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?
jont 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?
Ah, so you're of the opinion that it's okay to crash so long as you're not speeding when you do so?
jont wrote:But do you want to stop speeding, or do you want to improve road safety? The problem I have is that our general outlook seems to be to equate the two things. Personally I'd rather we stopped people having accidents, than encouraged the view that it's okay (see government road safety adverts), so long as they aren't speeding when they do so
petes wrote:I was attempting to discuss whether speed cameras are more effective when clearly on show, of if they were to be hidden.
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?
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.
MGF wrote:Both. Hidden for general deterrent. Visible to reduce speeds at specific hazards.
petes wrote:...This is a completely separate argument to whether there's a link between speed and safety. I wouldn't even open that can of worms on a public forum!
petes wrote:MGF wrote:Both. Hidden for general deterrent. Visible to reduce speeds at specific hazards.
That would be my thoughts on the issue. To me, making all speed cameras clearly visible is as good as telling drivers they can drive at whatever speed they like elsewhere. There needs to be an element of uncertainty as to where enforcement might be taking place.
Return to General Car Chat Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests