Silk wrote:petes wrote:I've read an article recently where people are complaining about speed camera vans being obscured and not clearly visible from a distance. The argument being that they're supposed to deter rather than catch speeders. Cynics therefore say that hiding then is just a way of making more money.
Is it not possible that making ALL cameras hidden will have the effect of forcing drivers to adhere to speed limits all the time, rather than just when they see a camera, and therefore act as an even better deterrent?
I think the problem isn't whether or not speed traps are hidden or visible, it's the entire process. You just get a letter in the post some time after the event telling you that you're in big trouble, unless you opt to pay a "bribe" to make it all go away - having your day in court is likely to cost you very dearly as the penalties have increased dramatically (this has largely gone unnoticed by the motoring public). At least if you get pulled over by a real policeman, there's an element of fair play.
Yes, I suppose so; but discussing a possible speeding offence at the roadside with a police officer is, I suspect, a relatively rare event these days. Now that we have the 'benefit' of all this technology, I expect the vast majority of speeding offences, and various other motoring offences too, are automated, and that's that.
....and Steve, to go back to a previous question from you: no, I don't think I'm mad to increasingly focus on the enjoyment to be derived from the garden, rather than motoring. You may, of course, disagree.
In any case, I expect you'll be retiring in another three or four years, at which point your views might change.
Best wishes all,
Dave.