Should you alert burglars when there's cops around

rothbook · June 2007

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/stor ... 16,00.html

Speed cameras 'should be hidden'
Press Association
Tuesday June 5, 2007 8:08 AM

Police forces should consider introducing "less conspicuous" speed cameras as a way of making more motorists slow down, Britain's top traffic policeman has said.

Meredydd Hughes, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) head of road policing, said it was "strange" that the cameras - which according to Government guidelines should be painted yellow and clearly signed - could be so easily identified.

At present there is no legal requirement for speed cameras to be made visible, and a speeding offence is not invalidated if they are not.

But the latest Department for Transport guidance continues to recommend that speed cameras should be yellow, marked with warning signs and only sited at accident blackspots.

Mr Hughes, who is Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, told The Times: "I have always thought it strange that speed cameras were so easily identified.

"We need to think about whether greater compliance will be delivered by using technology in a less conspicuous way.

"I might put up Neighbourhood Watch signs but I don't tell burglars when I am specifically running an anti-crime operation."

Eat My Dust · June 2007

I've always found it odd that speedcamera can be seen for miles. Kind of defeats the purpose really. It might be my imagination but I found that the speed cameras in England are much more visible than the one that the Scottish police use.

SNAPS

spire · June 2007

If the camera is at an accident blackspot, surely you want people to slow down.

And burglars are frightened off in a similar way: visible alarms, warning notices etc, etc.

ankev1 · June 2007

But the problem is that people slow down for the camera at the blackspot and then speed up again, possibly generating another blackspot in the process. If you want to enforce speed limits then you would need to generate a state of affairs where speed camera presence was so unpredictable and common that motorists would normally drive within the limits for fear of getting caught. Can't see that happening somehow.

The Bosscp · June 2007

In my general experience, old Hughesy is actually pretty good at not shitting on his own doorstep, so to speak.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

If the camera is at an accident blackspot, surely you want people to slow down.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Er... no! They want to make money!
Good old Hughesy it would seem has recognised that it's actually better to be honest.

Eat My Dust · June 2007

The sooner all cars are tracked with GPS the better. Imagine the extra revenue created by that!!

SNAPS

Anonymous · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The sooner all cars are tracked with GPS <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I hope the GPS is better then the ones they used by our navy in Iran[:D]

Non Omnis Moriar

Unknown · June 2007

Yes, speed cameras should be hidden. And it should be illegal for their locations to be revealed by satellite navigation systems.

The Bosscp · June 2007

The only possible reason you could want speed cameras to be hidden is vindictiveness against motorists. If you wanted speed cameras to fulfill their intended purpose, of getting people to slow down, then you would support them being visible, as when motorists see them, they slow down.

What's better, a speed camera outside a school is hidden and motorists speed past it, 9 just get fined but the 10th knocks over a child, or a speed camera outside a school that is visible, and all 10 motorists slow down, none get fined, but no children get knocked over?

ian_oli · June 2007

Surely both. Visible by black spots, invisible and randomly spread elsewhere.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ian_oli

Surely both. Visible by black spots, invisible and randomly spread elsewhere.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">But in the locations you describe as 'elsewhere', there's often no justification for having them.

Eat My Dust · June 2007

I'm sorry Boss, but there's justification for having speed cameras on every road in the UK. It's called the speed limit.

SNAPS

Cab · June 2007

At blackspots I'd like to see well hidden cameras but very visible signs reminding people that there are cameras there. That would seem to offer the best of both worlds; a visible warning that the speed limit is being enforced with practical, sensible enforcement.

Outside of those blackspots I'd wager that mobile, hidden cameras would be very effective.

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

mossycp · June 2007

I absolutely agree with Eat My Dust on this.

When I was a lad and tended to drive everywhere as fast as possible we were always on the look out for the unmarked police cars that used to go up and down the main roads. The threat of them being there was what made us slow down. That threat no longer seems to exist so having concealed cameras puts that threat back and makes people slow down ALL the time. Where there are blackspots the cameras should be visible but there is every justification for putting hidden cameras whereever they like.

