Why Object to Hidden Cameras?
Discussion
As I drove up the A217 I saw the "marked" Surrey Camera Van in a layby checking the speed of traffic heading southbound. Needless to say whilst the diagonal dayglo stripes on the rear doors showed nicely, the small camera sign above didn't.
But it did make me wonder why people complain about cameras being hidden. When I first started to drive there was always the knowledge that somewhere a police officer could be hiding to catch you speeding.
So rather than the cameras being hidden, or hard to see, is it that there is no discretion? With the Officer one felt that one had the chance of being let off for seeing him checking speed, apologising etc. You also knew instantly if you had been clocked as you were stopped. However with cameras there is no discretion and you don't know until the letter arrives.
But it did make me wonder why people complain about cameras being hidden. When I first started to drive there was always the knowledge that somewhere a police officer could be hiding to catch you speeding.
So rather than the cameras being hidden, or hard to see, is it that there is no discretion? With the Officer one felt that one had the chance of being let off for seeing him checking speed, apologising etc. You also knew instantly if you had been clocked as you were stopped. However with cameras there is no discretion and you don't know until the letter arrives.
The objection is not to hidden cameras per se. It is to robotic enforcement of a law that only makes sense if it is related to unsafe driving, which distinction the camera almost never makes.
When the cameras are visible, although the robotic enforcement element is still wrong, one can avoid its unjust penalties by staying alert, which of course is a good thing anyhow.
When the cameras are visible, although the robotic enforcement element is still wrong, one can avoid its unjust penalties by staying alert, which of course is a good thing anyhow.
It's the punishing of drivers for something supposedly under the guise of safety when in truth it's a revenue exercise for something which is an extremeny minor accident-causation factor. Speed traps in virtually any form are hard enough to see if you're paying attention to driving and watching out for hazards and hiding revenue devices would further confirm what everyone thinks.
As far as joe public is concerned they are a nuisance, they do nothing to prevent the daily mayhem on the roads and cause a pointless distraction while you are looking out for all the nutters that trafpol would be dealing with if they hadn't been replaced by the damn things.
This is compounded by reduced speed limits that cause frustration, trucks limited to 40mph causing pointless tailbacks on NSL roads. Trucks fitted with limiters also cause the drivers to nod off or play 'elephant racing' causing more frustration on motorways.
They also symbolise a lost message, that of 'speed kills' which is a myth not believed by your average motorist who is merely trying to get from A to B and counts hidden cameras as an unhelpful, dishonest and punitive measure that ultimately makes his life harder. This 'message' is also directly responsible for some new, illegal and frankly alarming behaviour from motorists who, once brainwashed' will see someone overtaking as a menace to society and attempt to block, close the gap on or flash lights at them.
This is probably an innaccurate view in VH land but a very honest one in my view and those with whom I discuss it.
This is compounded by reduced speed limits that cause frustration, trucks limited to 40mph causing pointless tailbacks on NSL roads. Trucks fitted with limiters also cause the drivers to nod off or play 'elephant racing' causing more frustration on motorways.
They also symbolise a lost message, that of 'speed kills' which is a myth not believed by your average motorist who is merely trying to get from A to B and counts hidden cameras as an unhelpful, dishonest and punitive measure that ultimately makes his life harder. This 'message' is also directly responsible for some new, illegal and frankly alarming behaviour from motorists who, once brainwashed' will see someone overtaking as a menace to society and attempt to block, close the gap on or flash lights at them.
This is probably an innaccurate view in VH land but a very honest one in my view and those with whom I discuss it.
Edited by apache on Friday 12th January 11:54
Whether it's fixed cameras, scamman, scamman with a hidden camera or plod, people generally object to being prosecuted for safe behaviour. Fixed scams are painted in bright colours to make them easily identifiable and warn of the supposed accident blackspots, the idea there is to reduce casualties in known dangerous areas, in theory a reasonable idea.
Hidden scams just add to the frustrations and very often have no safety benefits with the enforcement(all imo as Von, BFF and others disagree). Kindda OT but in the olden days when you saw plod on the roads a common phrase that is probably still in use is "why aren't you out catching real criminals" I always used to find it a bit childish but am now gradually coming to the same conclusion.
Hidden scams just add to the frustrations and very often have no safety benefits with the enforcement(all imo as Von, BFF and others disagree). Kindda OT but in the olden days when you saw plod on the roads a common phrase that is probably still in use is "why aren't you out catching real criminals" I always used to find it a bit childish but am now gradually coming to the same conclusion.
