Just as the title says. Genuinely curious.
(All poll options are assuming it’s safe to do so, i.e. no police are watching to see if you do etc)
Do You Flash Your Headlights to Alert Other Divers about Camera Cars?
HamBoi69 on 26/01/2024 - 16:07
Last edited 26/01/2024 - 16:24
Last edited 26/01/2024 - 16:24
Poll Options
- 576Yes, always. It’s courtesy
- 5Yes, only if another driver alerts me beforehand.
- 101Yes if I’m feeling nice. Regardless of if I’ve been alerted by other drivers beforehand.
- 24No, it’s illegal and I don’t wanna get caught. I never have and never will.
- 0No, only because the oncoming driver didn’t alert me first.
- 7No, but usually do, I just forget sometimes.
- 299No. screw em if they’re speeding.
Comments
It is the ones who don’t connect speeding with increased risks of crashes that are more deterred by the risk of fines.
In my experience, this is definitely not the case.
People that are scared of speed cameras don’t overtake on blind corners or at speeds of 150+kmph (have sensors in the truck that measure distance and speed of vehicles in front).The reality is, people that speed recklessly don’t care about cameras because they are confident waze or their scanners/detectors will save them.
I can go months and not see a patrol car on the highway (in WA), so why would people be scared of getting caught if they think they can game the system.I don’t think the courses would help. The worst offenders will see them as a joke.
I know plenty of habitual speeders that just begrudgingly pay the fines and moan. Doesn’t change their attitude towards speeding.
If been forced to attend a trauma course for speeding (eg: say for speeding in excess of 20kmph - upped it from 10kmph as i make this pretend scenario up as i go 😂) was in place, people wouldn’t be as keen to have to “waste” their time attending a course and there would be no quick easy way out.
you wouldn’t have to worry about people not attending.
Like getting a summons for anything driving related, if you ignore it, the penalty multiplies or consequences become more serious.Also the money and effort to run them would be very expensive.
Is there a price on human life and safety?
This is just a long way of me saying i flash people because I don’t agree with speed cameras.
I don’t like people speeding, but i think the people caught are more often then not, relatively ignorant or innocent while the habitual dangerous drivers dodge cameras like the plague and get off scott free.
Don’t believe me? Think about how often you will see on the news a article or video of someone doing crazy speeds caught by a camera… its so rare, it makes the news when it happens - and usually its a patrol car hiding that gets them, not a camera.Yet, i will see people doing it a couple times a week.
@El cheepo: Frankly nothing will reach the people who really don’t give a shit. They continue to offend no matter what happens. The trauma courses won’t achieve anything. They will think they are getting away with it because it won’t cost them anything.
The middle ground people might get something out of the trauma cases but, generally, they understand anyway. They just think a bit of speeding doesn’t hurt anyone. Which it won’t do until something goes wrong. With any luck they then have a one vehicle accident and don’t affect anyone else. These people would also be deterred by the risk of a camera somewhere watching them speed. Nothing like a fine to make you be more vigilant for a while.
There is no perfect answer. Maybe we start by having limiters on the cars that stop you being able to go really nutty speeds. Perhaps a logging device with a gps and capturing software that tracks what you are doing to look for people driving outside accepted boundaries. You do something particular bonkers the cops are sent a message and you start getting tracked to be intercepted. This would probably help with stolen vehicles as well. However, I can’t see civil liberties accepting that one.
In the meantime we have speed cameras and, yes, it may not capture all the worst but they are a small minority. It will mean a lot of other people will think about what speed they are travelling at.
Fines come with demerit points, they get enough they lose their licence. They get caught driving with a cancelled licence they are in deeper doo doo.
The cameras certainly work to a degree. Until we find a better way that is what we will use.
But cameras clearly don’t work.
If there weren't cameras, I definitely wouldn't be hovering around the speed limit where possible/I deem safe.
The selfish me would want zero cameras, so I can go as fast as I want, including down your street. But that also means another lunatic can go 80 on my street too.
I don’t agree that they are just revenue raisers, but do agree they don’t have the same effect as a highway patrol. Plus, you really lose the immediate deterrent effect of being pulled over and receiving a ticket.
When you receive a fine in the mail several weeks later, it’s much harder to know what your state of mind was at the time and you are more likely to be annoyed than accept that you should have been going that fast.
That’s the problem.
A habitual speeder is not going to be deterred by a camera. Even if they get caught, they might not know for weeks and it wont stop Them speeding.
