Do you flash drivers that are comming towards a speed trap?

[Celicaas]

Heh why do i have to do that since There is a sign tells you Heads up speed camera up ahead

 

[Gil]

In the states, there is a rumor that gangs look for people that flash to warn speeders and follow that person to do them or the car harm as part of an initiation.
That said, I still usually warn oncoming traffic of a police car ahead.
My reasoning is that if they slow down gradually, they are less likely to screw up the traffic pattern than when they slam on the brakes at the moment they notice the cop.
I also flash my high beams if a car is approaching with it's high beams on, or if there is an obstacle in the road. I have also hit the high beams when I see something in the road ahead, and it turned out to be a police car. I have yet to be pulled for it.

The one that I do, that gets me scolded by my wife and kids, is hit the high-beams if I'm the only car at a stop light.
I don't know about other places but here in the KC metro the high-beams seem to trigger a photo-electric sensor in the traffic light turning it from red to green.

 

[Joey D]

The one that I do, that gets me scolded by my wife and kids, is hit the high-beams if I'm the only car at a stop light.
I don't know about other places but here in the KC metro the high-beams seem to trigger a photo-electric sensor in the traffic light turning it from red to green.

I need to try this now, I didn't know that you could do that. I'm not sure if it'll work but he worth a try!

 

[homeforsummer]

I don't know about other places but here in the KC metro the high-beams seem to trigger a photo-electric sensor in the traffic light turning it from red to green.

There's a rumour that the same happens in the UK, based on the theory that emergency vehicles coming through have flashing lights, and a sensor detects this to turn the lights in favour of them.

Thus, when you pick up a taxi at night the wonk behind the wheel flashes his headlights every time he approaches a red light.

And I've never seen it change them to green any quicker than they would otherwise. It's okay though, as most taxi drivers keep creeping past the line anyway regardless what colour the light is showing.

 

[MatskiMonk]

There's a rumour that the same happens in the UK, based on the theory that emergency vehicles coming through have flashing lights, and a sensor detects this to turn the lights in favour of them.

Thus, when you pick up a taxi at night the wonk behind the wheel flashes his headlights every time he approaches a red light.

And I've never seen it change them to green any quicker than they would otherwise. It's okay though, as most taxi drivers keep creeping past the line anyway regardless what colour the light is showing.

There would be far more robust ways of doing it than just relying on emergency vehicle high beams.

It's more common as far as I know to have induction loops (?) in the road, that sense a car driving over them, and if it's appropriate to do so, change to let that vehicle pass (ie, no on coming traffic). There is a traffic light near me that definatley operates like this... people approach it slowly flashing their lights, thinking this is what makes it change.

 

[homeforsummer]

There would be far more robust ways of doing it than just relying on emergency vehicle high beams.

I agree, but you can't expect taxi drivers to know that...

 

[Gil]

I need to try this now, I didn't know that you could do that. I'm not sure if it'll work but he worth a try!

There is also a rumor that it is a ticketable offense. So, look before your leap.

And the only reason I believe it works is that when I don't do it I wait on the "cycle", even if I'm the only car.
I've had lights that had just turned red, turn back green almost immediately after flashing them with my highbeams.

 

[Pupik]

There would be far more robust ways of doing it than just relying on emergency vehicle high beams.

It's more common as far as I know to have induction loops (?) in the road, that sense a car driving over them, and if it's appropriate to do so, change to let that vehicle pass (ie, no on coming traffic). There is a traffic light near me that definatley operates like this... people approach it slowly flashing their lights, thinking this is what makes it change.

The induction loop is the most common method in America, although some just use a timer, that cares not for what, where, or how long you're stopped...you either wait, or have a good idea how long that stale green light will stay illuminated (if you've been through the intersection many times before).

I sometimes flash my lights if I've seen a speed trap, but I don't think anyone's really watching. My dad said it's a nice courtesy, but depending on which way the trap is facing, it could be advantageous for your own sake to let a faster car go by in the other direction.

Still, I'm not sure how flashing your brights would be illegal, unless you press them repeatedly, to the point where you're distracting others.

In my state, you have a 5 mph cushion, to which you won't garner an actual fine, but a warning. There's exceptions for construction and school zones, in some cases. Still, it gives the officer enough time to see if you're trouble or not when you're pulled over.

