Hide the Cameras!!!!!
Discussion
------------------------------------------------------
HIDE THE CAMERAS Friday 21st March
Transport 2000 promote backward step in road safety
Just as some common sense was being applied to the use of Speed Cameras, Transport 2000 has challenged the policy of painting them yellow.
Despite recent studies by the Government which supposedly back up the use of cameras as accident reduction tools, Transport 2000 felt strongly that motorists should not have any warning of speed cameras. So strongly in fact that they took the issue to the High Court yesterday.
The result was that police forces can now apply to the Secretary of State for permission to hide fixed cameras. Previously only mobile camera units could be used covertly.
------------------------------------------------------
So Transport 2000 think the best thing they can do is convince the government that hiding Speed Cameras is the way to go!!! I THINK NOT!!!
Weren't we commonly of the belief that cameras are a good thing, when placed in appropriate places ( near schools etc ) and more effective if highly visible, and as such people would be aware that they were there!! And now Transport 2000 decide that the best thing to do is hide them all again so that we don't know if they are there or not.
I know we have had thread after thread about this kinda thing, but it just Pi55es me off that some people think the best way forward is by taking 3 steps back!!
Maybe i'm alone in this thought!!
HIDE THE CAMERAS Friday 21st March
Transport 2000 promote backward step in road safety
Just as some common sense was being applied to the use of Speed Cameras, Transport 2000 has challenged the policy of painting them yellow.
Despite recent studies by the Government which supposedly back up the use of cameras as accident reduction tools, Transport 2000 felt strongly that motorists should not have any warning of speed cameras. So strongly in fact that they took the issue to the High Court yesterday.
The result was that police forces can now apply to the Secretary of State for permission to hide fixed cameras. Previously only mobile camera units could be used covertly.
------------------------------------------------------
So Transport 2000 think the best thing they can do is convince the government that hiding Speed Cameras is the way to go!!! I THINK NOT!!!
Weren't we commonly of the belief that cameras are a good thing, when placed in appropriate places ( near schools etc ) and more effective if highly visible, and as such people would be aware that they were there!! And now Transport 2000 decide that the best thing to do is hide them all again so that we don't know if they are there or not.
I know we have had thread after thread about this kinda thing, but it just Pi55es me off that some people think the best way forward is by taking 3 steps back!!
Maybe i'm alone in this thought!!
This is madness - there's a logic flaw.
OK, suppose I'm driving in an area where there's a school and, not inappropriately, a speed camera is stationed in the road outside as a means of securing kiddies' safety. But I don't know this area so if the speed camera is brightly colored then there's a good chance that if, for whatever reason, my speed is above what is deemed 'safe', then I might see the camera and slow down. Result - I slowed down, the kids are 'safer' and the police have saved a bunch of administration costs that would have been incurred.
Now contrast that with the situation when the camera's obscured. I'm driving for the first time down the road past the school and for whatever reason my speed's too high. I don't see the camera and don't slow down.
The intended benefit of putting the camera in the road outside the school is to preserve the kiddies not catch people speeding!
FFS what is going wrong in this country? Perhaps just as importantly WTF do we do about it. I think we are powerless - and don't give me any cr@p about faxing my MP.
Hutch
OK, suppose I'm driving in an area where there's a school and, not inappropriately, a speed camera is stationed in the road outside as a means of securing kiddies' safety. But I don't know this area so if the speed camera is brightly colored then there's a good chance that if, for whatever reason, my speed is above what is deemed 'safe', then I might see the camera and slow down. Result - I slowed down, the kids are 'safer' and the police have saved a bunch of administration costs that would have been incurred.
Now contrast that with the situation when the camera's obscured. I'm driving for the first time down the road past the school and for whatever reason my speed's too high. I don't see the camera and don't slow down.
The intended benefit of putting the camera in the road outside the school is to preserve the kiddies not catch people speeding!
FFS what is going wrong in this country? Perhaps just as importantly WTF do we do about it. I think we are powerless - and don't give me any cr@p about faxing my MP.
Hutch
[devils advocate mode]
Clearly the purpose of hiding the cameras is so that the general feeling is that there could be cameras anywhere, so you drive at the speed limit all the time. Because, of course, 30mph outside a school when kids are being dropped off/picked up is safe, isn't it?
[/devils advocate mode]
Clearly the purpose of hiding the cameras is so that the general feeling is that there could be cameras anywhere, so you drive at the speed limit all the time. Because, of course, 30mph outside a school when kids are being dropped off/picked up is safe, isn't it?
[/devils advocate mode]
There are many flaws to the argument that hidden cameras are best:
1. If you see a camera from a distance and you are travelling too fast, you can slow down gradually - if it suddenly appears you are more likely to slam on the anchors - this is a danger!
2. If you know that a camera is likely to be more visible you spend less time looking at the side of the road watching out for cameras and more time concentrating on traffic, children etc. this then makes the roads safer. With the new proposal, we will all spend more time watching out for cameras rather than pedestrians
(and before anyone says "Well if you kept to the speed limit...." show me the person who ALWAYS sticks to the speed limit and NEVER allows their speed to exceed it and I'll show you a liar!)
3. Hidden cameras only catch visitors to the area - locals speed up to them, slow down, then speed up again!
Surely the police are out to PREVENT crime BEFORE it happens - otherwise why isn't every Bobby on the beat in plain clothes? Making cameras more obvious works - as evidenced in places like Plymouth.
Sorry to go on, but this really pi**es me off too. Feel better now I've got that off my chest!
1. If you see a camera from a distance and you are travelling too fast, you can slow down gradually - if it suddenly appears you are more likely to slam on the anchors - this is a danger!