I think it is because of the change in what enforcement means
Motorways and fast a roads used to have a tacit agreement that if the traffic was light and flowing then 80 - 85 was not unreasonable as long as it was safe and that traf pol would be watching but ONLY arresting those who were doing the ben hur thing at probably three figures or so.
Cameras don't discriminate for time of day, weather, traffic conditions etc and they also catch everyone ...... not the bad mad or unsafe or excessive ... they get everyone.
With such blanket enforcement, drivers feel they have no control, it raises questions of the nature of citizen/state relationship
My biggest beef with ALL automated speed enforcement is that, if its genuinely unsafe to be travelling above a paricular speed on a particular road then the unsafe behaviour needs to be stopped there and then. Not 2 weeks later when the scorecard arrives in the post.
The fact that its not just gives lie to the entire idea.
The fact that its not just gives lie to the entire idea.
Without reading the thread at all, but just looking at the title.
The simple fact that HMG HAVE put dayglo stickers on Scamera vans and painted Gatsos Yellow is in itself implication that they know they are in the wrong and are attempting to placate the public that they are not simple revenue tools.
But of course, the marked ones are spotted, so they ensure a suitable amount of tax is collected via hidden vans.
The simple fact that HMG HAVE put dayglo stickers on Scamera vans and painted Gatsos Yellow is in itself implication that they know they are in the wrong and are attempting to placate the public that they are not simple revenue tools.
But of course, the marked ones are spotted, so they ensure a suitable amount of tax is collected via hidden vans.
It would be the combination of poorly set (i.e. too low) speed limit and hidden cameras that I would consider the most insidious.
Once the requirement to keep cameras visible is relaxed, I can imaging Cumbria indulging in this practice. Keeping to 70 on the M6 in that local really does hammer home how ridiculous the 70 speed limit is, especially when compared with the 60 limit on the A6, which isn't so bad on that type of road.
I read on the ABD site that the average speed of cars is 78mph on the motorway, which the max speed that you are likely to avoid prosecution under the ACPO guidelines. Easy pickings for the vultures, despite the excellent safety record of the road!
Once the requirement to keep cameras visible is relaxed, I can imaging Cumbria indulging in this practice. Keeping to 70 on the M6 in that local really does hammer home how ridiculous the 70 speed limit is, especially when compared with the 60 limit on the A6, which isn't so bad on that type of road.
I read on the ABD site that the average speed of cars is 78mph on the motorway, which the max speed that you are likely to avoid prosecution under the ACPO guidelines. Easy pickings for the vultures, despite the excellent safety record of the road!
Edited by alphadog on Friday 12th January 14:26
flemke said:
The objection is not to hidden cameras per se. It is to robotic enforcement of a law that only makes sense if it is related to unsafe driving, which distinction the camera almost never makes.
When the cameras are visible, although the robotic enforcement element is still wrong, one can avoid its unjust penalties by staying alert, which of course is a good thing anyhow.
When the cameras are visible, although the robotic enforcement element is still wrong, one can avoid its unjust penalties by staying alert, which of course is a good thing anyhow.
Yes, mainly agree but staying the camera vans are now being so well hidden that staying alert focussing on them seriously detracts from observation needed for genuine hazards.
Richard C said:
flemke said:
The objection is not to hidden cameras per se. It is to robotic enforcement of a law that only makes sense if it is related to unsafe driving, which distinction the camera almost never makes.
When the cameras are visible, although the robotic enforcement element is still wrong, one can avoid its unjust penalties by staying alert, which of course is a good thing anyhow.
When the cameras are visible, although the robotic enforcement element is still wrong, one can avoid its unjust penalties by staying alert, which of course is a good thing anyhow.
Yes, mainly agree but staying the camera vans are now being so well hidden that staying alert focussing on them seriously detracts from observation needed for genuine hazards.
Absolutely.
I was referring to the cameras that are genuinely visible to a driver who is alert, but not devoting a disproportionate amount of time and effort to trying to spot the ones hidden in the bushes or behind a road sign.
gargamel said:
I think it is because of the change in what enforcement means
Motorways and fast a roads used to have a tacit agreement that if the traffic was light and flowing then 80 - 85 was not unreasonable as long as it was safe and that traf pol would be watching but ONLY arresting those who were doing the ben hur thing at probably three figures or so.
Well I don't know how far back you're thinking, but I don't reckon plod used to bother about actual speed much at all, well not out of town anyhow. The Ben Hur thing would be a different matter, but in pre-NSL days speed itself appeared to be of little or no concern to them - which was good. We need to get back to that. Things is getting all very grey and dull.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Richard C said:
flemke said:
The objection is not to hidden cameras per se. It is to robotic enforcement of a law that only makes sense if it is related to unsafe driving, which distinction the camera almost never makes.