 

[Kylehnat]

Nobody in Washington flashes their high-beams for speed traps. It is a state full of pious, passive-aggressive drivers who think they're doing the Lord's work by camping in the left lane and blocking traffic behind them.

Governments everywhere claim that speeding causes accidents and kills. A PSA run in Washington by the State Patrol asserted that speed was a factor in a WHOPPING 25% of fatal accidents in the state. Sorry, but that's not convincing me that driving 70 mph on the freeway in light traffic is dangerous. Yet if I'm caught, it's a $150 ticket and a pep talk from a man in aviator sunglasses. Speed is not the problem. Peoples' lack of care, lack of judgment, and lack of respect for driving is the problem. If they want to clean up the roads, go after people doing stupid things. Don't be lazy and just point a light beam down the road until it beeps.

 

[Famine]

Governments everywhere claim that speeding causes accidents and kills. A PSA run in Washington by the State Patrol asserted that speed was a factor in a WHOPPING 25% of fatal accidents in the state. Sorry, but that's not convincing me that driving 70 mph on the freeway in light traffic is dangerous. Yet if I'm caught, it's a $150 ticket and a pep talk from a man in aviator sunglasses. Speed is not the problem. Peoples' lack of care, lack of judgment, and lack of respect for driving is the problem. If they want to clean up the roads, go after people doing stupid things. Don't be lazy and just point a light beam down the road until it beeps.

There's a few issues here.

First, the cops don't set the limits - the state government does ("on advice" from the cops and various "Speed Kills" pressure groups). It's not their fault the law is in place and they are expected to catch and punish speeders (again, as a result of pressure groups). They're not being lazy, so don't blame them - though the guy who lets his speed wander up too high most certainly is (perhaps exhibiting the lack of care and judgement you cite?). You break it, your fault. You know the law.

Second is the message about speed itself. We're always being told that "speed kills" and "speed was a contributing factor in x % of accidents" - but what IS "speed" in this context? It seems massively ill-defined as I shall illustrate...

70mph is legal on a motorway, but not in a residential area. 80mph isn't legal anywhere. So 70mph isn't "speed" in one location, but it is in another, while 80mph is "speed" everywhere. Doesn't seem too consistent to me. 30mph may be legal in a residential area, but at 10mph you'd have seen the kid and not run him over, whereas at 30mph you didn't and squished him. Since "30mph" isn't considered "speed", that's not an accident caused by "speed" - yet had you been going slower you wouldn't be plucking Lego out of your differential...

So it rather looks like "speed" as an outright term is flawed and irrelevant. "Speed" doesn't do anything at all - how many people have ever been killed because they were doing 70mph? I'll go for "none at all". This means we have to turn our attention to "speeding".

With "speeding" is that we have a crutch of a maximum figure which is variable according to location. Above that figure is "speeding", below it is not. Seems fairly sensible that if there's kids running around you don't want to be doing 70mph and if there aren't you do. You'd also need some kind of differentially graded system so you're not harmed by slower-accelerating and gentler-braking vehicles (semi-trucks) being asked to suddenly observe a 30mph limit from 70mph, or a 70mph limit from 30mph (and also so they aren't harmed either).

So now the message is "Speeding kills" and "Speeding is a contributing factor in x % of accidents". But hang on a minute... Who's ever been killed because they were doing 71mph? Is 31mph really a more significant speed in residential area accidents than 30mph? What about the guy above who wasn't speeding but still mowed down a child through going too fast? Houston, we have a problem... "Speeding" doesn't kill either - at best it increases the chances of an accident occurring, but then so, like-for-like, does "speed" itself...


So let's look at the anatomy of a road accident. An accident occurs simply when one vehicle tries to occupy the same position in space-time as something else - a person, a cyclist, a building, a tree - or, and this is often missed, vice versa (you know, except the building. Unless it's on the back of a truck and falls off). This has one cause and one cause only - a lack of hazard perception through observation. However, "Poor observation kills!" and "Poor observation is a contributing factor in 100% of accidents!" are crappy taglines for adverts.

