What’s the point of having speed limits if camera-warning signs and apps allow drivers to slow down in advance – then just continue speeding? Maybe the UK government in its new consultations on road safety should add the question of hiding speed cameras to their list of concerns. I’m a driver, but also a pedestrian and cyclist and get fed up with seeing cars zooming down local roads at way more than 20 or 30mph. There are flashing lights that tell drivers what speed they’re doing, but there’s no penalty for going over at those points. Amy, Cornwall
Send new questions to [email protected].
Readers reply
It’s high time the government put its foot down. EddieChorepost
No. People slow down when they see one. EGriff
I’ve an idea – why don’t the authorities dig lots of holes in the road to encourage drivers to slow down (the encouragement being avoidance of severe and expensive damage to tyres, wheels and suspension). We could call them “potholes”. Oh – hang on … DocLobster1960
Speeding is antisocial behaviour, so why not make the people who do it pay into the coffers for the good of society?
I don’t care whether cameras are hidden or not, people should just abide by the speed limits. It’s not as if speed limits are designed as a punishment. Goldgreen
I got a speeding ticket in Wales on my first visit there after they introduced a 20mph limit, I opted to take the speed awareness course and found it to be invaluable. I suggest that all learner drivers take this course as you learn so much. I’ve been driving for 35 years and some of the things I learned have stuck with me today. It would be good if we were made aware before we started driving. I actually enjoyed the course. lozbags
Of course there should be no warnings about fixed speed cameras. Mind you, this gives local residents an advantage. Tony Firshman, by email
The issue of whether speed cameras should be visible was decided by the Blair government (and the then transport minister John Spellar). Speeding motorists avoided them and continued speeding afterwards. This resulted in “crash migration”. Road safety has always been the Cinderella issue of policy and sadly, will continue to be, due to the moral bankruptcy of our politicians. Howard Bramwell, by email
No, cameras are there to slow drivers at dangerous places. However, the camera technology must be so cheap now that every (30mph) sign could have a camera behind it. I really struggle to do 20, though, because I have a muscle memory for driving in villages at 25-30mph. James M Bartlett, by email
I don’t think there is clear evidence of what is more efficient in bringing accidents down, as the approach varies between countries. In Germany, speed cameras are usually hidden, behind bends or road signs. Mobile cameras are common. Sometimes, you have road signs warning of cameras (“Radar”), but they are usually quite a bit before the cameras. Mustbe6to20
Speed cameras don’t need to be hidden. They need to be ubiquitous. The want to be in every cat’s-eye in the country and round every bush and corner. Just get them in, save the lives instead of regretting them and force people to slow down.
Really start the war on the motorist, and while you’re at it, make pedestrian crossing lights change immediately when someone presses the button. That’ll be the real signal for the war to begin. Andrew Riley, by email
Visible. There’s a stretch of A road in north Norfolk which had two speed cameras. One has been removed – people still brake as they approach it. Visible still works best, even when it’s no longer visible. RosiesDad
It has always struck me that the use of average speed cameras (as opposed to so-called “safety cameras”) is much more effective at keeping vehicle speeds down to the speed limit. These use automatic numberplate recognition (ANPR) to check the time between cameras, so virtually all drivers stay at the speed limit but then speed up after passing the last camera (presumably to make up for the time they think they have lost while sticking to the speed limit). As ANPR spreads more widely (so we can catch the bad guys up to no good), it can’t be beyond the technology to use their data to better effect by catching speeders too. shropshirelasso
No need to hide them, they are meant to stand out, so if you are going too fast you can still slow down, but if you are going at a ridiculous speed that you don’t notice them, you then have no complaints. Like shooting fish in a barrel. Yes, there are some sneaky ones, but they are not necessary imho. Idiots end up getting caught out anyway. Damianleah
I am all in favour of overt and covert ones. I am also all in favour of the police using roadside/bridge cameras to catch speeders. Further, I would welcome a tripling or more of the fines and points received, along with all drivers having to undertake a speed awareness course every five years in order to keep your licence – and don’t forget, holding a licence is a privilege and not a right.
I am a driver who does far too many miles each year, and I have probably driven for more than 800,000 miles, and I have not been caught speeding. Oh, I’m not going to say I am some sort of saint, and I know I have exceeded the limit on many occasions, but if I had been caught, I would have deserved the penalty. Sallycycles
Some people btl are claiming that hidden cameras wouldn’t work as a deterrent. But they would once you’ve been caught, fined and accumulated a few points. Insurance goes up and the risk of losing one’s licence should focus the mind pretty quickly. I’m sick of being tailgated when driving at the speed limit. Dropinjim
Signs that tell you the speed you are doing (or a smiling face if you are doing the speed limit) are far more effective and for a greater distance afterwards at slowing people down than speed cameras. Having said that, average speed cameras seem to be a good direction to go, obviously better on long singular roads than towns with lots of roads leaving and joining, although it could still work. duncandavis
Wouldn’t a visible deterrent be better than letting people speed or get into an accident and have to deal with the aftermath? Patriiick
Yes, especially in school zones. A 2025 study in New York City showed that speed cameras reduced injuries by 16%, and collisions by 30%. Even better, Toronto Metropolitan University found that speed cameras reduced “the number of speeding vehicles by 45% in urban school zones”. RP Orlando, by email
I have a, perhaps controversial, take on this. Hide the speed cameras, but don’t issue any fines to those who breach the limit. Just points on the licence. This would take away the argument from many that speed cameras are a cash cow and not a safety feature. Niels, by email
If you want to generate revenue, hide the cameras. If you want people to slow down, make them highly visible. I know very few people who haven’t been caught by a speed trap. I was going to go back to where my so-called offence took place but decided to take the cheap way out, a £100 speed awareness course that taught me nothing. I do know it was a dual carriageway with a barrier to stop pedestrians crossing the road – and a speed limit that dropped from 40 to 30 with no discernible reason. They have these cameras in Italy. They are the size of a wheelie bin and are bright orange. Guess what – no one speeds past them. The police also have radar guns but where it is important that people don’t speed, pedestrian crossings etc, the cameras do a perfect job. iptraveller
In Surrey, where I learned to drive, cameras were hidden, painted grey. When I started driving farther afield, I was amazed that anyone in the counties which had already adopted yellow painted cameras was ever caught speeding. They were so visible compared to the ones we had in Surrey. Now there are the warnings on GPS and satnavs. No excuses. WordChazer
Often local authorities only put cameras at high accident sites. Average speed checks are located to stop street cruising, with limited effect. Previously I was a transport planner and had geographic information system access to all the locations and police metadata on the Stats19 forms. It is sobering to overlay all the slight, serious and fatal accidents, for all years. There is no discernible pattern – distribution of data points is everywhere. Zero accidents should be the aim. Not difficult to black box all new cars and stop speeding.
As a pedestrian, cyclist and driver I agree. I honestly believe drivers for their licence should walk down a dark country lane, cycle down an A road, deal with stupidly bright headlights. Driving is seen as a right but it’s not it’s a privilege. funkymentalist
Speed limit signs should be clearly visible, close enough together, and not faded, nor obscured by vegetation. They should not be contradictory, as they sometimes are when temporary signs are reached before permanent signs. When that has been achieved, speed cameras should be hidden. FromageBleu
Could just make cars unable to exceed speed limit. Very easy to do. Or fit them all with black boxes. Seamusheaneyisbrown
From July 2024 all new cars sold in the EU [and Northern Ireland] are required to have speed limiters. Wantage
No. I don’t think speed cameras should be hidden. That does not deter people speeding, it just gives them a ticket. The whole point is to slow people down.
Another aspect of road safety that bugs me a great deal is tailgating. This is a very serious offence in Florida. (I don’t know about the rest of the US.) It is up there with drink-driving, and in my opinion it should be because it is very dangerous, and causes some of the worst accidents on motorways.
Hopefully with AI, they can invent a camera which picks out vehicles tailgating. And I wish the police would give that issue as much attention as speeding, at least on motorways. AndyPandy1968
If [drivers] don’t know where speed cameras are (and there could be one anywhere) they’ll slow down. Currently they speed until they see a highly visible camera. TenaroG
It is better to drive for the current road conditions, not the speed limit. Speed limit signs encourage drivers to drive at that speed and cannot react to it raining or being icy – or react to rare events, like someone turning right into a seldom used road (I would argue a no-right turn sign would be better than dropping the speed limit to 50 or 40mph).
Most times when you moderately exceed the speed limit, nothing happens; it is unlikely to cause an accident, unless there is a speed trap which causes sudden braking. However, it remains true that the energy of a crash is proportional to the square of the speed. There is more than double the energy crashing at 30mph over 20mph (50% speed increase).
There is no point driving at 30mph on a housing estate, a half a mile at 30mph takes 1 minute, at 20 takes 1.5 minutes. You just get to the next queue 30 seconds sooner. The average speed in London due to congestion is 7 to 20mph.