But habitual speeders are usually vigilant for cameras, they will spot them easy enough and once they pass it, they know they are safe to speed without fear of repercussion.Meanwhile, poor average joe that didn’t see the speed limit drop or has just pulled out onto an unfamiliar road just got stung $200 for an innocent mistake.
I guess “always” for me comes with a mini clause.
I don’t try to warn people that are clearly driving crazy. (Most of my driving is country/highway)Patrol cars are moving visual reminders, you see one and maybe pass it - but you don’t know if they are still around… a bit like seeing a shark in the water while diving. You might see one and watch it swim off, but you will definitely be looking over your shoulder after.
This is a good argument for unmarked cameras, which I agree would be much more effective.
@Lurk Hartog: Most states in Australia already have unmarked cameras.
With a rising death toll on our roads every year, i can really see their effectiveness…
Your ignorance is painful.
@LFO: The quality of the road will change peoples driving behaviour? lol?
"OooooOoO this road is soo smooth, I'll go the speed limit listed in the school zone and not tailgate".
@Ughhh: Better roads imply avoiding obvious risks.
The School Zone area is the stupidest concept on earth.
A road circumventing the school will be an example of better roads.@LFO: Hmmm so roads need to be maybe a few mins walk from the school?
When and where can kids get onto busses and into parents cars? So practical.
All talk but not much practical thought.@Ughhh: When I mention "roads" I mean main arteries and not suburban streets.
Some better schools have internal driveways so children are safe and able to be picked up quickly and efficiently.
Based in this concept, and avoiding any possibility of an accident, my meaning of better roads.
Ain't cheap and that is the obstacle.
And certainly doesn't match the Australian logic of "go slow … no, slower! … EVEN SLOWER!! … that's it, booked for $peeding" @15Kmh"
I use Waze and always report. A couple Waze reports have saved me some $$
A lot of them are false reports, the ones in the middle of long stretches of 40km/h roadworks are the worst.
They may be false reports or they may be true reports and the mobile speed camera has since moved on.
People also report patrol cars (I know I do) , sometimes they are still there, sometimes they've moved on.
I don't but that's because the cops are usually a bit up ahead in my area, waiting to catch anyone flashing their lights. Seen quite a few people pulled over for doing that.
There is no law against warning people. Just turn your headlights on and off (during the day time only) and you can’t be fined.
The way they fine people is because of high beams in some states.
waiting to catch anyone flashing their lights.
Again, like the camera’s… that is blatant revenue raising/ meeting kpis.
If the idea of cameras is too slow people down, why punish people encouraging others to slow down…
here is no law against warning people. Just turn your headlights on and off (during the day time only) and you can’t be fined.
Like to change you thoughts on that?
https://astorlegal.com.au/is-it-illegal-to-flash-your-headli…
https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driving/driver-training-a…
Like to change you thoughts on that?
Absolutely not.
Again, it points to high beams as a fineable offence.
Or
“Dazzling” oncoming motorists (not going to happen on lowbeam).
The rest is garbage and police wouldn’t waste their time trying it.
There are plenty of obscure road rules people break daily and in front of police, rarely do they follow through on pulling people up for them.
(Unless you are giving them attitude or reason to want to)If you don’t use your highbeams and get fined, its 100% worth challenging.
Again, it points to high beams as a fineable offence.
Or
“Dazzling” oncoming motorists (not going to happen on lowbeam)
I suggest you check your vehicle. Pulling the light stork back on the steering flashing other drivers, every vehicle I've owned since 1986 flashes HIGH BEAM. Maybe your 1956 VW Beetle doesn't.
You can not flash low beam.
@CurlCurl: Otherwise known as park lights.
Or if you have DRL, turning your headlights on and off is not the same as using high beam.
Maybe other states are stricter.
But never had an issue in WA.@CurlCurl: Considering i said:
Just turn your headlights on and off (during the day time only) and you can’t be fined.
The way they fine people is because of high beams in some states.It should of been a given that things like DLR or park lights should be used.
It’s probably best that you
give up
@CurlCurl: Of course you can. Twist the lights on/off/auto to off then on then off then on. That results in a flash in anyone's language.
To add to this, having worked with many lawyers over the years (some with over 3yrs experience) the advice I've gotten is to just not flash the lights.
If a cop pulls you over, it's your word against theirs with bugger all evidence on your end to help you argue your way out of a fine.
Not to mention the hassle as well.
And for what? Saving speeding motorists from getting fined?
There's no win in this for the person flashing the headlights.
@Mugsy: there isn't a "win" for holding the door open for someone else either, but I think it falls into the idea of a "civil society". Helping your neighbour, etc.
As long as you know if you flash your high beams like most people do you can get done for incorrect use of them.
I always do but hardly anyone seems to do it for me…
Courtesy warning to other drivers = true Aussie hero.
Supporting Government revenue raising overreach = boring conformist
Until they find a way to target deliberate vs accidental speeders, I am going to go with logic which tells me that 95% don't deserve the fine.
Speeders gonna speed, they know how to dodge the cameras too.
So net effect of warning flash = saving ordinary decent hardworking Aussies an unfair and unwelcome fine.
get police racing at red lights. no one accidentally races.
and + it's not entrapment so….
I'm not answering this poll, Mr undercover policeman ;)
Love it.
Always a couple a-holes are going to lick the governments ring and say they shouldn’t speed. Well going 52 in a 50 isn’t speeding as it’s not about safety it’s about getting more money out of YOU.
There is always an excuse why you have to pay more, smoking, drinking, environment, safety I mean come on here in QLD it’s like a $1000 for not wearing a seatbelt. If I want to get in my car and not wear a seatbelt that’s my problem. Who else is it hurting to warrant a ridiculous fine like that.
My point is we are all here to help each other and I'll always risk a fine to save others from one.Well said!
Amazing we are subjugated to expensive and sophisticated cameras taking pictures of crotches and women cleavage … and it is to save lives …
Money talks indeed.
The only way for the Gov/Police to distance themselves from rEvEnuE rAIsing, is to cut off limbs in lieu of money.
Well going 52 in a 50 isn’t speeding as it’s not about safety it’s about getting more money out of YOU.
I thought this was a bit weird but then I checked and it seems there's no tolerance at all for speeding in Queensland. Even if you're 1 km over the limit you're (profanity) lol, that's stupid.
In Victoria you can drive 2-3 km/hr over the limit and get away with it because they deduct that amount from the car's speed. The revenue raising argument is definitely more applicable to other states if there's no tolerance applied. Funny how different all of our states are from one another; we might as well be completely different countries. I would like that.
The Mrs got caught once doing 54 down a hill in a 50 zone $120 fine back when it was cheap now that same fine is $420 but it is all for safety I suppose
safety of the state's budget and not getting caught short?
Let’s assume you’re an average Aussie. We have Medicare in Australia. If you decide not to wear a seat belt, have an prang, and get all mangled, myself and the other tax payers of Australia are burdened with supporting you for the rest of your life. Many, many multiples of your fine.
I've been paying for private health since I was 16, you?
pretty sure a seatbelt is not going to save you from a hit that hard.
Are they going to start giving fines if you jump in a hole, drink poison, jump off a bridge, step near a ledge, climb to the top step of a ladder, I mean come on they are treating us all like retards already
Just make sure that when you do have a crash you kill yourself outright. We don’t want to pay your hospital and rehabilitation bills. All they need to do then is hose you out of the car.
Yeh they know it's bs “It's all for your safety now pay your 1k fine”.
https://7news.com.au/news/qld/queensland-woman-shocked-after…
https://amp.9news.com.au/article/93972598-1bb3-4542-9b7d-d00…
People like you should be able to opt out of wearing a seatbelt and also opt out of medical assistance and government support in the event of a crash.
Same with speeders 👍
People like you should have a permanent health and safety guy to follow you around to keep you aware of all the things that might hurt you. I could almost guarantee you would cop a few daily
It's just a seatbelt dude, not sure why it's such an inconvenience to wear but you do you.
https://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/statistics/summaries/…
An interesting post for Australia Day. It's nice that the Australian spirit is still in the majority of us, but it seems we're halfway to losing our identity. (If this is a reasonable example to draw conclusions from.)
Nope, because "f#&k 'em", that's why.
I only warn other motorcyclists.
Motorcyclists are like vegans in this regard.
Even harley riders?
I don't have a problem with flashing headlights but there won't be a constant stream of motorist to keep the flashing on so I choose not to do it. It's a distraction and unnecessary when you are not speeding. If you want warning stick to Waze you can practice your Aussie heroism on Waze.
I love the people who think speed cameras are a revenue raising exercise. If you don’t speed you don’t get fined. The revenue only comes into it if you break the law.
Yep. It's a voluntary tax.