"Speed" and "Speeding" are not a contributing factor in any accident. "Inappropriate speed for the conditions" (including speeds below the speed limit) is a causative factor of probably 95% of all accidents involving an at-fault vehicle colliding with anything - and that inappropriate speed is itself caused by poor observation. The guy following the car in front too closely is inappropriate speed caused by poor observation (back off, preserve your gap and then match the speed) even when it's legal, the guy mowing down a kid at 25mph is inappropriate speed caused by poor observation (sure, the kid darted out from between two parked cars and is probably at fault for the collision, but going too fast to be able to stop in time when he does so is inappropriate speed; slow down so you can observe the hazards of your environment) even though it's legal, the guy spearing off the highway at 70mph with twenty feet of visibility and standing water is inappropriate speed caused by poor observation (dude... you can't see things only a fifth of a second in front of you and you're aquaplaning; the limit is a limit, not a definite statement of safety. Slow the 🤬 down until you can see what you're driving into and your tyres are touching the roadsurface) even though it's legal. Not a one of those would be put down as a speed-related incident, yet all of them are inappropriate speed...


Of course if everyone was taught this, we wouldn't need a speed limit again. Everyone would drive according to the conditions. You'd have some differences of opinion influenced by presumption of driving talent (hopefully not - part of driving to the conditions includes not having to rely on talent to get out of trouble, rather not getting into trouble to start with) or fear (a bit is healthy, a lot can be dangerous), but ultimately people would take care of themselves and with good observation comes good driving standards.

Yet there's always one. Always one who thinks it's appropriate to use the roads as his own test track and do 95mph up your road. Without a speed limit, we've got nothing on him - it's just opinion that his opinion is wrong. Tough to shovel that one through the courts.


And that is why we have the limits and the man in aviators giving you a lecture rather than going after people who lack judgement, care and respect. It's because people who drive too fast (regardless of the limit) often exhibit all three as well as giving them a nice, defined offence to push through the courts.

Sometimes the limits are wrong. We need to work to get them changed. We don't need to ignore them because we think we are right - and we don't need to get pissy with the cops when we get caught doing so.

 

[AMCNUT]

I remember my mom telling me a story once about how someone she knew went to flash her high beams to warn of a cop ahead... except the car she flashed was actually an undercover cop car. Busted.

I don't flash my high beams at people to warn of police - it's not worth my getting caught, especially as I always do the posted speed limit, especially in residential areas. On the highways I can get away with ~10 over at the max, because cops in my area generally leave people alone who don't exceed that margin. Not sure what the official laws/guidelines are, but I can do 90km/h in an 80km/h without having to worry.

If people (including me) get caught for going over the limit, they have no one to blame but themselves. Best way to not worry: Just. Don't. Speed.

 

[SpartanG]

Regarding accuracy in speedometers, how can you determine the true vehicle speed at the time? Are external GPS units like Garmin, tomtom etc, are those 100 percent accurate? There was always a discrepancy between my speedo speed and the GPS unit speed when i had one.

 

[Famine]

Regarding accuracy in speedometers, how can you determine the true vehicle speed at the time? Are external GPS units like Garmin, tomtom etc, are those 100 percent accurate? There was always a discrepancy between my speedo speed and the GPS unit speed when i had one.

They are more accurate, yes. In fact probably the most accurate way of quickly knowing your road speed at any given time, without long, unwieldy calculations.

 

[SpartanG]

They are more accurate, yes. In fact probably the most accurate way of quickly knowing your road speed at any given time, without long, unwieldy calculations.

👍 thanks.

 

[Joel]

I don't speed when I'm in town, and I usually drive under the limit in 50km/h areas. On 80km/h highways, if the conditions and visibility are good, I'll drive about 90km/h. On the freeway, the limit is 100, but everyone drives 120km/h, so I'll either go to the slow (right) lane and drive 105-110 km/h, or do 120km/h in the middle lane, moving in to the left lane to pass large trucks.

As Famine said, it's all about road conditions. I slow down on my street, because my neighbours have 5, 7, and 9 year old children, and their friends of similar age are often over and playing on the yard, so it's not brilliant to do 50 km/h there.

 

[Kylehnat]

There's a few issues here...
(copious amounts of indigo text)

Thanks, you spelled out my argument a little more elegantly

If there is a collision, and police/investigators determine that the driver was going over the speed limit, whether by 1 mph or 50, "SPEED" is checked off on the report as a contributing cause to the accident, and it ends up in the statistics. This is where "statistics" fails us, yet again. It must be proven that, had the driver been at the speed limit or below, the accident would not have occurred. Other factors, such as the driver following too closely, driving aggressively, or being drunk, are far more likely to be the primary cause of the accident. THESE are the behaviors that need to be stamped out in order to make the roads safer for everybody. Unfortunately, the most cost-effective way for police forces to make money from traffic offenses is by writing speeding tickets, so that's their number one choice. It isn't the ONLY thing they do, of course, but it's the lion's share of traffic tickets. Giving a speeding ticket to someone may make them drive slower in the future, but it doesn't guarantee that they will be a smarter and safer driver.

