Are you a flasher ?

I sometimes flash to let someone out at a busy junction, but there's no way i would start flashing to warn people about a speed camera. If people decide they want to go faster than the speed limit then that's a risk they decide on for themselves and i will not "nanny" them.
 
I always flash, and was flashed myself the other day. The penalties for going a few miles an hour over the limit are crazy, when you look at what some people get away with not just for dangerous driving but for things like carrying a knife.

Speed (takling 10-15mph) over the limit is not a major factor in most accidents. The majority are bad driving and not driving to the conditions/paying attention.
 
yes i'm a flasher !

I don't agree with OTT speed camera policy in this country

us motorists pay too much as it is
 
Yep I flash and appreciate the warning off other flashers, mind you I usually stick to the limit been driving 30 odd yrs not got done for any motoring offence, touch wood :D
 
I flash and have been flashed, but I was aware that it's illegal, just as it is here in Germany: last year a man in Hamburg was arrested for standing at the roadside with a placard warning drivers of an impending speed trap and fined 1,000€ for his 'act of civic responsibility' - almost the exact same phrase used by the UK man mentioned above...
 
In the article he is quoted as:

He added: "I believe that speed traps cause vehicles to brake harshly at times.

I actually witnessed this early last year, where 2 cars collided as the first braked so hard when they rounded the corner and spotted a camera van.

At least the police should have been quickly on the scene :D
 
i flash, but normally only to warn of obstructions in the road (i.e. - broken down car, horse, people).

not normally for mobile cameras, unless i feel theyre being unfairly sneeky.
 
It's not illegal to flash someone to warn of a speed trap unless that person was speeding and provably so. That is what a similar case said when they tried to do someone else for it. If speed traps are there to make people slow down why are people being prosecuted for warning people to slow down?! Utter hypocrisy. Can only be annoyed at losing their £60.
 
neil_g said:
i flash, but normally only to warn of obstructions in the road (i.e. - broken down car, horse, people).

not normally for mobile cameras, unless i feel theyre being unfairly sneeky.
Click to expand...


Same here but I guess that if I did that in the vicinity of a speed camera plod could do me
 
boliston said:
I sometimes flash to let someone out at a busy junction, but there's no way i would start flashing to warn people about a speed camera. If people decide they want to go faster than the speed limit then that's a risk they decide on for themselves and i will not "nanny" them.
Click to expand...

Same here, I'm a great believer in taking responsibility for yourself and your actions.
 
srichards said:
If speed traps are there to make people slow down why are people being prosecuted for warning people to slow down?! Utter hypocrisy. Can only be annoyed at losing their £60.
Click to expand...

We're told that they are "safety cameras" so how can somebody be fined for warning people that they are approaching an area of road that has been deemed so dangerous that it requires one :bang:
 
In this case it was stated that it was not a safety camera, but a speed trap, according to BBC news this morning.
 
I don't flash and warn people who are speeding & breaking the law.
If you think that speed limits need changing then contact your MP or do something else about it. People talk about being persecuted for travelling at 1 or 2 MPH over the speed limit. I have never seen proof that anyone has been prosecuted for such a small speed excess.
Remember that if you get rid of all the fines for speeding the government will have to get the money in some other way. They could even put VAT up to 20% :D
 
ACPO guidelines, that the police seem to adhere to in setting their equipment, recommends a small leeway in excess of the speed
limit.
The leeway is (or was) 10% plus 2mph, meaning you would probably get away with doing 35mph in a 30 zone, and 79mph in a 70 zone. I did speak to one of the camera van guys in our village (they are human and do talk back!) and he said it was amazing how so many people knew just what they could get away with. We watched as loads of cars passed at 34 - 35mph, none were booked.
On the same subject, that guy was using a camera mounted on a monopod attached to a motorcycle, with the screen in the rear box. I haven't seen one since, are they still used? He really just looked like a motorcyclist getting something out of the luggage box.
 
I will flash a motorist heading towards a speed trap (Manned) but NOT if they appear to be doing 80 in a 30 limit.
 
I only flash to let people out of slip-roads, or let someone out infront of me in the overtaking lane.

I have been flashed by a few drivers to on the road, didn't understand why until I saw the mobile camera.

I'd never do it. If people want to go faster than the limit, then that's their choice and they can face the consequences.
 
david357 said:
ACPO guidelines, that the police seem to adhere to in setting their equipment, recommends a small leeway in excess of the speed
limit.
The leeway is (or was) 10% plus 2mph, meaning you would probably get away with doing 35mph in a 30 zone, and 79mph in a 70 zone. I did speak to one of the camera van guys in our village (they are human and do talk back!) and he said it was amazing how so many people knew just what they could get away with. We watched as loads of cars passed at 34 - 35mph, none were booked.
On the same subject, that guy was using a camera mounted on a monopod attached to a motorcycle, with the screen in the rear box. I haven't seen one since, are they still used? He really just looked like a motorcyclist getting something out of the luggage box.
Click to expand...
Some years ago, there were a number of areas of the country which ran a zero tolerance on speeding campaign, 1mph over and you got a ticket. Not sure whether it was just a campaign or whether they actually booked anyone though. I think the juristiction is handled by each constabulary - because technically 1mph over is still speeding and therefore an offence.

The bike thing gets used on the A120 here - black bike, rider in black with a hi viz jacket, there's absolutely nothing to let you know that it's a speed trap.
Now, if it was all about "slowing people down" surely being sneaky isn't the way forward? OR are they relying on the fact that once people have seen it a couple of times, they'll slow down? Kinda like word of mouth, but more word of sight? If so, it works - I'll get on the road and click the cruise control to 70mph and sit at that speed, just in case.

