Why do drivers have to be warned of speed cameras?

In the UK since April 1 2007 speed cameras, both mobile and fixed do not have to be visible nor do warning signs have to be placed on the road. The local camera partnerships have the right to decide. Part of the wording of the act says " The absence of sineage or lack of visibility of the camera will not be a defence against speeding".

Because UK law does not try to operate by trapping people. People drive all over the country and will not know where cameras are, except in their local area. The aim is to be fair and to get you to modify your speed. Best tax collecting system ever devised.

Because good drivers match their speed to the road conditions, traffic, visibility, the state of their vehicle, their tiredness, weather and many other factors. The appropriate speed could be between 5mph and 100mph. Speed cameras don't take any of these factors into account, so drivers have to ignore the other factors and focus on their speedometer.

The signs are there working 24/7. The cops are there now and then. It is called the "uncertainty principle", If most of the people seeing the signs slow down to avoid a ticket, the sign did its' job! Every once in a while the cops WILL be there to harvest the skeptics. More enforcement for less money! Works for me!

There is risk associated with every activity - ask any H&S zealot. Given that the UK has the highest amount of daily road users in Europe with the lowest casualty rates that makes the UK roads the safest in the EU - Fact.

http://www.abd.org.uk/safest_roads.htm

The reason for the warning is so drivers know they are approaching a camera trap area - you start hiding the things and you're going to cause more accidents as some muppet decides to slam the brakes on and drop their speed to 25mph (just to make sure they're in the limit) and the poor buggers behind ram each other up the @rse, I average 50,000 miles a year and I 've seen it happen more than a few times.

There is also the requirement, by law, for the camera to be visible for 100 metres to approaching traffic.

As for it making people driving perfectly all the time - that would need 100% concentration and that ain't never going to happen. You only have to listen to the "thump,thump" emanating from the stereo in the car next to you to know the moron behind the wheel is never going to hear a siren or warning horn - or look at the pair of old dears in the car ahead, yacking for England, to know they've got more interest in the weekly shop than what's happening around them.

These cameras have absolutely nothing to do with preventing accidents, and EVERYTHING to do with raising revenue.

This is the truth.

It is perfectly easy for car manufacturers to fit limiting devices to all vehicles which can be triggered remotely by simple sensors placed under the road surface which would limit the speed vehicles can do over any given area of road.

This would be a very simple and cheap thing to implement if the intention was truly to prevent accidents and save lives.

But it would not raise any revenue now, would it?

Because the whole idea is to make people aware of bad driving habits and correct them, not see how many idiots you can catch. Hitting the person in the pocketbook is a guaranteed way to get their attention, but if a sign accomplishes this, all the better.