On a dual carriageway, the capacity (vehicles per hour) can be increased by reducing the speed: peak capacity 20mph for cars and 30mph for buses and lorries. Rob333
No. I see one, I slow down. I mean, ahem, I maintain that safe speed I was already doing, obviously! You could hide them and potentially make more revenue but that grapevine is waaaay bigger than anything Marvin sang about. Word spreads so quickly that people, at least locals, would know all about the secret cameras quicker than Shaw Taylor could say keep ’em peeled. catchytitle
I was once cautioned for signalling to drivers that a speed camera was coming up.
I thought, what’s your problem? Speed cameras are about improving road safety and I’m getting all the cars to slow down. They should have given me a medal and a gold clock, not a caution. Charismata
Eh? They are meant to make the roads safer. Which they don’t do if you don’t know they are there. Simply putting up a sign does not make people slow down, we know this from repeat experience. Practically, it would also be daft to hide them as you would need so many signs, eg to notify that cameras are present, then to notify that cameras are not. I’m very suspicious of the mentality that thinks they should be hidden to “catch people out”. It’s the same mentality that insists on prison for non-dangerous offences and, at its most extreme, capital punishment. Both things confer only brutality upon society and the resultant pressure on social and health services while probably not reducing crime. Believers of demonstrably ineffective punitive systems are a true menace, preferring we all suffer under such systems so they can get a sense of “vengeance”. This to me is more sociopathic than many of the criminals and certainly more so than most speeding drivers. Wyrdsister
Speed cameras are very expensive to install, maintain and operate, which is why they are only placed where deaths have occurred. If visible, then most drivers slow down at them proving that they work as intended, while drivers ignoring them correctly get fined. This is why you see many other physical methods for restricting speeds such as humps, tables, cushions and chicanes. Any road without cameras or physical controls will always see drivers that speed. swely
With an electric car there is so little feedback that I always use the speed limiter. It doesn’t require many people doing this to bring everybody into line, literally! I’ve worked in the auto industry and had to look at overall safety issues. The statistics are as clear as they are for smoking when it comes to speeding – just don’t do it. Forlornehope
Yes to secret cameras to reduce speeding but why stop there? Why not also introduce secret number plate recognition cameras to tackle the industrial-scale dumping of household goods all over our pavements?
Britain’s cities, especially working-class communities, are being turned into public dumps where illegal fly-tipping by the middle-class and small businesses is out of control. If your vehicle is used for illegal public dumping, you should have your driving licence revoked for 12 months and then be forced to resit your driving test. Let’s take back control of our pavements! whitman100
In reply to whitman100: Most people don’t want to live in the surveillance society you describe. We know it doesn’t stop crime. It simply changes it. Wyrdsister
They seem to catch enough people anyway in their bright yellow condition. Seems fairer with that much warning. unclestinky
Clearly, having signs decreases the speed in any specific camera’s location. However, it also provides tacit permission to speed elsewhere.
I think the obvious solution to this paradox is to require car manufacturers to begin turning off car safety features at 30mph. Start small – passenger airbags turn off at 31mph, driver ones at 50. By the time a car hits 71, an ejector seat should be ready to fire the driver into the ceiling. It would be interesting to learn how many drivers would be willing to risk their own health rather than that of others as they speed “perfectly safely”. Hugh B, by email
The recent road safety review ignored the elephant in the room, ie speed. Road traffic deaths [in Great Britain] have averaged around 1,600+ for the last several years; if that figure applied to air or rail travel, fleets would be grounded and networks shut down until the matter was investigated. Because road traffic deaths happen in small numbers per incident, they are hardly noticed, often barely making local media, marked only by sad little shrines of flowers by the side of a stretch of road.
So … my thoughts (not vote winners)
1. Review all speed limits; 20mph where conditions are hazardous, 30 up to 40 on the outskirts of towns/villages (30 can go on too long)
2. Greater use of 50mph limit; it’s a big jump 40 to 60.
3. Increase the limit to 80mph on motorways.
Once that’s done, remove the requirement for cameras to be visible and allow local councils to share unpersoned mobile digital cameras and install far more average speed cameras.
Then, allow some leeway (say 10%) and then prosecute everyone who speeds, increase the fines and the number of points. There will be a huge outcry which will settle down when death numbers start to fall dramatically (which they will!) As I said, not a vote winner but an effective strategy to deal with the current ludicrous situation where people think it’s OK to break the law a little bit. Phillip Tanswell, by email
What about a road reflector containing radio-frequency identification (RFID) set to the proper (safe) speed limit? This would communicate with the vehicle passing above. The driver would be alerted and if speed is not adjusted the onboard computer does it for them. Roads are a public place … not your private racetrack. Paul Tobiason, by email