It's sure not a life saving exercise. Flat bit of road on a 4 lane highway? Perhaps put them where speed may actually be dangerous?
People also die on those sort of roads. Any road can be dangerous if someone loses control and an accident occurs. Accidents on these sort of roads are highly likely to involve high speed crashes because the road conditions are more favourable.
Yes, 115 instead of 110 is extremely deadly. Even though it's been 110 for decades, and cars are many many times safer than they have ever been.
@brendanm: And if you are driving at 110 rather than 115 then it is safer. However, without the speed cameras this 115 might be 120 or even more.
Putting the cruise control on to keep within the speed limit is easy to do, most modern cars have it. The question is why do you feel you need to go at 115 rather than 100 in the first place? If you have trouble maintaining a speed rate then drive at 95, or even 90, to keep under the limit.
@try2bhelpful: I don't, I use cruise control at the speed limit as I don't want to give the government free money. The people doing under the speed limit, spread out over the 4 lane motorway, are more dangerous than those doing 5kmh over.
@brendanm: The cameras are keeping you to the speed limit so they heard doing their job. If they let you off at 5kmph over you would complain they should let you off at 10 kmph over. That is part of the trouble.
Anyone who isn’t overtaking should not be in the overtaking lane. That is how it works. However, people slightly less than the speed limit aren’t being dangerous. It is, generally, the impatient people who speed trying to overtake them are the ones more likely to cause a crash. Otherwise everyone just tootles along.
There is physics involved in accidents. The higher the speed the more difficult it is for a person to react in time to stop an accident and the higher the impact when a crash occurs. As you have already indicated the threat of speed cameras makes you speeding more unlikely. It works with other people as well. I think you’ve proved the point.
I think you’ve proved the point.
I haven't proved any point. Me doing the speed limit so.i.dony get fined is not me agreeing that speed is a massive issue.
The government chooses the thing that is easiest to police and fine, rather than things which actually affect deaths in the road, as is shown by the road toll.
Anyone who isn’t overtaking should not be in the overtaking lane.
Yet they are, and despite it being illegal, none of them are pulled up on it. The M1 between Brisbane and gold coast is filled with morons doing 10-20lmh below the limit, spread out across up to 4 lanes at a time.
@brendanm: Whatever you think is almost irrelevant. The people who look at the statistics, the road conditions and the average driver sets the limits. Because, ya know, they are the experts with all the information. You just have to stick to them. The fact the speed cameras deter you because you will be fined show they work.
We deal with the fact the slower people are in the overtaking lane. That is a whole other problem.
The fact the speed cameras deter you because you will be fined show they work.
Of course they work to slow people down, but look at the road toll. It's obviously not the issue is it.
We deal with the fact the slower people are in the overtaking lane. That is a whole other problem.
It's a problem that should be dealt with, as keep left unless overtaking is a law, yet it's one that is not enforced.
@brendanm: Actually that law is enforced. My man was also charged with it when he went into court on a speeding fine. He copped a fine for both.
I don’t know what makes you guys think you are experts on what is causing the road toll. The experts keep raising the fact that speeding is contributing to the deaths. So what qualifications do you guys have to negate that?
So what qualifications do you guys have to negate that?
Common sense. They've been going on about it for decades, cameras everywhere, focus only on speed, road toll goes up. In other countries, where they train people properly, the road toll is lower.
Flat bit of road on a 4 lane highway? Perhaps put them where speed may actually be dangerous?
Exactly! I see these camera cars parked often on a stretch of road that goes downhill so they could "catch" people speeding.
These speeding camera contract companies are actually among the worst kind of crooks (e.g. Redflex - look up their crimes). Absolute arseholes pretending to help the society.
So by warning other cars of speed cameras your fine with people speeding?
Now consider this a speeding driver loses control of their car hitting a car carrying your family possibly killing them.
Your okay with that?
Don't car much about your loved ones.
Grow up!
Someone doing the speed limit, or under, losing control will also possibly kill your family.
Except someone over the speed limit is more likely to lose control and not have the time to react.
https://www.police.vic.gov.au/road-safety#
https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/topics-tips/spee….
We should lower all speed limits then. I'm sure inattention, no defensive driving ability, and poor testing/ease of getting a licence has nothing to do with crashes.
@brendanm: Did you actually read the statistics for NSW?
“Each year, speeding contributes to about 41% of road fatalities and 24% of serious injuries.”
