4 ms·

I think the principle of non-visible cameras is that, by inducing uncertainty about when you might receive a ticket, you encourage law abiding behaviour across

by mrow84 8y ago

I think the principle of non-visible cameras is that, by inducing uncertainty about when you might receive a ticket, you encourage law abiding behaviour across the road network, and not just at those sites where you locate cameras. In principle this method can be more cost-effective than using visible cameras, because you need fewer cameras. Of course, these cost savings are predicated on the relative effectiveness of non-visible cameras. The fact that they are used in some countries is evidence that they might be effective. This also seems to me to lend credence to the idea that having visible cameras is a concession to some other interest group, because, although I can understand why the "driving lobby" would want cameras to be visible (so they know when to obey the law), I am having trouble thinking of an interest group who would want cameras to be non-visible for some non safety-related objective - I am of course open to suggestions.

NikolaNovak 8y ago
>>" I am having trouble thinking of an interest group who would want cameras to be non-visible for some non safety-related objective" I hate to come off overly cynical, but that almost feels like lack of effort: wanting to repeatedly catch large number of unaware drivers to cause increase in ticket revenue seems like a painful obvious one? Unless we are not considering the government an interest group in this context but that too seems erroneous...
- mrow84 8y ago
  This case only really applies in situations where speed limits aren't well established. I will admit that I was talking from the perspective of a country where you are tested on common speed limits before you are allowed to drive, and which has extensive signage indicating allowed speed limits. In such a situation people are only "unaware" in the sense that they are knowingly breaking the law, but not thinking they are going to get caught.
  - Ntrails 8y ago
    I don't know about others, but I for one find myself often at odds with speed limits now that large swathes of London are 20mph as opposed to my stock assumption of 30mph as a lower bound excluding maybe schools. There are signposts. I should always be aware of them. I am often not, many years of habit + very infrequent city driving these days tend towards mistakes. I am slightly more aware now - but I anticipate several years before i've internalised the new rules fully
    - mrow84 8y ago
      I have had similar experiences, though I rarely drive in London. However, I would hope that you would accept that, if you were caught speeding, it would be a fair cop, given the clarity of the signage, the rules, etc.? The acceptance of the rule of law really seems to be central to this whole speed camera issue. If you accept that your actions are subject to the law then you will also accept the consequences of any transgressions you make, intentional or otherwise; the mechanism of enforcement is simply irrelevant. An individual may want to be excused from consequence for a particular law, on the basis that they disagree with them (e.g. speeding), but that isn't how the law works, and necessarily so.
gambiting 8y ago
>>I am having trouble thinking of an interest group who would want cameras to be non-visible for some non safety-related objective - I am of course open to suggestions. Lived in a small town where non-visible cameras were used years ago - huge amount of fines were given, mostly to people out of town. Few years ago, all cameras had to be made visible - now the main road going through town has 3 cameras, no one speeds through the town again, but the revenue has dropped down significantly(it's probably costing the town money now). Now the question is - which outcome is preferable to the citizens? One where people speed, but the town is getting a lot of money from the fines, or one where people don't speed, but it's actually costing the town money. I'm sure if you ask the folks at the local council, they would say they preferred non-visible cameras - their budget back then was huge, at(obviously) expense of public safety.
- mrow84 8y ago
  I'm not sure whether I have followed your example correctly, but interpret it as being that the local population was essentially law abiding, because they knew the camera locations both when they were visible and when they were non-visible, and that the main issue was with out-of-town drivers. There is, of course, no reason why a local council should not decide to deploy visible cameras in such a situation, alongside a national network of non-visible cameras (you obviously don't need to have both visible and non-visible cameras at the same site). The cost-effectiveness argument still holds, under the assumptions previously mentioned.

by mrow84 8y ago

NikolaNovak 8y ago

>>" I am having trouble thinking of an interest group who would want cameras to be non-visible for some non safety-related objective" I hate to come off overly cynical, but that almost feels like lack of effort: wanting to repeatedly catch large number of unaware drivers to cause increase in ticket revenue seems like a painful obvious one? Unless we are not considering the government an interest group in this context but that too seems erroneous...

mrow84 8y ago
This case only really applies in situations where speed limits aren't well established. I will admit that I was talking from the perspective of a country where you are tested on common speed limits before you are allowed to drive, and which has extensive signage indicating allowed speed limits. In such a situation people are only "unaware" in the sense that they are knowingly breaking the law, but not thinking they are going to get caught.
- Ntrails 8y ago
  I don't know about others, but I for one find myself often at odds with speed limits now that large swathes of London are 20mph as opposed to my stock assumption of 30mph as a lower bound excluding maybe schools. There are signposts. I should always be aware of them. I am often not, many years of habit + very infrequent city driving these days tend towards mistakes. I am slightly more aware now - but I anticipate several years before i've internalised the new rules fully
  - mrow84 8y ago
    I have had similar experiences, though I rarely drive in London. However, I would hope that you would accept that, if you were caught speeding, it would be a fair cop, given the clarity of the signage, the rules, etc.? The acceptance of the rule of law really seems to be central to this whole speed camera issue. If you accept that your actions are subject to the law then you will also accept the consequences of any transgressions you make, intentional or otherwise; the mechanism of enforcement is simply irrelevant. An individual may want to be excused from consequence for a particular law, on the basis that they disagree with them (e.g. speeding), but that isn't how the law works, and necessarily so.

gambiting 8y ago

>>I am having trouble thinking of an interest group who would want cameras to be non-visible for some non safety-related objective - I am of course open to suggestions. Lived in a small town where non-visible cameras were used years ago - huge amount of fines were given, mostly to people out of town. Few years ago, all cameras had to be made visible - now the main road going through town has 3 cameras, no one speeds through the town again, but the revenue has dropped down significantly(it's probably costing the town money now). Now the question is - which outcome is preferable to the citizens? One where people speed, but the town is getting a lot of money from the fines, or one where people don't speed, but it's actually costing the town money. I'm sure if you ask the folks at the local council, they would say they preferred non-visible cameras - their budget back then was huge, at(obviously) expense of public safety.

mrow84 8y ago
I'm not sure whether I have followed your example correctly, but interpret it as being that the local population was essentially law abiding, because they knew the camera locations both when they were visible and when they were non-visible, and that the main issue was with out-of-town drivers. There is, of course, no reason why a local council should not decide to deploy visible cameras in such a situation, alongside a national network of non-visible cameras (you obviously don't need to have both visible and non-visible cameras at the same site). The cost-effectiveness argument still holds, under the assumptions previously mentioned.