2. If you know that a camera is likely to be more visible you spend less time looking at the side of the road watching out for cameras and more time concentrating on traffic, children etc. this then makes the roads safer. With the new proposal, we will all spend more time watching out for cameras rather than pedestrians
(and before anyone says "Well if you kept to the speed limit...." show me the person who ALWAYS sticks to the speed limit and NEVER allows their speed to exceed it and I'll show you a liar!)
3. Hidden cameras only catch visitors to the area - locals speed up to them, slow down, then speed up again!
Surely the police are out to PREVENT crime BEFORE it happens - otherwise why isn't every Bobby on the beat in plain clothes? Making cameras more obvious works - as evidenced in places like Plymouth.
Sorry to go on, but this really pi**es me off too. Feel better now I've got that off my chest!
Hmmm. It's funny - it's actually quite easy to argue the point for hidden cameras. Perhaps that's why so many people do it?
Personally, i'm not quite sure what to think, but for the purposes of an interesting argument, i'll try the pro-hidden argument!
Personally, i'm not quite sure what to think, but for the purposes of an interesting argument, i'll try the pro-hidden argument!
You are advocating the use of the speed cameras to slow down. Surely this is the job of the speed limit signs which *are* visible?
DaveM said:1. If you see a camera from a distance and you are travelling too fast, you can slow down gradually - if it suddenly appears you are more likely to slam on the anchors - this is a danger!
Yes, but surely this is the problem we are trying to address - people aren't sticking to the speed limits where it's important to do so.
2. If you know that a camera is likely to be more visible you spend less time looking at the side of the road watching out for cameras and more time concentrating on traffic, children etc. this then makes the roads safer. With the new proposal, we will all spend more time watching out for cameras rather than pedestrians
(and before anyone says "Well if you kept to the speed limit...." show me the person who ALWAYS sticks to the speed limit and NEVER allows their speed to exceed it and I'll show you a liar!)
Yes, but making the cameras more visible will cause exactly this kind of behaviour by everyone, even visitors.
3. Hidden cameras only catch visitors to the area - locals speed up to them, slow down, then speed up again!
Some are - a combination of the two obviously works well. You can't wander into a drugs deal, carry out the purchase, and then go back for 'mr big' at a later date when you've got a luminous vest on, can you?!
Surely the police are out to PREVENT crime BEFORE it happens - otherwise why isn't every Bobby on the beat in plain clothes?
Fair enough. The jury's out in my head at the moment; one thing's for sure - there are an awful lot of numpties out there who aren't interested enough in driving to take care of their cars or control their behaviour on the road. The difficult bit is identifying numpties when you use electronics. At least you can argue with a real person!
Sorry to go on, but this really pi**es me off too. Feel better now I've got that off my chest!
Seems to me to be a backwards step, I always thought that cameras should be there to slow you for hazards i.e. schools etc.
I think that cameras on dangerous dual carriageway junctions (e..g Elkesley on A1) should probably be replaced with a safer road layout.
Fundamentally, the problem with cameras is that they are a very blunt weapon used to enforce a limit that is often inappropriate and which should vary according to numerous factors that have been discussed before.
As a nation we, in general, accept the risk levels inherent in our speed, otherwise we would drive more slowly. Trouble arises when one persons risk acceptance/recognition is substantially different from anothers or one group attempts to impose it's own level of risk aversion on everyone else using the machinery of the state and what we loosely call democaracy.
Mike
I think that cameras on dangerous dual carriageway junctions (e..g Elkesley on A1) should probably be replaced with a safer road layout.
Fundamentally, the problem with cameras is that they are a very blunt weapon used to enforce a limit that is often inappropriate and which should vary according to numerous factors that have been discussed before.
As a nation we, in general, accept the risk levels inherent in our speed, otherwise we would drive more slowly. Trouble arises when one persons risk acceptance/recognition is substantially different from anothers or one group attempts to impose it's own level of risk aversion on everyone else using the machinery of the state and what we loosely call democaracy.
Mike
futie said: [devils advocate mode]
Clearly the purpose of hiding the cameras is so that the general feeling is that there could be cameras anywhere, so you drive at the speed limit all the time. Because, of course, 30mph outside a school when kids are being dropped off/picked up is safe, isn't it?
[/devils advocate mode]
Exactly
atg said: The question is whether it is worthwhile or reasonable to try to ensure absolute obedience of the speed limit absolutely everywhere all the time.
Answer: No (does that clear things up?)
absolutely! A speed limit is an arbitrary figure presumably dreamed up by some pen-pusher behind a desk. We all know when it is quite safe to go at a speed at which we feel we can deal with any likely hazard--this could be well over the limit--- alternatively who would drive at 30mph between on a narrow road between two rows of parked cars with kids playing around.
mossy said: It`s a step backwards. Like recently when I was followed 3 miles by an unmarked Police car when I was being overtaken by kids in GT`s of various types.
Of course the police didn`t follow them ... just kept following me.
They can be even sneakier. Driving on an empty road in the small hours I overtook a police car that was literally crawling at about 20mph. Kept to the limit until I was out of sight and then resumed comfortable cruise at about 80mph. Ten or so minutes later they were on my tail having followed me at a distance averaging my speed. Won't fall for that one again!
The more I read about people IMPOSING their will on others in this now police state hacks me off big time. I consider myself to be a decent law abiding citizen but am fast turning to the darkside me thinks.The Government + Police govern with our consent once they lose that they turn decent people into criminals who slowly lose respect for those in authority!!! I take my hat off to motorist who take matters into their own hands a noble the odd camera 
This I feel will only increase.Wrote a letter to Ms.Cann of Transport2000 about this, read it here.......
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=32890&f=10&h=0&p=2
It's a bit soft I know but thought I'd see if I could provoke a reaction!!
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=32890&f=10&h=0&p=2
It's a bit soft I know but thought I'd see if I could provoke a reaction!!
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff