its very poorly written/researched and on an important subject, but the other part of me thinks its critical the inaccuracy’s are highlighted.
Its already confusing enough for the public to understand what comes under the control of the police and what is operated by
Highways England
without this article changing back and forth between discussing police cameras used for fines and “Highways Agency Digital Enforcement Camera System”
It also give a false sense of what monitoring is possible, the cameras on the motorways (used for monitoring not fines) are very poor quality. Footage from private cameras from nearby businesses had to be used investigate what happened in my husband’s death, because h.e footage was unusable.
When forced by a coroner, h.e admitted that the quality of images and usability of the ‘tech’ built into the road “isn’t effective”
This ‘description’ of a smart motorway is lazy, hugely inaccurate and down right dangerous
“They are supposed to improve traffic flow by varying the speed limit, using the hard shoulder as a driving lane and asking drivers to stop in ‘refuges’ if their car breaks down”
“ask driver to stop in refuge” {is it a request if you’ve no option and probably cant do as “asked” anyway?}
H.e love the public to think this is under the operation of the police, that there are top spec cameras recording your every move, tech monitoring you, etc when in reality its very far from the truth.
Ask Alexandru, Jason, Derek, Nargis, Jamil, Zahir, Dev, +38 more….. oh, sorry you can’t!
The Mail should stick to writing about Megan and pitching teachers against shop workers!