You are in: Road Safety News: 21 May 2007
Majority say ‘no’ to publicising cameras
A majority (61%) of those who responded to last week’s online survey believe that camera partnerships should not tell people in advance where safety cameras will be used.
Here’s a selection of readers’ views:
FOR
“As a site-specific engineering measure designed to change behaviour it seems slightly odd to keep them a secret.”
“If the purpose of cameras is truly to slow people down then of course they should - otherwise no one will slow down.”
“If the purpose is to reduce accidents, surely it makes sense to let people know in advance where accident black spots are?”
“The primary function of efficient enforcement is prevention. If the motorist knows where the camera is it prevents the commission of the offence.”
“Altering the goal posts at a time when motorists appear to be changing attitudes to complying with speed limits supports the view that raising revenue via cameras is their primary purpose.”
AGAINST
“Why give notice to the killers?”
“Why should drivers be warned? If they are breaking the law then they should take the consequences.”
“They should not be signed or highly visible - the message should be that you can be caught anytime, anywhere.”
“No other crime involves the police giving advanced warning of enforcement activity.”
“People shouldn't need to know where the cameras are - they just need to stick to the speed limit.”
“I've never understood why we should warn speeding motorists to slow down just before they reach a camera site and then allow them to do what they like everywhere else - it doesn't happen in other countries.” |