One thing I have heard is that the mobile cameras/vans/bikes etc don't work very well in fog/rain/low light etc - not sure how true it is though.
 
I'm a flasher, I find parks with trees are....................... oops wrong forum/thread :exit:
 
Totally uncalled for comment rizla01, people are allowed to disagree with you and they don't need to have their opinions belittled.
 
The sad truth is the vast majority of accidents with exceeding a speed limit as a primary causation factor (only 3% of all accidents) invariably have another criminal element eg drunk, drugged or other criminal driving. The otherwise normally law abiding motorising exceeding a limit isn't the one causing accidents. Inattention is the biggest cause of accidents by far. Concentrating on the road and conditions ahead is far more important than constantly speedo checking to avoid a ticket. Inappropriate speed on the other hand is invariably dangerous but ignored in favour of illegal speed and quite often the two can be miles apart.

You can't logically argue that exceeding a limit is always dangerous in the same way you can't logically argue that driving within the limit is always safe. Especially when limits and road conditions are ever changing. The safe speed for the road depends so much on the conditions at the time, the driver's state, the car and the weather. Trying to tell drivers it is a black and white decision is just dumb.
 
Steep said:
Totally uncalled for comment rizla01, people are allowed to disagree with you and they don't need to have their opinions belittled.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I agree with him... speed per se doesn't cause accidents - it may make an accident more likely, but it doesn't actually cause them.
The driver's ability to react to unexpected hazards at any given speed is what matters.
If your reactions are like a fighter pilot's then you stand a better chance of avoiding accidents at higher speeds than say someone with the reactions of a tree sloth... you know who you are: caravan owners...:suspect:

Not condoning breaking speed limits here by the way - but lots of accidents happen at under 30mph while manouevering round car-parks and similar...

I really hate the tone taken by some of the 'holier-than-thou' brigade on this subject..."oooh speeding kills...oooh...it's other people that suffer...oooh... he deserves everything he gets etc etc etc..."


Shut up...it's just boring...
 
I also agree that speed isn't to blame but the skill (or lack of) the driver.

My problem is with the 'get your kicks in first' attitude in the post mentioned, not arguing against the opinion but as I said, belittling the holder of it.
 
I think the 3 points for speeding is too high, its too easy to lose your license and the car is crucial to a lot of peoples lives these days.

However, since Ive been doing more on road riding with the mountain bike I'm quite shocked at some of the driving standards from a bikes point of view. Ive had a car 15 years now and still intend keeping it. I also have had 3 points for speeding.

I no longer flash or warn, as frankly some people think they are driving on a simulator and they need a reality check. My fine and 3 points was probably the best thing that happened to me, and I consider my driving improved considerably after this.


Andy
 
rizla01 said:
I was waiting for this one.


From the 'Speed Causes Accidents' brigade.
Click to expand...

Don't jump to conclusions. :nono:

It was purely a statement in response to the comment of how the person speeding should face the consequences when the consequences aren't always just a fine and points.

So please don't pigeon hole me based on your assumptions.
 
Don't jump to conclusions.

It was purely a statement in response to the comment of how the person speeding should face the consequences when the consequences aren't always just a fine and points.

So please don't pigeon hole me based on your assumptions.
Click to expand...

fabs said:
Unfortunately, in many cases, other people also face the consequences.
Click to expand...





Ok. What consequences then?

And Consequences of WHAT, precisely if you were not referring to speeding?
 
Last edited:
AndyB1976 said:
...However, since Ive been doing more on road riding with the mountain bike I'm quite shocked at some of the driving standards from a bikes point of view. Ive had a car 15 years now and still intend keeping it. I also have had 3 points for speeding.

Andy
Click to expand...

There's nothing like riding a bicyle on the roads to give you a better understanding of road etiquette or the appalling lack of skill exhibited by a large percentage of drivers... Cycling on roads should be made compulsory while learning to drive, IMO...

Might even make some cylists better as well, as many of them are their own worst enemies...
 
rizla01 said:
Ok. What consequences then?

And Consequences of WHAT, precisely if you were not referring to speeding?
Click to expand...

There are occasions where excessive speed has caused accidents, the consequences of which have affected those other than the driver.

Or are you saying that speeding never causes accidents?
 
fabs said:
There are occasions where excessive speed has caused accidents, the consequences of which have affected those other than the driver.

Or are you saying that speeding never causes accidents?
Click to expand...

Excessive speed may be a factor in the driver's inability to react fast enough, but speed in and of itself does not cause the accident...
 
The problem i have with this particular conviction ties in the line we are given from the police time and time when justifying these cameras. The old chestnut of "we don't want to catch speeders, just slow them down."

For this case to make any sense whatsoever, the police need to come out and say that catching, punishing and dishing a fine to speeding drivers is exactly what it's all about. If it was about slowing people down, flashing is going to make a far bigger difference than the cameras can alone.
 
Arkady2 said:
If your reactions are like a fighter pilot's then you stand a better chance of avoiding accidents at higher speeds than say someone with the reactions of a tree sloth... you know who you are: caravan owners...:suspect:
Click to expand...

Erm, I own a caravan, yet have the reaction times of an average housefly, Whilst I don't fly real planes I've yet to crash one on the XBOX ;)
 
fabs said:
I agree Rob. All I was trying to do was clarify that consequences of actions aren't always solely borne by the driver.
Click to expand...

Understood and accepted. bad drivers almost always manage to write off at least one innocent's life along with their own - or more usually while they walk away relatively unscathed.

last night's news was packed full of RTAs involving partially-sober teenagers driving home from New Year's Day parties on very icy roads...I think ten in all on just our local news: about 25 dead in one night. :gag:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top