Driver education in the United States also needs a massive overhaul. I learned nothing in driver's ed. All they did was teach the rules of the road. I learned HOW to drive from my dad, and he taught me far more useful driving techniques, tips, and tricks. I feel I'm STILL learning, 12 years later. A lot of teens think the learning is done once they leave the classroom, and go on to be the inattentive, overconfident adults that plague our roads. I spent a week in Europe last April, and driving around over there was blissful compared to driving in the U.S. People seemed to be respectful of the rules, respectful of each other, and demonstrated almost none of the aggravating traits that define the common American driver. It's much more difficult and expensive to get a driver's license in the Netherlands and Germany...I wonder if that had anything to do with it...And tell me, anyone from across the pond: are there lawyers over there who make a living from getting teens absolved of speeding tickets in court? There are tons over here!

 

[XPOWER180]

I used to flash at other motorists who were approaching a speed trap but not any more. I got caught speeding myself and since then i realised that it's no ones' fault but my own and i deserved what i got. If you're caught speeding, tough luck - you'll think twice about doing it again after being caught.

 

[Murcie_LP640]

I don't, not out of the reason that people who get caught speeding have to acknowledge that it's their fault, but rather because every speed camera I've gone past has been marked clearly ahead of when it comes up.

On the regional roads between the capital cities of Adelaide and Melbourne that I frequent on, I've never once encountered an unmarked/mobile speed camera site, but I'm always aware of what my speed is and how much leeway I have with my speedometer.

 

[Keef]

And speeding is only a victimless crime if no-one is injured or killed because of it... I'm not sure - but I'm pretty sure that happens everyday.

Even if somebody is injured in an accident, speed is only a factor and not a cause. A driver's decision to speed would be a cause, and he should be punished for making that decision. You can't outlaw speed because if you did nobody would be able to go anywhere - a 4000 pound machine can be dangerous at any speed. The only reasonable argument for speed limits is to create order - the idea that governments could rake in serious revenue by not simply suggesting a speed to travel, but outlawing any speed above it, came after the fact.

Yes and no. The devices need to be calibrated to within a twentieth of a mph. Your speedo does not but, again, it will overread (unless you've futzed about with the wheels and gained yourself an underread, which is illegal).

However, it is the reason ACPO advise that no prosecutions should be brought at or below +10%+2mph. They advise. In practice you can be prosecuted for +1mph, though it rarely happens.

Out of curiosity, do you know if police radar and lasers are calibrated for the typical angle at which they are used? It's easy enough to calibrate it straight-on, at which point it will have whatever error plus or minus, but if you then set it at a healthy angle to the road, those errors are compounded. Especially in the case of radar, because their range is pretty short.

 

[ND4SPD]

I used to but then I took an arrow to the kn...

I mean, ya I used to. Well it depends. If I'm on a back road and it's not very busy at all then yes I will flash them. People do it for me, so I might as well return the favor.

 

[Famine]

Out of curiosity, do you know if police radar and lasers are calibrated for the typical angle at which they are used? It's easy enough to calibrate it straight-on, at which point it will have whatever error plus or minus, but if you then set it at a healthy angle to the road, those errors are compounded. Especially in the case of radar, because their range is pretty short.

Static cameras are radar-based and angle calibrated. They have a short "killzone" of about sixty feet and are generally required to provide two photographs (the road also has markings to provide the distance travelled) to show it's not a false-positive.

Mobile fixed cameras ("Tali-vans") and mobile hand detectors are typically LIDAR and are set to read head-on at distance, generally 400-800m - anything other than head-on is inadmissible as evidence due to tracking error. Talivans are also required to provide a photograph, whereas handheld cameras are often backed up with marked vehicles - though it's still possible to secure a prosecution without a photograph in the case of excessive speed (like my brother) based solely on the opinion of excessive speed (100mph+).