Yes we should do all those other things but keeping to the speed limit is a very simple no brainer. No training required just back off on the accelerator.
Honestly, dude, of course the other things would also help but this isn’t an either or situation, you can do both.
@try2bhelpful: I hate to not blindly believe our living government, but last time I checked, "speed involved in collisions" was not "speeding" in the sense you think it is. Unless they've changed it, "speed involved in collision" was simply whether they thought that the speed the vehicle was going was too high for that circumstance. Could have been well within the speed limit, but if the car was doing 80 in a 100 zone, they could still determine that "speed was a factor".
In addition, all this focus on speeding, and continuously dropping the allowed margin for "speeding", hasn't positively affected the road toll.
“Each year, speeding contributes to about 41% of road fatalities and 24% of serious injuries.”
Those stats are skewed so badly and in no way justifies their use of speed cameras. Their definition of 'speeding' is a speed that is not appropriate for the conditions. Even if it's below the posted speed limit. The cameras do nothing for inappropriate speeds under the posted limit.
@bobbified: Because you are an expert on this. There is a top speed they set for the best conditions. Yes, you should drive at a lesser speed if the conditions are worse.
@try2bhelpful: You could be driving an appropriate speed, however someone, at a later point, will seem that you were speeding anyway, and add you accident to the "speeding" statistic, even though you were doing 30kmh under the limit.
sure inattention, no defensive driving ability, and poor testing/ease of getting a licence
All of those require long term solutions. You're talking about changing behaviour, experience/skills and changing an existing system (in my state at least, it's already a bit harder to get your license, but that does nothing to full license drivers).
Tackling speed can be immediate and have immediate impact, but does need to be practical ie. Not lowering to 20kmph everywhere. An idiot driving with a bowl of cereal is safer at 40kmph than 60kmph.
All of those require long term solutions
I know the government is terrible at long term solutions, but it's been a bloody long time now, and they haven't done anything about any other factors. I may be being cynical, but none of the other factors can take them in cash really easily.
An idiot driving with a bowl of cereal is safer at 40kmph than 60kmph.
Yes, we should cater everything to the lowest common denominator, rather than removing the lowest common denominator.
I know the government is terrible at long term solutions
It's not just a government thing, culture and behaviour in general is very hard to change. This includes workplace cultures and moral, unless you go full north Korea.
Everyone needs money. What consequences do you propose that will make a memorable impact but not destroy someone?
rather than removing the lowest common denominator.
How do you propose to remove them?
Training, education etc are all long term issues.Everyone needs money. What consequences do you propose that will make a memorable impact but not destroy someone?
If they suck at driving, they can catch the bus.
How do you propose to remove them?
Training, education etc are all long term issues.Long term issues still need addressing. Sticking our heads in the sand has worked well so far? Countries with much better/stricter training and licencing have better road toll results than us, even if they have far worse driving conditions.
Someone doing a reverse park and a mirror check every 30 seconds is a moronic test. They look at the mirror, but don't even think about what is there, and only for the test. People generally have poor situational awareness, and you can see just by driving around, that most people would have no idea what other cars around them are doing, they seem to think they are in their own little bubble.
Also, people that do things because they are "in the right", but it puts them in a dangerous position. Eg entering a roundabout, even when you can see a methhead in a Commodore is about to enter it at 100kmh and run into the side of you. They can't seem to comprehend assessing the situation, rather than blindly following arbitrary rules.
If they suck at driving, they can catch the bus.
Do they suck because
a) they are inexperienced? How is telling them to catch the bus help gain experience?
b) risk takers who think they can get away with anything? I believe serious and repeated offenders have their license suspended already.Long term issues still need addressing.
Long term issues means it requires long time to address, and impact is often not immediate.
Countries with much better/stricter training and licencing have better road toll results than us, even if they have far worse driving conditions.
Again, another thing you've ignored is culture and behaviour of the society. Some countries citizens are much more well behaved.
I agree with the last two, but neither you nor the Gov can control how people think. Can only control the environment in which these people exist by reducing risks.
Do they suck because
a) they are inexperienced? How is telling them to catch the bus help gain experience?
b) risk takers who think they can get away with anything? I believe serious and repeated offenders have their license suspended already.C) they are just bad drivers, and unsuitable to be on the road.
A can be fixed by proper training and licencing as I've said numerous times.Long term issues means it requires long time to address, and impact is often not immediate.
It has been decades and decades of them harping on about speeding now, is the last 30 or 40 years not a long enough term?