When the cameras are visible, although the robotic enforcement element is still wrong, one can avoid its unjust penalties by staying alert, which of course is a good thing anyhow.
When the cameras are visible, although the robotic enforcement element is still wrong, one can avoid its unjust penalties by staying alert, which of course is a good thing anyhow.
Yes, mainly agree but staying the camera vans are now being so well hidden that staying alert focussing on them seriously detracts from observation needed for genuine hazards.
Spot on, Richard.
gargamel said:
I think it is because of the change in what enforcement means
Motorways and fast a roads used to have a tacit agreement that if the traffic was light and flowing then 80 - 85 was not unreasonable as long as it was safe and that traf pol would be watching but ONLY arresting those who were doing the ben hur thing at probably three figures or so.
Cameras don't discriminate for time of day, weather, traffic conditions etc and they also catch everyone ...... not the bad mad or unsafe or excessive ... they get everyone.
With such blanket enforcement, drivers feel they have no control, it raises questions of the nature of citizen/state relationship
That would be my viewpoint. Cameras give no discretion for traffic / weather conditions etc
flemke said:
The objection is not to hidden cameras per se. It is to robotic enforcement of a law that only makes sense if it is related to unsafe driving, which distinction the camera almost never makes.
When the cameras are visible, although the robotic enforcement element is still wrong, one can avoid its unjust penalties by staying alert, which of course is a good thing anyhow.
When the cameras are visible, although the robotic enforcement element is still wrong, one can avoid its unjust penalties by staying alert, which of course is a good thing anyhow.
But it's just not true that you were only prosecuted for unsafe speeds before. If your speed was unsafe & the Police car matched you for speed & distance, how can they say in all conscious it was unsafe (that's if they weren't actually going quicker then you to catch you up)?
They didn't, because they didn't prosecute you for DWDCA or DD, they did you for exceeding the limit based on the margin over the limit being unacceptable to their mind.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 12th January 16:08
I often drive the cat a fiddle road between Buxton and Macclesfield. It's rated as one of the most dangerous roads in England. To make it safer they have placed a mobile camera in a new 50mph zone (near the cat a fiddle pub). It's not hidden from the Buxton to Macc direction but it is from the Macc to Buxton direction. The annoyance being that it only operates in daylight when the weather is clear (not very often up there). In the most dangerous conditions (fog, ice driving rain) it is never to be seen (because the optics don't work in those conditions). The accident rate hasn't altered on that stretch and yet the local SCP will not accept that the van is useless (I suppose from their mortgage-paying perspective, the van is working perfectly). The stupidity of the enforcement regime is what upsets the average motorist trying to safely get from A to B 7 or 8 mph over the limit.
Needless to say I take it very steady across there until I'm sure there's no van and then its business as usual
Needless to say I take it very steady across there until I'm sure there's no van and then its business as usual
The governemnt are always telling us that these cameras are put there for saefty, and to get people to slow down - a hidden camera can do neither of these things. The driver who is caught won't realise, and hence will continue to drive at the same 'dangerous' speed; no one will slow down. There is also the fact it is taking away people's livelehoods by taking their lisence away from them
negative creep said:
The governemnt are always telling us that these cameras are put there for saefty, and to get people to slow down - a hidden camera can do neither of these things. The driver who is caught won't realise, and hence will continue to drive at the same 'dangerous' speed; no one will slow down. There is also the fact it is taking away people's livelehoods by taking their lisence away from them
If they know they can be caught (& are likely to) everywhere they exceed the limit by a decent margin, then they know what they have to do to legally protect their livelyhood. The choice to protect it or not is theirs.
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
The objection is not to hidden cameras per se. It is to robotic enforcement of a law that only makes sense if it is related to unsafe driving, which distinction the camera almost never makes.
When the cameras are visible, although the robotic enforcement element is still wrong, one can avoid its unjust penalties by staying alert, which of course is a good thing anyhow.
When the cameras are visible, although the robotic enforcement element is still wrong, one can avoid its unjust penalties by staying alert, which of course is a good thing anyhow.
But it's just not true that you were only prosecuted for unsafe speeds before. If your speed was unsafe & the Police car matched you for speed & distance, how can they say in all conscious it was unsafe (that's if they weren't actually going quicker then you to catch you up)?
They didn't, because they didn't prosecute you for DWDCA or DD, they did you for exceeding the limit based on the margin over the limit being unacceptable to their mind.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 12th January 16:08
I agree (not sure I understand the bit in brackets mind), prosecutions for speeding are about the margin over the limit and not the driving behaviour or safety aspects.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff