“Speeding should be every bit as unacceptable as drink driving,” argues police and crime commissioner

"for" transport

Not wrong, just out of date.

I've got a cost saving suggestion for the Department of Transport. Ban speed camera signs, ban making speed cameras visible

You would also need to ban the publication of camera locations, which might not be easy.

Just get rid of the fixed cameras and make them all mobile; get it into people's heads that they can be caught speeding anywhere, anytime.  If anyone wants all the possible locations then fine, every quarter of a mile on every road; just don't speed at any of those locations and you'll avoid being caught.

Bentrider wrote:

Just get rid of the fixed cameras and make them all mobile; get it into people's heads that they can be caught speeding anywhere, anytime.  If anyone wants all the possible locations then fine, every quarter of a mile on every road; just don't speed at any of those locations and you'll avoid being caught.

And do not publish the locations of mobile cameras for the next week, as my local paper does.

Also, get rid of this BS of allowing people to have more than 12 points on their licence without a ban. Its almost like we are apologising to people who drive dangerously for suggesting its their fault they wouldn't be able to work or provide for their family. If you cared that much, you would drive safely. Perhaps people who drive dangerously shouldn't have their "right" to drive take precidence over everyone elses right to not be injured or killed on our roads. 

the one that always perplexes for it having the highest number of offences across Norfolk and Suffolk, and its painted green fwiw because its in a AONB, is Stratford St Mary, 15,263 offences in 3 years (during the lockdown period too) and its set to 70mph.

But the point of sign posting a speed camera is not so much to catch people as to encourage them to adhere to the speed limit.

Removing signage will catch more people yes, but it won't potentially stop an accident there and then like a sign posted speed camera might.

That's fundamanetally accepting speeding is normal practice. It is noticeable that where people believe they will be caught speeding, they will adhere to speed limits whether there are actual cameras or not. Therefore, have lots of enforcement without fixed cameras or signs, so people believe that they will be caught at any time any where, will be more effective over a grater stretch of road than a single fixed point. In fact, I know there are places where there are many speed camera warning signs but there are rarely any speed cameras. So we are in a position where you need a speed limit and a second set of speed camera warning signs to implement a speed limit effectively. If you remove the need to advertise that speed limits might be enforced, you've saved a pot of money and a few hi viz jackets lurking by the road will soon reinforce the limit, even if the result is whining about the unfairness of it all.

For example, I have never met anyone who has ever been caught on an average speed camera on the motorway, there are no flashes, those yellow poles may never ever have been activated, but compliance is 99% within an mph or 2. Why do average speed camaras work when fixed cameras don't (and drivers complain of the damgers of fixed cameras causing braking).

Fundamnetally, it is about breaking the culture of speeding as acceptable, so the mere presence of a limit should encourage adherence.

I thought the point of the signs was because lobbying groups and newspapers forced through the concept that speed cameras were a "tax on law abiding motorists" and "would cause accidents with suddenly braking" so they had to be made obvious in colour, be sign posted and locations made public. It was never a pre-empt to encourage slowing down, although that was what was used to justify them. 

Basically, its what Ian says above... wherever there is signage, there will be greater compliance. 

So fixed cameras are placed where compliance is most needed / where people are most likely to stray (either by accident or design). 

There was backlash a fair few years back around cynical placement of mobile speed cameras by police forces, which were perceived to be more about revenue collection and meeting quotas than safety or indeed even compliance.

The outcome was that new fixed cameras need to be justified (there is either a recognised speeding problem or heightened risk), and clearly signposted. 

But I can justify putting a speed camera anywhere there is a speed limit, because the justification is to get habitual compliance with speed limits.

Because some motorists are incapable of moderating their own driving you end up with the situation like on the Warwick Road from Warwick to Knowle, which 20 years ago was NSL virtually the whole length, then became 50, then finally had a 30mph through Chadwick End, and then sections were reduced to 40mph and most recently a 2-3 mile section between Chadwick End and Knowle now has full double white lines banning overtaking for the whole distance because drivers took too many risks.

If drivers drove to road conditions, rather than trying to meet or exceed speed limits, they would have always driven that road at varying speeds down to 30mph at times, and not need double white lines to tell them the vision is insufficient to overtake safely, but instead we have the "war on motorists taking all the fun out of driving" - which appears to mean driving is no fun if you can't legally drive like a nutter. 

But the Audi driver is, in every way. 

ktache wrote:

She's not wrong.

Exactly this!  Peck has highlighted what most drivers think of the rules of the road, selectively picking and choosing what suits them.  Why else are there so many mobile phone users?  People eating cornflakes whilst driving along?  There was a case yesterday, some driver hit a cyclist and they had the nerve to say "I was just driving, they came out of nowhere".  JUST driving?  Like its some innocent harmless carefree hobby.  Nobody takes driving seriously, plenty don't even bother with a test or insurance.