This thing about revenue generation and victimisation of motorists is utter rubbish. There would be no revenue and no victimisation if you JUST SLOW DOWN.

While I'm on the subject, surely it should be illegal to have a motor vehicle that can travel at more than 100mph? and be illegal to buy or install any device to a car than can increase it's performance?

<h5>Today is your day, your mountain is waiting, so get on your way {Dr Seus}</h5>

Unknown · June 2007

currently the yellow speed cameras are due to the police being allowed to take a cut of the money generated by the camera and put it back into the local force

most but not all forces do this, some are still grey and hidden.

with regards to sat-nav tracking of vehicles, do you want the government to know where your car is every moment of the day?

Tourist Tony · June 2007

I believe they are all required to be yellow and visible.
Old Knobber Bonj has accidentally brought up a valid point here, even though he tells us he hasn't got a car.

"What's better, a speed camera outside a school is hidden and motorists speed past it, 9 just get fined but the 10th knocks over a child, or a speed camera outside a school that is visible, and all 10 motorists slow down, none get fined, but no children get knocked over?"

In one flash of blinding stupidity, he shows why the average motorist cannot be trusted to judge their own "safe'n'appropriate speed".
Chez Bonj, they slow down for a bright yellow box outside a school, but can't extend that thought to just slowing down outside schools full stop.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

andy_wrx · June 2007

How many of these yellow boxes are actually live cameras ?

I remember reading some figures some time ago that said it was œx-tens-of-thousand pounds to put up a camera, and œy-thousand pounds to put up a dummy one, and œz-hundred pounds to put a camera warning sign on a lamppost.

(I do remember being very puzzled how it costs œz-hundred pounds to put a sign on a lamppost, but doubtless it has to go through some byzantine local authority planning process...)

But anyway, presumably having lots of warning signs, and lots of highly visible dummy cameras, with a few live ones amongst them but you don't know which is which, would have the desired result of slowing traffic at less cost than having that many real-but-hidden cameras ?

(I *really* won't go into the debate as to whether that is the desired result, rather than revenue-raising...)

Time to dig-out the Summer bike (why's it just started raining ? Is it something I said ?)

stelvio · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Random Vince
with regards to sat-nav tracking of vehicles, do you want the government to know where your car is every moment of the day?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Actually yes.
It might help stop my car being nicked.
It would mean a few more kids get to survive into adulthood.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Eat My Dust

I'm sorry Boss, but there's justification for having speed cameras on every road in the UK. It's called the speed limit.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
As far as you're concerned maybe in your idealistic little world, but as far as the whole country is concerned, there might be more prioritous things to spend the money on. Therefore it's often the case that unless it is an accident blackspot and / or there is a significant problem with speeders, then there's no point spending thousands on putting a camera there.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cab

At blackspots I'd like to see well hidden cameras but very visible signs reminding people that there are cameras there. That would seem to offer the best of both worlds; a visible warning that the speed limit is being enforced with practical, sensible enforcement.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Is "practical, sensible" a euphemism for "invisible"? Why the need for euphemisms?

stelvio · June 2007

Originally posted by The Boss
If you wanted speed cameras to fulfill their intended purpose, of getting people to slow down, then you would support them being visible, as when motorists see them, they slow down.

actually no.
Hidden speed cameras were introduced into Australia late 1980's, starting with Queensland, where casualties were cut by 35%.
Hidden cameras were actually more effective, perhaps because not knowing makes drivers generally more careful, perhaps because being repeatedly caught made the reckless alter their behaviour.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mossy

While I'm on the subject, surely it should be illegal to have a motor vehicle that can travel at more than 100mph? and be illegal to buy or install any device to a car than can increase it's performance?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, "surely" it shouldn't. You might want to take it abroad, where the speed limit is more than in the UK.
Besides, people don't buy performance increases on their car to increase the top speed, they do it to improve the handling and acceleration (and brakes to improve the stopping power, would you believe.)