Again, another thing you've ignored is culture and behaviour of the society. Some countries citizens are much more well behaved.
It has nothing to do with behaviour. Other countries teach people to drive, we teach them to pass a test. Massive difference.
I agree with the last two, but neither you nor the Gov can control how people think. Can only control the environment in which these people exist by reducing risks.
You can actually, you can teach people the correct way to approach situations. If they fail, no car for them. This is if the government was actually serious about road safety and road deaths, rather than simply saying the same thing over and over and pulling in a heap of money in fines.
I always and only flash when there is a mobile speed camera, yes I've accidentally flashed in front of the incoming police car and nothing chasing me. But i never flash when there is a hwp.
People who think enforcement of speed limits via tools such as speed cameras make no difference to the deaths and injuries occurring on our roads are only thinking about the problem in the simplest of terms.
Yes, getting a speeding fine in the mail a week after doing 80 in a 60 zone did nothing to prevent exceeding the speed limit at the time. But guess what happens the next time that driver is in that 60 zone after receiving the fine? They may be a little more careful.
Also consider what would happen if we had a free for all in terms of speed limits on our roads. Boyracers would be doing 100 in 60 areas because 'they can handle it'. Good luck everyone else.
Went to a motorcycle pre-learner course where the instructor was saying he'd taught police saying this was illegal - according to this drive article the ACT is the only one with a law specific to this, but you could be fined for flashing a car <200m of you in other states
Holy crap I barely got half way through the first page and already used all my downvotes for the day. So many brain dead sheep in this country, what a mess.
I must be the only one confused by the question. Is is referrring to me passing a camera car thats tracking cars in my lane and if so me flashing an oncoming car how is that going to help them?
or is this referring to me passing a camera car on the otherside of the road tracking the oncoming cars and me giving them a heads up
Call me selfish, but I hope as many people as possible frequently pay very large fines each and every time they do the wrong thing, and ideally get taken off the road altogether to ease congestion (other than myself obviously).
Also any "professional driver" who commits an offence which would fail your P-plate test should have that endorsement immediately cancelled (e.g. taxi mounting the kerb while parking).
I flash the lights to indicate a road hazard to oncoming drivers. If the cop car was a road hazard I'd do so.
Recently I was driving on M1 and was on 2nd from right lane (speed limit 100Km/h) and I noticed police lights ahead. I slowed down and noticed the d*ckhead cop had stopped their car blocking both lanes on right side and was writing a ticket for a biker. There was even an emergency lane to the right side and yet he figured it would be convenient for him to stop in the middle of a 100km/h freeway at night, on a bend to write a ticket… wth…
No, because I don't them want them to make a splash !!!
I have been pulled over for flashing lights at other motorists so don't do it anymore. Just Waze now (if I remember to do it, or navigate to it on my screen)
Mind you, indecent exposure is against the law ;)
It is illegal to flash your high beams - don't ever do that! If driving during daytime, just turn your lights on and off again - not illegal.
I do flash oncoming drivers unless they are driving like a d!ck and I let them go. Case in point on the weekend - flashed a couple of cars but let the next driver coming around the blind corner discover it for himself. He was doing an estimated 20 kph over the limit.
Love it!
I add the speed camera to google maps. Helps everyone
Results are heavy for flashers, I myself am a requent flasher, infact I flash every chance I get. I love flashing others.. However I rarely receive a friendly flash from anyone.. Has me questioning the honesty in the poll response, or whether Sydney drivers are infrequent flashers compared to OzB
So what sort of coat do you wear? The old fashioned trench coat?
In cooler months yes, in summer it's the birthday suit
Not really a flash if you don’t have a coat. More of a “display”. :)
Yes always, all speed cameras are for revenue raising and they put them in the most dodgy spots like usually at the bottom of a hill.
@El cheepo: I can see your point and you do have more experience than me.
However, I would disagree with you that cameras only deter the sane person. The sane person realises the risks associated with speeding. It is the ones who don’t connect speeding with increased risks of crashes that are more deterred by the risk of fines.
Maybe the answer to the crashes could be a campaign to drive within limits after a speed camera and leave good stopping distances. Although these should be common sense as well.
I don’t think the courses would help. The worst offenders will see them as a joke. Also the money and effort to run them would be very expensive.
I, certainly, don’t think the cameras are the full answer just part of the solution.
What might be interesting is if someone could build a simulator where people can experience what happens in various situations. That might give people an insight. I can see value in that.