 

[Gil]

Another huge speed related factor in accidents is DISPARITY of speed.
The police will also ticket you for driving too slowly.
I believe that here in the states people do way too much stupid stuff on the road.
I was on I-70 not too long ago and a there was a lady driving a Camry, that really needed to either take it to the local NASCAR track, or let someone else drive.
She would roll up to within inches of the rear bumper of the car in front of her, then pull out and pass. She repeated this maneuver several times while I could see her, and I have NO doubt that this is how she normally drives.
I've seen people stay in lanes that are CLEARLY marked as ending in some specified distance, then cutting in at the last possible minute, causing an accordian effect slowdown. (this is my biggest pet peeve BTW). I've seen people drive 10 mph under the limit in the left lane, which isn't so bad if there are 3+ lanes, but a huge problem if there are 2.
I've seen that guy that drives 10-15 mph over the prevailing speed sliding back and forth from lane to lane. He passes an amazing amount of cars, but has driven so much further to do it, that we arrive at the same exit 20 miles down the road at the same time.

I have the privilege of living in a fairly sparsely populated area, and for the most part my work hours start early enough that I rarely get caught in rush hour traffic. And I pretty much only have to deal with roadway asshattery on the commute home.

Since it is nearly the same route every day, I've LEARNED THE PATTERNS OF THE ROAD I TRAVEL, and know when to slow, move over, speed up, etc to keep traffic moving smoothly around me.
Moreover, the only time in recent history that I've been ticketed, was by a redlight camera.
I was not paying the attention I should have been, ran a red light, got a ticket I DESERVED.

 

[Sureboss]

Is flashing of lights for speed cameras all that common? I don't think I've ever seen it over here.

And no, I wouldn't. You can do your own road observations, thanks.

 

[ampire]

-I rarely see speed traps around here except on the highway, where flashing my lights would be pointless.

-In normal (dry, warm,daytime) conditions I drive the same speed as the people around me. If they are speeding, infer what you will.

-In bad (rainy, wet, snow, cold) conditions I drove slower than most people because my car has a v8, horrible weight balance, and is rear wheel drive.

-If someone tailgates me, I go really slow until they knock it off. I have driven slow in the left lane and I have driven fast in the right lane.

-I have only had 3 speeding tickets in 10 years of driving (I am 25). I attribute this to driving smart (as conditions warrant) rather than to an overall lack of speeding. I used to speed and drive recklessly a lot more when I was 19-21 years old. Once I hit about age 23, I started feeling mortal. Its amazing how your mind shifts.

-If you are driving over the speed limit and have an accident, you will suffer much greater injury. I got whiplash from going the speed limit in heavy traffic when some guy fell asleep and plowed into the back of my old car. If he were going any faster it would have been worse. After this, I have become much more defensive in my driving.

 

[RTSolvalou]

Depends on the car and the person driving it. If it's just some pub brawler from the ghetto driving their usual sort of beater car I'll let my friend Destiny take care of them, but if it's a car+driver combo I approve of, then I'll assist my brethren.

Moreover, if there's 4 or more cars around me, I'll probably let them partake of flashing chores.

Have not seen a cop with a radar gun in about a year though, just the camera cars on the side of the road.

 

[Jubby]

Static cameras are radar-based and angle calibrated. They have a short "killzone" of about sixty feet and are generally required to provide two photographs (the road also has markings to provide the distance travelled) to show it's not a false-positive.

Mobile fixed cameras ("Tali-vans") and mobile hand detectors are typically LIDAR and are set to read head-on at distance, generally 400-800m - anything other than head-on is inadmissible as evidence due to tracking error. Talivans are also required to provide a photograph, whereas handheld cameras are often backed up with marked vehicles - though it's still possible to secure a prosecution without a photograph in the case of excessive speed (like my brother) based solely on the opinion of excessive speed (100mph+).

Another way that police in the US can ticket us (not sure if you have it outside) is prudent speeding. It's not as hefty of a ticket, but they can "think" you're going too fast. It's so difficult to prove that they're wrong (aside from GPS, etc). They're usually not though!

To help me with speed traps, I use a radar detector. This is my helper when I'm just paying attention to the road and traffic and using my eyes and normal landmarks to help judge basic speed. It's been helpful, as one instance I was probably doing just a little bit over following the flow of traffic-- we were spaced apart about 500 feet apiece. I was enlightened of the trap by my detector, and I was able to look down and slow down just a little before I hit the trap. The person behind me wasn't as informed. They got busted.