I view being caught by a camera as incompetent driving. There are no excuses whatsoever for not seeing a camera, whether specs, gatso or whatever. Even not noticing a police-car, or suspiciously clean car coming up behind you on the motorway. Anyhow, that argument is for another thread.

So are you saying that if you go onto a work site wearing a helmet, you would no longer be warey of anything falling from above because you are protected? Of course not

no thats just stupid. you're bad at this eh!

driver aid usually refers to something in addition to help out.
given a helmet is a legal requirement, it is not an aid, but essential

HE'S bad at this??? How does it being a legal requirement effect whether having that protection would stop you being wary of things falling on your head? A helmet is not ESSENTIAL, 99.9% of the time it's completely unnecessary. It's still exactly the same principle, as PPE should always be the LAST line of a multi-tiered risk protection defence.

And on to your other comments, you seem to be completely forgetting your original comment: "Would you trust one?"

The answer is of course, NO. (unless you could have it tested in some way?) Therefore you would drive as if you didn't have one fitted, working on the assumption that it WON'T save you.
It's not the same as ABS, Traction Control, DSC, ESP, etc of which you are 99.9% certain will do what they are supposed to.

MY sidenote: I've been driving 14 years and have never been caught on a camera. I also put this down partly to my level of observation. The difference is that I'm not arrogant enough to believe that you can ALWAYS spot them, no matter how good your observational skills are.

[Alan galbraith]

Anybody ever been done or know anyone who has been done for having one?

[M330AL]

I thot the police had to catch u with it switched on to fine u

[Efbe]

I think you missed my point. Even though you know they are not infallible you will end up trusting them.

My reasoning for this is the use of sat nav. As stated before, at first you will not fully trust it, but as time goes by you will end up relying on it, and probably using it to detect cameras mire than your own eyes in certain circumstances. This is only natural. It's like slamming your brakes diwn on a wet road, most people do it these days, as abs will luck in and work. But that 1 in a million time you are on gravel and want the brakes to lock up is the time it will catch you out.
In the same way, as an example, when going round the m25, you use satnav to tell you which gantries the cameras are on, then one day the police add a new one and you get flashed.

Also I have no idea what helmets have to do with this at all. That is a completely different thread for biker banter

[Kinky]

Paul_M3 said:

HE'S bad at this???

It's clear you're not aware of said posters history on PH

[Kinky]

Alan galbraith said:

Anybody ever been done or know anyone who has been done for having one?

Yes and yes. Posted on PH.

[thenortherner]

Efbe said:

Paul_M3 said:

Efbe said:

we've had quite a few of these threads recently.

just one thing...

would you trust a jammer to work no matter what?

if not, then its meaningless to get one. end of story

Of course it's not the end of the story. What a strange thing to say.

I'd imagine many of the people who fit them don't suddenly drive around like complete lunatics.

I'm sure many still drive in exactly the same way, observe limits in built up areas, and use observation as their primary means of protection. The laser jammer would be a back up for time they may not see a camera van half a mile away whilst doing 90 mph on an empty dual carriageway.

Think of it as multi-layered protection. I have to wear PPE at work, but I don't deliberately do dangerous things and rely on it. It's purely there for if the worst happens. Same principle.

I disagree. it offers you a level of protection that stops you you looking out quite so keenly; and so making you more likely to be caught speeding.

I have noticed that If I am using satnav, with the camera database in there I don't look out for cameras as much as driving without. Yes you can say you will keep looking out for them just a much, but you won't. And given the fact they are not infallible, cameras will get through the net.

I would stretch to say that many of the driver aids in cars do this. I have had more close calls due to skidding whilst braking in cars with ABS than not. I've also had more issues with cornering RWD cars when TCL has been engaged than not.

Basically, anything that takes away from your complete concentration of the road, makes out more prone to accidents, and anything that gives you a false sense of security greatly impairs your chances to detect potential issues, whether a speed camera, a police car or a mobile camera unit.

sidenote:
In 10 years of diving I have never been caught speeding on camera once. not even close. compared to almost every one else I know, I drive much faster. Personally I view being caught by a camera as incompetent driving. There are no excuses whatsoever for not seeing a camera, whether specs, gatso or whatever. Even not noticing a police-car, or suspiciously clean car coming up behind you on the motorway. Anyhow, that argument is for another thread.

Firstly, the whole idea is to engineer out risk and danger, with PPE being the last stage in protection from danger that cannot be reasonably be engineer out.

Secondly, please let me know which optician you visit - I'm also keen to see mobile camera vans and speed traps from up to a mile away.

Edited by thenortherner on Saturday 30th October 22:33

[Boosted LS1]

Efbe said:

I think you missed my point. Even though you know they are not infallible you will end up trusting them.

Having a jammer isn't used as a licence to speed. If I had one I wouldn't drive faster, it would be a failsafe against being screwed by the scummers should I make an error of judgement somewhere. Like where the limit changed and I didn't notice the signage or there was something to confuse the motorist so they could rake in the cash. They know all the best places to hide.