Is it unreasonable to post a warning about a speed trap?

[bbcessex]

Just seen this debate going on on our local village Facebook group.

Poster A: Warning everyone, there are police with speed gun trap at XXX lane today.
Poster B: thanks for sharing, will go slow down there today
Poster C: the point of speed gun traps is to catch speeders and give them consequences like fines or speed awareness courses. Consequences change behaviours. You are wrong to pre-warn people as it removes the consequence which means the drivers won't learn a lesson.

For the record, I'm not any of the posters but I completely agree with Poster C. Typical facebook bunfight has now ensued.

Is Poster A unreasonable to post the warning?

I’ll be accused of being sanctimonious I expect, but I’d speed limits were observed, there wouldn’t be a need for warnings. The fact that there are mobile cameras surely indicates that they’re aware that too many people are flouting the speed restriction.

Even if you don’t agree with it, that is the restriction and should be observed. The only caveat is if the restriction has changed- from 40 to 30 for example- then there should be plenty of notice about the change.

@JaneEyreAgain - interesting.. is there any evidence behind that?

I'm also with C.

It's the same as flashing someone to warn them if a speed trap. I'm with A.

Can't really decide if A or B are BU for their opinion but C is definitely BU for using the meaningless phrase "pre-warn"

I’m with A

Wasn't there a story in the news about a woman who got so fed up with people speeding down her street, that she borrowed a high-vis coat and aimed her black hairdryer at cars to make them slow down?
I'm with C - better to get a fine and change your behaviour, than slow down just for one day.

Not at all unreasonable, quite helpful in fact. People will be more careful.

I'm with C.

Tough shite if they get caught speeding. It may make them think twice next time.

I don't think people should give warnings. I've seen similar on a parents group warning of traffic wardens on the school run so people don't park in the zigzags or double yellows close to school. That really annoys me as they shouldn't be parking there anyway.

People behind them who aren’t expecting them to do this will have to slow, too. This could cause an accident

then the people who cause the accident is the idiot who was too close and didn't pay attention.

I remember the requests not to post about police presence around the last terrorist attacks.

So, even if it looks like the police is only there for speed trap, I would never post about it and warn others -ok, maybe DH

It's my kid on a bike that might end up injured because of a moron speeding, so for that reason I wouldn't post either anyway.

I'm with A. Prevention is better than cure in this instance I'd say. We have one regularly outside a school and its location is shared by the police. I'd rather everyone did 30mph after reading it that someone do 40mph, get a ticket but also hit a child. (Worse case scenario I know)

I would much prefer people to slow down, especially through villages so warning people wouldnt bother me.

The mobile units seem to positioned in places where they will make the most revenue not necessarily the accident hotspots For e.g. when the road suddenly drops to 30 from national speed limit, so you can hardly blame people for being cynical about these 'road safety campaigns'

Yes, put static speed cameras in the hotspots to slow people down, but maybe the mobile units would be better deployed educating people about the dangers of speeding in schools etc.. not prosecuting drivers for going 3mph over the speed limit after leaving a national speed limit road, but I guess there is no money it that is there.

I'd rather everyone did 30mph after reading it that someone do 40mph, get a ticket but also hit a child.

but that person will only stick to 30mph today, and go back to 40mph tomorrow. They might learn a better lesson if they get a ticket today.

I’m with C. Can see the argument for prevention, but A’s approach is only going to prevent people from speeding on that specific time on that specific stretch of road - and maybe make them more confident about not getting caught out the rest of the time.

When the police themselves publicise where they’re putting mobile cameras, how is this any different? We all know they’re income generators anyway.

We all know they’re income generators anyway

Don’t speed and they won’t make any income.

Locations of speed traps in our county are advertised by the speed trap team

I'm with a and b therefore. Doing nothing wrong.

I wish there were Yes/No answers for this sort of question.

I agree with *Deux’ there’s w favourite place round here when the speed limit drops from 50 to 30 and the police hide round the corner to catch those that are still decelerating. Must earn the government a fortune.

When the police themselves publicise where they’re putting mobile cameras
then you know they are going for prevention that day.

When they don't, you have no idea what exactly they are doing. I don't know about you, but I am quite happy with the idea of cops trying to catch the bad guys.

If the purpose is to slow traffic down then the outcome is the same, isn't it?

I agree with C. If people don't want a speeding ticket, they shouldn't drive over the speed limit.