stelvio · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
as the whole country is concerned, there might be more prioritous things to spend the money on. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Preventing knobheads in fast cars running over my children is actually quite a high priority for me, and one I am happy to spend lots of money on.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by stelvio

actually no.
Hidden speed cameras were introduced into Australia late 1980's, starting with Queensland, where casualties were cut by 35%.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Hidden ones may be better for a whole stretch of road, but visible ones are far better at an accident blackspot or safety priority area e.g. school, because they are far more effective at getting people to slow down at the actual precise site of the camera.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by stelvio

Hidden cameras were actually more effective, perhaps because not knowing makes drivers generally more careful, perhaps because being repeatedly caught made the reckless alter their behaviour.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh YES! - I remember now, because what we need to do is... what was the phrase again? Ah yes - I remember, "create uncertainty in driver's minds". Lots of uncertainty. The more uncertainty, the safer. Obviously.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by stelvio

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
as the whole country is concerned, there might be more prioritous things to spend the money on. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Preventing knobheads in fast cars running over my children is actually quite a high priority for me, and one I am happy to spend lots of money on.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well you spend your money on it then. Good for you. Take out a mortgage and it will probably get you about 3 speed cameras.

Eat My Dust · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Eat My Dust

I'm sorry Boss, but there's justification for having speed cameras on every road in the UK. It's called the speed limit.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
As far as you're concerned maybe in your idealistic little world, but as far as the whole country is concerned, there might be more prioritous things to spend the money on. Therefore it's often the case that unless it is an accident blackspot and / or there is a significant problem with speeders, then there's no point spending thousands on putting a camera there.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What, like wars in countries that have nothing to do with us? Surely every stretch of road in the UK is a potential blackspot. Can I ask why you feel that you have to defend/justify speeding? Would you defend/justify shoplifting, it does no one any harm?

SNAPS

mossycp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mossy

While I'm on the subject, surely it should be illegal to have a motor vehicle that can travel at more than 100mph? and be illegal to buy or install any device to a car than can increase it's performance?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, "surely" it shouldn't. You might want to take it abroad, where the speed limit is more than in the UK.
Besides, people don't buy performance increases on their car to increase the top speed, they do it to improve the handling and acceleration (and brakes to improve the stopping power, would you believe.)

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Where abroad can you go more than 70mph? OK, maybe a bit of autobahn in Germany but not many other places. So, just because you might go abroad justifies being able to have a car that can exceed the maximum speed limit by more than 30mph!
It's still a performance increase, designed to make the car go faster whether in a straight line or around a corner. And yes, actually they do buy performance modifications to make the car have a faster top speed. Do they really believe that because they have a fast car with better brakes they are better than anyone else so don't have to abide by speed limits?

<h5>Today is your day, your mountain is waiting, so get on your way {Dr Seus}</h5>

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
[Oh YES! - I remember now, because what we need to do is... what was the phrase again? Ah yes - I remember, "create uncertainty in driver's minds". Lots of uncertainty. The more uncertainty, the safer. Obviously.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, yes, actually. This means drivers remain alert to things outside their vehicle rather than cutting themselves off...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

chuckles · June 2007

Hi,

Surely it is time we stopped being fobbed off with more speed cameras? It was revealed yesterday that registration plate theft is at epidemic levels, the numbers of uninsured and unlicensed, unregistered vehicles is around 2 million in the UK. What we need is a return of our national road traffic police force. I agree with cameras placed at hotspots though.

As for making it illegal to buy a car capable of travelling at more than one hundred miles per hour, I fear this would have precious little effect on casualty figures. A car travelling at a fraction of that speed in a dangerous manner is more than capable of wiping out a family of four.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by chuckles

As for making it illegal to buy a car capable of travelling at more than one hundred miles per hour, I fear this would have precious little effect on casualty figures. A car travelling at a fraction of that speed in a dangerous manner is more than capable of wiping out a family of four.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think this is right. When I used to prosecute due care accident cases regularly, I came across a depressing number of motorists who thought that obeying the prevailing speed limit discharged them from any other duties on the road. They usually said, "He came from nowhere" when asked how they'd managed to pile into the back of someone or to drive out from a minor road without looking for traffic.

Should you alert burglars when there's cops around

Comments

Categories