Are speed camera detectors illegal?
March 29th, 2010 | by admin |
The sale, purchase and installation of a Snooper is perfectly legal. The use of one until recently may have contravened the 1949 Wireless and Telegraphy Act but a judgement of the Queens Bench Divisional Court dated 29th January 1998 makes it clear that the use of Radar Detectors is not unlawful as has hitherto been claimed by some. In the past a few prosecutions have been brought by claiming the use of radar detectors was contrary to section 5(b)(i) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 as amended by section 3 of the Post Office Act 1969. However the Acts refer to the interception of wireless communications for the purpose of obtaining information as to the content, sender or addressee of any message. The Court concluded that the radar transmission was not communicating a ‘message’ and therefore equipment designed to detect the presence of the transmission could not decode any such message.
16 Responses to “Are speed camera detectors illegal?”
By roggo69 on Mar 30, 2010 | Reply
i think so???
References :
By jjkeenan@btinternet.com on Mar 30, 2010 | Reply
yes very
References :
By missree on Mar 30, 2010 | Reply
don’t think so but if you don’t speed you don’t have to worry about such things
References :
By puffy on Mar 30, 2010 | Reply
Well I have one on my Tom Tom Sat Nav, so probably not!
References :
By NEMO on Mar 30, 2010 | Reply
SAVE YOUR MONEY,BY THE TIME YOU DETECT THE CAMERA ITS GOT YOU
References :
By jamand on Mar 30, 2010 | Reply
The sale, purchase and installation of a Snooper is perfectly legal. The use of one until recently may have contravened the 1949 Wireless and Telegraphy Act but a judgement of the Queens Bench Divisional Court dated 29th January 1998 makes it clear that the use of Radar Detectors is not unlawful as has hitherto been claimed by some. In the past a few prosecutions have been brought by claiming the use of radar detectors was contrary to section 5(b)(i) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 as amended by section 3 of the Post Office Act 1969. However the Acts refer to the interception of wireless communications for the purpose of obtaining information as to the content, sender or addressee of any message. The Court concluded that the radar transmission was not communicating a ‘message’ and therefore equipment designed to detect the presence of the transmission could not decode any such message.
References :
By treasurebum2003 on Mar 30, 2010 | Reply
Methods used to avoid detection by cameras include:
* Braking before the camera.
* Units, such as laser detectors and radar detectors, which detect when the vehicle’s speed is being monitored and warn the driver (these may be illegal in some areas).
* Units, such as laser jammers and radar jammers, which "jam" the laser and radar by returning a scrambled signal which the speeding camera cannot process (these may be illegal in some areas).
* Units which use a Global Positioning System and a database of known camera locations to warn the driver when a camera is nearby. This method relies on a good database of camera positions.
* Obscuring the vehicle license plate. This is commonly illegal if the plate cannot be read by other people. Treatments which claim to obscure the plates from cameras but leave them visible to other drivers are often considered to be of dubious efficacy.
* Drivers obscuring their faces to avoid being identified. As summonses from certain cameras require drivers’ faces in addition to vehicular license plates, drivers whose faces are obscured, including motorcyclists wearing full-face helmets, have prevented certain summonses from being validly issued.
* Some motorists have even abandoned passive tactics and started to use aggressive methods against cameras.[15]
* The use of anti-flash spray that puts a high gloss finish on you number plate.When the flash from camera hits the plate it over exposes the picture making the plate unreadable.
Areas where illegal
In some countries and areas, such as those listed below, using or possessing a radar detector is declared illegal and may result in fines, seizure of the device, or both. Generally these prohibitions are introduced under the premise that a driver who uses a radar detector will pose a greater risk of accident than a driver who does not. Not all research agrees with that premise, such as the 2001 Mori report which suggested that radar detector users on average posed a 28% less risk of accident and also traveled far more miles.
* Australia: All states besides Western Australia. They are illegal to sell, purchase or possess in SA, NSW, ACT & Vic. Radar Detectors are illegal to use in NT, Queensland & Tas.[1]
* Belgium: In July 2006 a provisional seisure of a vehicle worth over 75.000 EUR itself was ordered by the courts, destruction of the radar detector itself and the driver’s license was suspended for 3 months.[citation needed]
* Canada (Illegal:Newfoundland & Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island,New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories Legal: Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan): Regardless of whether they are used or not, police there may confiscate radar detectors, operational or not, and impose substantial fines.[2]
* Estonia
* Finland
* France
* Germany 75€ fine , 4 Points, destruction of the radar detector
* Greece
* Ireland (Republic of)
* Netherlands 250€ fine and seizure of the device (since 2004)
* Norway
* Portugal
* Spain
* Sweden
* Taiwan
* Turkey
* United Kingdom, although not legal to own, but was technically illegal to use under a 1949 wireless act until 1998, due to legal loophole causing them to be legalised suddenly.
* United States law varies from state to state, but detectors are generally legal in private vehicles under the Communications Act of 1934[3] and illegal in commercial vehicles by DOT regulation (49 CFR 392.71). Exceptions:
o Illegal in all vehicles: Virginia, Washington D.C., Carlsbad Caverns National Park, U.S. military bases
o Illegal in commercial vehicles under state law: Illinois, New York (specifically, commercial vehicles over 10,000 lb. and all vehicles over 18,000 lb.)
o Indirectly illegal: Minnesota and California (illegal to hang anything from the windshield).[1]
o Repealed: Connecticut (repealed in 1998)
References :
By ZCT on Mar 30, 2010 | Reply
Depends where you are using it.
References :
By gary h on Mar 30, 2010 | Reply
no there not illegal,, got me a snooper for xmas,,,, very good
References :
By Amy_22 on Mar 30, 2010 | Reply
I don’t think so, things like Road Angel are still sold and these detect speed cameras.
Dare I say it though (without getting abuse?) that if you stick to the speed limit you wouldn’t need one. I think they should be made illegal though. They all aim to protect your ‘precious’ driving license by warning you to slow down when approaching a speed camera. Sadly they won’t give you a warning though if a child steps out into the road and your doing 40mph in an apparently ‘empty’ 30mph road.
(Personally, I like speed cameras. They make money out of stupid people who can’t read the bigs signs with numbers in or see big bright fluorescent yellow boxes at the side of the road. Just proves you were going too fast…)
References :
By private on Mar 30, 2010 | Reply
They are NOT illegal.
But if I know this govt…their days are numbered.
References :
By mr_carburettor on Mar 30, 2010 | Reply
If I’m correct, they’re picking up on these in the Road Safety Bill. In essence, yes, they’re illegal unless it’s a GPS type.
References :
By Elite on Mar 30, 2010 | Reply
Nope
References :
By creviazuk on Mar 30, 2010 | Reply
In the UK they are still legal…but over the next year or two the standard detectors such as ’snooper’ will be made illegal as their sole purpose is to detect camera installations.
HOWEVER, the GPS / map based systems such as Road Angel & TomTom will still be legal as they "warn of accident blackspots" as the govenment likes to say that’s why they are used.
References :
By jb on Mar 30, 2010 | Reply
Detectors. YES.
But a database within TomTom is not.
References :
By hiran_alwis on Mar 30, 2010 | Reply
Lets hope they’re not.
References :