Someone got tired of watching drivers barrel through a speed zone transition on Ōmahu Road. Rather than wait for authorities to install warning signage, they made their own "Speed Camera Ahead" sign and posted it near where the limit drops from 80km/h to 60km/h.
Drivers slowed down. The homemade sign achieved exactly what speed enforcement claims to target: reduced speeds in a dangerous area. The Transport Agency was not pleased.
"The DIY signs may dilute safety outcomes," The Transport Agency said. Their reasoning? "Research has shown that unsigned mobile safety cameras are twice as effective at reducing crashes as signposted mobile safety cameras."
There it is. The quiet part said loud. Hidden cameras are better. Not at slowing traffic. At catching violators.
The Data Authorities Don't Want You Seeing
In 2006, UK Transport Minister Stephen Ladyman admitted that Vehicle Activated Signs are ten times more cost effective than speed cameras at reducing traffic speeds. The data came from Transport Research Laboratory report TRL548 commissioned by the Department for Transport but conveniently excluded from their earlier enforcement figures, according to Wikipedia documentation of UK speed enforcement history.
Portsmouth City Council removed all their speed cameras after concluding that vehicle activated warning signs were "at least as effective at reducing traffic speeds as speed cameras and at one tenth of the cost," per a councillor statement documented in the same source.
One tenth the cost. Same effectiveness. Yet cameras proliferate while warning signs remain rare.
The European Commission's road safety research confirms what common sense suggests. "If it is very important that road users lower their speed on a specific section of the road, e.g. because of an intersection or a nearby school, it is more effective to have a visible speed camera, preferably accompanied by a warning sign," their official guidance states.
But that's not the model being deployed. Cameras are hidden. Signs are omitted. The stated goal is enforcement, not prevention.
New Zealand Proves The Point Accidentally
AA New Zealand documented a revealing case in Kawakawa, Northland. A "Reduce Speed Now" sign installed near a speed camera saw speeding infringements decrease by more than 50 percent, according to the AA's magazine.
That sign prevented violations. People saw it, checked their speed, and slowed down before reaching the camera. Fewer tickets. Safer speeds. Exactly what road safety advocates claim to want.
Yet NZTA's position is that unsigned cameras are superior because they're "twice as effective at reducing crashes." The logic falls apart under examination. If warning signs cut violations by 50 percent, drivers are already traveling at safer speeds. Crash risk drops before anyone gets ticketed.
Hidden cameras only reduce crashes through delayed deterrence. You get fined weeks later, remember the location, and slow down next time. That's reactive enforcement, not proactive safety.
The homemade sign on Ōmahu Road worked immediately. No tickets. No delay. Just instant behavioral change triggered by the possibility of enforcement.
The Revenue Model Doesn't Work With Warning Signs
Coverage from sites like GaukMotorBuzz.com has tracked the global backlash against speed cameras as drivers increasingly view them as revenue collection rather than safety tools. The Hastings case proves why that perception persists.
A free homemade sign achieved the stated safety objective. Authorities condemned it for "diluting safety outcomes" while defending hidden enforcement that generates tickets. The contradiction is obvious.
Speed cameras in the UK generated approximately £300 million annually before pandemic lockdowns reduced traffic volumes. Individual cameras can produce millions in fines per year depending on placement and traffic flow. That revenue disappears if warning signs prevent violations instead of cameras catching them.
Portsmouth Council's decision to remove cameras and install cheaper warning signs revealed the uncomfortable truth: if safety is the actual goal, cameras aren't the most effective tool. But if revenue matters, cameras win every time.
Transport Minister Ladyman's 2006 admission that vehicle activated signs cost one tenth as much while delivering equivalent speed reduction should have triggered wholesale replacement of enforcement cameras with warning infrastructure. It didn't. Cameras remained the preferred option despite being ten times more expensive.
What Actually Works For Safety
The European Commission research identifies visible cameras with warning signs as the most effective approach when specific locations require speed reduction. That combination provides maximum deterrence with minimal surprise.
Hidden mobile cameras create broader uncertainty about enforcement locations. Drivers slow down across wider areas because they don't know where cameras might be positioned. That's the theory NZTA cites when defending unsigned enforcement.
The problem is enforcement gaps. Mobile cameras aren't everywhere. Once drivers learn the common deployment locations, they speed between those points and slow only where they expect enforcement. The deterrent effect becomes localized rather than systematic.
Warning signs work everywhere they're installed. The Kawakawa example showed 50 percent violation reduction from a single sign. Scale that across an entire road network and you've achieved dramatic speed reduction without enforcement infrastructure.
Vehicle Activated Signs that display driver speed in real time work even better. The feedback is immediate and personal. Drivers see they're traveling 75km/h in a 60km/h zone and slow down instinctively. No enforcement threat needed. Just information.
Multiple UK studies have found VAS systems reduce mean speeds by 4 to 8 km/h with effects persisting long after initial installation. The technology costs thousands per unit compared to hundreds of thousands for camera systems including installation, maintenance, and processing infrastructure.
Why Authorities Prefer Cameras Anyway
Enforcement generates data. Every ticket creates a record. Someone exceeded the limit at a specific time and location. That data justifies the camera placement and funds the enforcement system.
Warning signs prevent violations. No data gets generated when drivers slow down before reaching measurement points. You can't prove the sign worked because there's no record of violations that didn't happen.
From a bureaucratic perspective, cameras provide measurable outcomes. Tickets issued. Fines collected. Revenue generated. Those metrics justify budgets and demonstrate enforcement activity.
Warning signs show nothing. You can measure traffic speeds before and after installation to prove effectiveness, but that requires dedicated studies rather than automatic data collection. The lack of ticketing metrics makes it harder to justify continued funding even though prevention is the actual goal.
The incentive structure favors enforcement over prevention. Police departments, local councils, and transport agencies operate within budget constraints that reward measurable activities. Preventing violations doesn't create measurable outputs the way catching violators does.
The Hastings Sign Worked. That's The Problem.
NZTA removed or demanded removal of the homemade signs, citing concerns about "diluting safety outcomes" and potential confusion with official signage. The McMillan Road Policing Manager told media that drivers caught speeding in the area would face the same consequences as anywhere else.
The message was clear: unofficial warnings interfere with official enforcement. Even when those warnings achieve the stated safety objective.
If speed reduction is the goal, the homemade sign succeeded. Drivers saw a warning, checked their speed, and slowed down. Mission accomplished. Zero cost to taxpayers. Immediate behavioral change. Sustained effect as long as the sign remains visible.
But NZTA's model requires hidden cameras that catch violators rather than prevent violations. The fine collection funds the enforcement system. Warning signs threaten that revenue model by preventing the violations that justify the cameras.
The Portsmouth Council data proved warning signs work as well as cameras at one tenth the cost. The Kawakawa trial showed 50 percent violation reduction from a single sign. The European Commission confirmed visible enforcement with warning signs is most effective when specific locations need speed reduction.
Yet enforcement agencies across the UK, New Zealand, Australia, and elsewhere continue installing hidden cameras while minimizing warning signage. The explanation isn't safety. It's revenue.
What The Numbers Actually Say
British Medical Journal research from 2005 found speed cameras reduce road traffic collisions and related casualties. A 2005 Department for Transport report documented 22 percent reduction in personal injury collisions and 42 percent fewer people killed or seriously injured following camera installation.
Those numbers are real. Cameras work. But so do warning signs, and the comparative cost effectiveness heavily favors signs.
The question isn't whether cameras reduce crashes. They do. The question is whether cameras are the most effective tool for achieving speed reduction, or merely the most profitable.
Portsmouth Council answered that question by removing cameras and installing cheaper alternatives that worked as well. Northumbria Police's Acting Chief Inspector of motor patrols suggested in 2003 that cameras didn't reduce casualties but did raise revenue, though the force later retracted that statement under pressure.
The retraction doesn't change the underlying reality. If prevention is cheaper and more effective than enforcement, why choose enforcement? The answer has to involve revenue.
The Homemade Sign Was Free
Someone bought or printed a speed camera warning sign and posted it on Ōmahu Road. Total cost: perhaps $20 for materials. Installation time: minutes. Maintenance: none unless weather damages it.
Effect: immediate speed reduction at a dangerous transition zone where the limit drops 20km/h. Zero ongoing costs. No processing infrastructure. No ticket disputes. No administrative overhead.
NZTA considered this a problem requiring removal rather than a solution worth replicating. The reasoning exposes the actual priorities. Prevention is cheap and effective. Enforcement is expensive and generates revenue. Guess which one transport agencies prefer.
The pandemic briefly interrupted the speed camera revenue model when lockdowns reduced traffic volumes. Many enforcement systems operated at a loss during that period because fixed costs exceeded ticket revenue. Warning signs would have continued functioning at zero marginal cost.
That financial dynamic explains everything. When safety is the goal, prevention wins. When revenue matters, enforcement dominates. The policy choices reveal which objective actually drives decisions.
The Future Is More Cameras, Fewer Signs
NZTA announced plans to expand mobile camera deployment while maintaining that unsigned enforcement is more effective. They're installing additional fixed cameras at high crash risk locations while omitting warning signs in many cases.
The homemade sign that worked got removed. The official cameras that generate tickets will proliferate. Speed reduction happens either way, but only one approach fills enforcement budgets.
UK councils continue installing new speed cameras despite the Portsmouth data showing cheaper alternatives work as well. Australian states are expanding camera networks. North American jurisdictions that previously banned or limited automated enforcement are reconsidering as revenue needs increase.
None of those expansions emphasize warning signs. The focus remains on catching violators rather than preventing violations.
The Hastings homemade sign proved a fundamental point: people slow down when warned about enforcement. They don't need to be caught and fined. They need information about where enforcement might occur. Simple warning signs provide that information at negligible cost.
Authorities hate it because prevention doesn't fund enforcement systems. Revenue requires violations. Violations require catching people who don't know cameras are there. Warning signs interfere with that model by preventing the violations that justify the infrastructure.
The stated goal is safety. The revealed preference is revenue. And when a $20 homemade sign achieves the safety goal without generating a single fine, it exposes the contradiction that enforcement agencies would prefer stayed hidden.
Just like their cameras.