'Hypocrisy' of speeding middle-class motorists

[truman]

10. Camera visibility Enforcement cameras are well signed and highly visible in line with DfT guidelines

 

You only need to drive from Tintwistle through Hollingworth and Mottram (and other places in Tameside) to see that that one's not followed...

[Dogs Of War]

You only need to drive from Tintwistle through Hollingworth and Mottram (and other places in Tameside) to see that that one's not followed...

 

Very true . the cameras there are Green and blend in nicely with the trees they are next too .

 

Its as if they dont want drivers to see them . i wonder why

[Alex C.]

If we presume the traffic cameras are self funding, and people want more traffic officers to detect the offences speed cameras can't detect, how about this compromise?

 

We get rid of all the regulations concerning publishing where speed cameras are, painting them yellow etc and instead use covert cameras which will not distract drivers as they won't notice them. To be nice, we'll make a rule that there must be a clear speed limit sign proceeding any covert speed camera.

 

Drivers will not know they've been caught until they get their fine in the post. This avoids the accusation that speed cameras cause accidents since the cameras could be anywhere and will be practically invisible to drivers.

 

Revenue will be massively increased since all these drivers who suddenly brake when they see one will now be caught instead.

 

With this increased revenue (coming from people who have broken the law), we can fund lots of extra traffic officers to police the offences which we haven't designed a camera clever enough to spot yet.

 

Any flaws in the plan?

[alchresearch]

I'm looking forward to the "camera haters" to respond to that one Alex!

[L00b]

Any flaws in the plan?

Probably. But I doubt they'll be important (relative to the benefits accruing from the plan).

 

That said, I haven't thought of any just yet (since your compromise is pretty similar to mine ).

 

EDIT - I can certainly think of a massive, additional benefit in the short-term: traffic decongestion, from all the people losing their licenses through rapid points attrition and having to leave the car at home

 

Who knows, this could grow to such a scale that it might precipitate the (currently quite slow) uptake of home-working, and then contribute further to decongestion, but also environmental improvement and optimal energy use (less petrol/oil req'd by less commuters), improved family cohesion (more time at home with kids). Virtuous circle! ...I think we're onto something

[Alex C.]

Probably. But I doubt they'll be important (relative to the benefits accruing from the plan).

 

That said, I haven't thought of any just yet (since your compromise is pretty similar to mine ).

 

EDIT - I can certainly think of a massive, additional benefit in the short-term: traffic decongestion, from all the people losing their licenses through rapid points attrition and having to leave the car at home

 

Who knows, this could grow to such a scale that it might precipitate the (currently quite slow) uptake of home-working, and then contribute further to decongestion, but also environmental improvement and optimal energy use (less petrol/oil req'd by less commuters), improved family cohesion (more time at home with kids). Virtuous circle! ...I think we're onto something

 

Great minds think alike - still no flaws either, maybe it's the perfect plan

[mj.scuba]

Any flaws in the plan?

 

Yes, plenty!

[Alex C.]

Yes, plenty!

 

Go on ....

[perplexed]

Anyone who drives will know that as people approach speed cameras they brake and as they leave them, they accelerate causing erratic driving for people behind them and thus causing accidents.

 

I don't.

 

You presume too much.

[mj.scuba]

Go on ....

 

1) It's still just a dumb static camera

2) Most cameras need a flash, that would alert the motorist that they have been caught

3) Hiding them (as many are already) does not prevent drivers from speeding through them.

4) This perpetuates the theory that they are only revenue generators.

5) If safety was the only priority, they'd want drivers to slow down at that point to avoid causing accidents. Since this would see drivers sail on through unaware, that is not going to prevent accidents.

6) That does not mean accidents WILL happen. If cameras are covert, to a driver its as though no camera is there at all. As we have seen in Swindon where they have been switched off, accidents have not increased over 12 months. So all a covert camera serves to do is generate cash, nothing else.

 

I would prefer to see more of the flashing LCD signs that show the limit and your speed, I always take much more notice of those and they're a lot cheaper. Graduated warnings would be good on the approach to a danger zone; something like Danger Zone 400yds....Danger Zone 200yds.....Danger Zone 100yds, possibly display the speed you should be doing at each sign and flash SLOW at each one if too fast.

 

There needs to be a more holistic approach to preventing accidents, speed cameras are not the be all end all solution to the problem, there are plenty of other things to examine; removal of road obstructions and anything obstructing the view, road layout, signage, lighting, rumble strips, speed inhibitors, changes to driving tuition etc etc.