alt.uk.law

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:52:55 +0000, Kim Bolton
wrote:

>
>Alex Heney wrote:
>
>>And he was generally right. *Most* cameras and camera vans are readily
>>visible prior to the point where you would be caught, so if you do get
>>caught by one, you are not paying attention (unless it is one of the
>>few around which really are pretty hidden).
>
>
>
>>NOT because people who speed are bad drivers, but because people who
>>are not paying sufficient attention to see the cameras are *mainly*
>>people who are not driving well.
>
>I'm a little concerned about this 'attention' thing being linked to
>bad driving, and feel that there's more to this than meets the eye.



>
>I feel that, based on the TV programme and this real-life situation,
>that the view that 'drivers should be paying more attention' can be
>simplistic and naive, and that continually adding road signs to the
>plethora that already exists contributes absolutely nothing to
>increased safety.
>

You make very good points, and I agree completely.

But that is why I was careful to say *most* cameras and vans are
readily visible. And to say that it is *mainly* people driving badly
who are not paying enough attention to spot them.

I fully agree that ones positioned where there are excessive numbers
of signs or other "distracting" items are exceptions to that
generalisation.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Of course I know what I'm doing! Now gimme that magnet.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom