Forums > Social Discussion > More speed cameras (big brother is watching)

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 12
alien_oddity
alien_oddity

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: in the trees
Member Since: 31st Dec 2004
Total posts: 7193
Posted:(yes i did do a search please don't beat me with a stick if i am wrong)

Yet again the British government is at it again, now they want to use cameras to spy on us to make sure we don't do anything naughty on the roads.

There are many sides to this subject like road safety ect. pro's and con's and all the grey areas in between.

currently if you are even 1 mile an hour over the limit you can be fined and penalized points even though it's proven that most speedometers are not 100% accurate.

now they want to fine people for.......
1) not wearing seat belts.
2) using mobile phones.

ok so they are genuine problems i feel should be attended to, i've seen some bloody stupid things other road users have done including trying to read a road map at the wheel whilst driving and it really annoys me when people do use mobile phones at the wheel.

i'm trying to not be one sided on this subject but how far will the government go to make money.

there was a story in the news about some woman taking a sip of water whilst stationary, another person was fined for eating a banana whilst waiting for a friend.

i don't feel those offences warrent a fine but i have expeienced people doing their make up/hair in the rear view mirrors at junctions and a few of my friend have been in accidents caused by such events. their excuse.........." sorry i didn't see you there"
of course you bloody didn't!!!!

(hmmm this is hard being impartial)

ok so there are good reasons for speed camera use but what dose the government do with the 22m each year it gets in kick backs from the police?


confused


Delete Topic

Ade
Are we there yet?
Location: australia
Member Since: 14th Mar 2001
Total posts: 1897
Posted:being fined for speeding is a voluntary tax that you choose to pay wink

if you speed and you are caught - don't blame the system, blame yourself for speeding and lining the coffers of the cops or the government





ubbrollsmile


Delete

roarfire
roarfire

comfortably numb
Location: The countryside
Member Since: 8th Jul 2004
Total posts: 2676
Posted:I'm pretty sure Australia has similar stuff that's been brought in recently



There are cameras everywhere nowadays. Don't get me wrong, I'm a good driver, I don't speed or whatever so really I should have nothing to worry about if I'm being watched while I drive, but yes, this whole big brother concept type thing is starting to freak me out a little.



One thing that did freaked me out the other day (sort of off topic but bare with me)



Dad and I were driving under the Burnley tunnel in Melbourne (huge tunnel) and it had a flashing sign saying 'Turn radio on'. It is a 3 lane tunnel but 1 lane was closed for some reason. There was a lot of congestion.



All of a sudden there was a beep and:



'Good afternoon drivers, this is the citylink traffic control centre. The left lane is now open'

(something along those lines)



Knowing that they have a base monitoring all the traffic on the road at all times and they can interfere with all radio stations is a little weird.



Yes they are trying to make the roads safer but at what cost? Where should the line be drawn between safety and privacy?



Crazy world.


.All things are beautiful if we take the time to look.

Delete

FoxInDocs
FoxInDocs

Pooh-Bah
Location: Adelaide, SA
Member Since: 10th Jul 2005
Total posts: 1848
Posted:Written by: Spanner

Well, here in the UK, you obviously wouldn't have every right to do either of these things, hence the fines. As reluctant as I am to repeat myself, I will again point out that those situations can be simply avoided by taking a break or eating breakfast before driving smile




And as reluctant as *I* am to repeat myself and/or rave, in both cases the car was, infact, stationary. Hence, the driver was, infact, taking a break as per your suggestion.


"i am exotic, and must keep my arms down" - Rougie

"i don't understand what penises have to do with getting married" - Foxie

Delete

GeoffonTour04
enthusiast
Location: Oxford
Member Since: 30th Nov 2005
Total posts: 360
Posted:I don't mind speed cameras in urban areas or outside difficult junctions (slowing traffic down makes it a lot easier to pull out & is one of the main uses of cameras in nationals), but there are plenty of completely unnecessary ones aswell. Everyone slows down for speed cameras & 90% of people just speed right back up again, especially if it's not peak time & there's no traffic or people in sight.

In my opinion they should make driving tests a lot harder. I know people who had trouble passing (after several retakes), and they probably wouldn't be on the road if the test was much harder. But, perhaps they shouldn't be on the road in that case (I've seen some horrific examples from inside the car, jumping several lights in one trip without even noticing, for example).

Driving is not a right, it's bloody lethal, and the roads are getting chocka (at least here in the UK) with a mix of arrogant/incompetent drivers, over 65s (refusing to go above 40 in a 60 causing congestion & road rage, usually have bad lane discipline, eyesight, reactions etc), and as it stands they're only going to get worse.


Delete

Birgit
Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 27th Jan 2005
Total posts: 4145
Posted:Just on a side note.. how come everyone complains about "big brother" speed cameras when there's 7 cctv cameras on every bus and everywhere you go already? (not meant as a discussion about cctv... I'd just thought people in Britain must be used to cameras by now!)

"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

dani_babyboo
dani_babyboo

addict
Location: Cannock, staffordshire
Member Since: 23rd Feb 2005
Total posts: 667
Posted:yer agrees with birgit at least speed cameras someone doesnt actually sit there watching its done in the time, speed distance thing and also roadside police have been about ages checking tax discs a lot of speed cameras do this now also

enticed, entrapped, entombed.
intoxicated, impaled, ingested.
bewitched, beaten, broken.
enter the love realm...
insert ur token

o jej, ale bym ci wylizal ten pepek

stepped up promotions

Delete

Spanner
Spanner

remembers when it was all fields round here
Location: in the works... somewhere...
Member Since: 27th Feb 2003
Total posts: 2790
Posted:Written by: FoxInDocs

And as reluctant as *I* am to repeat myself and/or rave, in both cases the car was, infact, stationary. Hence, the driver was, infact, taking a break as per your suggestion.



To the Driving Standards Agency, the phrase "taking a break" would not only mean to park at a safe and appropriate place, but to switch the engine off, which I think is the relevant difference, whether the vehicle is stationary or not.

Without doing the latter while eating a banana or sipping a drink, as neither of those activities require the engine to be on, it's reasonable to assume that the driver is not in proper control of the vehicle. I'm sure no-one would be fined for simply eating or drinking within their vehicle otherwise.

smile


"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.

yay,

:R"

Delete

Dunc
Dunc

playing the days away
Location: The Middle lands
Member Since: 19th Aug 2003
Total posts: 7263
Posted:Why is it reasonable to assume the driver is not in control if the engine is on compared to a non running engine?

The handbrake is on, the gear leaver is not engaged, the clutch is not depressed, the engine is ticking over not racing via the accelorator. Can you explain how it would become possible for a car to suddenly drive away in a harmful manner please to justify it as a reasonable assumption of control? Even in automatics that is a vertual imposibility due to the methods employed within the lever itself.



If a car can engage a gear when the syncromesh (which is part of the gear selection mechanism that mates the various changing cogs within the gearbox) is not in position, the clutch is not depressed and there aren't high enough revs to potentially cause a problem then I'd like to find the owner of that car when an accident does happen and have him select my lottery numbers for me, if he can already beat those kinds of odds I'm almost guaranteed a winning ticket!!



Infact light eating/smoking etc is no worse than talking to your passengers IMO when you're driving. The mere moments you take your eyes off the road would be no worse than reading road signs, looking in your rear view mirror or other such normal driving activities. If you do it in a situation that you have assesed and recognised was potentially dangerous AND cause an accident, you deserve punishment, if you assessd the road to be safe, and it is, and you eat your banana I see no harm nor the requirement for legislation and punishment.



Like I say, if the law is an ass, the law is an ass. It doesn't make it right just because it exists and I guess blindly following it without consideration of what it states is for those who seemingly enjoy the nanny-ness our country is falling further into....


Let's relight this forum ubblove

Delete

Spanner
Spanner

remembers when it was all fields round here
Location: in the works... somewhere...
Member Since: 27th Feb 2003
Total posts: 2790
Posted:Written by: Dunc




Why is it reasonable to assume the driver is not in control if the engine is on compared to a non running engine? The handbrake is on, the gear leaver is not engaged, the clutch is not depressed, the engine is ticking over not racing via the accelorator.







You've assumed all of these factors to be the case, despite the fact that a vehicle's engine can be on and it can remain stationary while in gear. It's a technique I remember well from my own driving lessons.



Because of this possibility, it cannot be reasonable to assume that it isn't in gear, unless you'd prefer more intrusive methods of monitoring this. Tracking devices have already been mentioned in this thread - how about CCTV in your own private car? wink



Written by: Dunc




Like I say, if the law is an ass, the law is an ass. It doesn't make it right and I guess blindly following it is for those who seemingly enjoy the nanny-ness our country is falling further into....





Instead of "blindingly following it", I've considered the reasons why such a law would have been made and am explaining them to you.



It may not make it right. I think it's right, as it's right for me in keeping myself, and other road users alike, safe, even if it is only rarely I see the same respect offered in return smile



Unfortunately, that would be a good analogy to use to describe how I currently feel regarding the FAQ and this thread! I've posted calmly and in a friendly manner and I don't feel as if the gesture is being returned (although I do appreciate the edit, Dunc) therefore I don't feel comfortable enough to participate in it anymore frown


"I thought you are man, but
you are nice woman.

yay,

:R"

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:I think that, much as it is possible to eat while the car is static with the engine on; equally it is also possible to eat while the car is static and the engine on, yet the car is not safe as the driver happens to be one of those who don't sort out the handbrake/clutch etc.

From the viewpoint of those enforcing the law, as those two situations look identical, that could well be the justifcation for simply making them both illegal.

As an analogy, imagine someone who points a replica gun at an armed policeman/woman- much as, in reality, the policeman/woman is totally safe, they will react as if the gun was real, because the two scenarios look the same.

Co-incidently, on last nights news was some video footage of a women caught putting on her make-up using her car mirror whilst driving- that's the kind of stuff they're up against.

As for the 'nanny-state', it's not a term I like, as it is somewhat derogatory; but, if the recent improvements in our societies attitude to safety (eg banning use of mobiles while driving), responsibility (ease of suing irresponsible employers/companies) and respect for the rights of non-smokers in pubs etc, are manifestations of the 'nanny-state', then I say 'bring it on'- I like the nanny-state smile


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

ducky2108
ducky2108

A little bit of a board whore
Location: Glasgow
Member Since: 18th Dec 2005
Total posts: 147
Posted:Written by: onewheeldave

As for the 'nanny-state', it's not a term I like, as it is somewhat derogatory; but, if the recent improvements in our societies attitude to safety (eg banning use of mobiles while driving), responsibility (ease of suing irresponsible employers/companies) and respect for the rights of non-smokers in pubs etc, are manifestations of the 'nanny-state', then I say 'bring it on'- I like the nanny-state smile



On the other hand, we have ASBOs, which make it illegal to stand in groups of more than two on a street corner in certain areas. Whilst this should be true for eveyone, I'm sure if you got three grannies talking on the street, they wouldn't be asked to move along etc.

Oh, and whilst we're at it, we've also seen ASBOs being used to penalise farmers for their animals making noise. City people on their holidays (to the country) complained that the farm noises were disturbing their holiday, and the farmer got an ASBO.

These are examples of why the nanny state, love it or hate it, are not good things.


Ancient wiseman say "It is very strange person, who, when left alone in room with teacosy, does not try it on"

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:I think that where the 'nanny-state' is concerned, there are going to be bad aspects and good aspects.This is true of most things.

I guess I should have said 'I like the good aspects of the 'nanny-state'' (and that, IMO, there are many good aspects).

Mainly though, I was just responding to the common tendency to address an issue by labeling it with the fairly meaningless (and arguably derogatory) name 'nanny-state'.

The fact is that we live in societies where there are rules to protect us- probably 99% of us realise that rules are necessary and good, so it comes down to where we want to draw the line when it comes to setting out what is legal or illegal.

Personally, I feel that drivers applying make-up while driving, or using (non-hands free) mobiles, should be seen as irresponsible and dealt with accordingly, and that's not because I want to be 'nannied' but because I think that it makes the roads more dangerous.

A car is potentially a lethal weapon; more than that, in many instances it is a lethal weapon, as many thousands of people are kiled/maimed as a result of irresponsible drivers.

Given the number of deaths/maimings, I feel that the drivers of cars should take their responsibilities very seriously, and those who don't (who for example, apply make-up whilst driving) should be removed from the roads.

If a side-effect of this is that drivers can't eat a banana in a stationary car with the engine running, even though in their particular circumstances it's safe to do so (ie they've done the appropriate thing with the hand-brake etc); then, personally, I can live with that- I'd suggest that they switch off their engine when they fancy a banana.

One of the nice things about what some dismiss as the 'nanny-state', is the fact that people seem to be taking on a bit more responsibility because they know that, if they don't, legislation may do it for them.

Ten years ago, a smoking ban in British pubs would have been inconceivable and dismissed as unworkable- now it's going to happen; and i think that, in the main, most people expect that it will work very well indeed, as it has done so elsewhere.

I don't think it's a co-incidence that many producers of 'junk' food in the UK are now going to some lengths to self-legislate the contents of their food- they've seen from things like the smoking ban that, if they don't, legislation may.

So, ideally, the end result is that less rules/laws will be necessary, as individuals/companies attempt to pre-empt issues by taking on the responsibility themselves to ensure that their actions/products do not pose excessive risks to others.

And yes, a side-effect will be that theres' some negative aspects which will be labeled as 'pc good mad' or 'nanny state'; hopefully however, the good aspects will far outweigh the bad ones.

My Dad worked in the steel industry and had his hands hacked by dangerous machinery on a regular basis; my Uncle spent his last years gasping for breathe on a ventilator because of the crap he inhaled in his job- I'm glad that this has been addressed and legislated against.

Much as we may moan about state-nannying, IMO, despite the negative aspects, I see it, overally, as progress.

Maybe, in part, it's cos I'm 39 and old enough to remember how things used to be- when buses/trains/colleges where full of cigarette smoke, where if you got injured at work due to dangerous machinery it was just tough luck.

And, more relevant to this thread, where some people objected to the laws on drink-driving, because they considered that they personally could drive as well, or even better, after they'd had a few pints- just like, in the 'judgement' of some drivers today, they can handle a car whilst chatting away on their (non hands-free) mobile, or do their lipstick in the mirror.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

TheBovrilMonkey
TheBovrilMonkey

Liquid Cow
Location: High Wycombe, England
Member Since: 3rd Sep 2001
Total posts: 2629
Posted:I was discussing speed cameras the other day with my uncle - he mentioned something and I'd like to hear the opinions of those who hate speed cameras...

Basically, the idea is to replace the speed limits (except in areas around places like schools), with a system that penalises people for driving too close to the car in front.
Speed cameras already work out how fast you're going - it wouldn't be too much extra to refit them to work out how close the car in front is and take a photo if the distance is too short relative to the speed you're driving.

This works on the theory that on many roads the speed limit is a fair way under the safe driving speed, and that driving up on the bumper of the car in front is much more dangerous that driving a little faster.

Any thoughts?


But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Delete

animatEd
animatEd

1 + 1 = 3
Location: Bristol UK
Member Since: 31st Aug 2004
Total posts: 3540
Posted:Yeah.

That wouldn't be much use for penalising drivers that are driving too close to pedestrians... wink

Speed cameras are a lot of the time, in areas where there are a lot of pedestrians, or a lot of accidents happen. they're not there to catch people out, they're a way of encouragiong drivers to drive safely. You can be the only person on the road, and the camera won't pick up that you're too close to another car, but you could be doing say, 70mph and hit a kid. frown


Empty your mind. Be formless, Shapeless, like Water.
Put Water into a cup, it becomes the cup, put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle, put water into a teapot, it becomes the teapot.
Water can flow, or it can Crash.
Be Water My Friend.

Delete

GeoffonTour04
enthusiast
Location: Oxford
Member Since: 30th Nov 2005
Total posts: 360
Posted:on motorways & large A roads though, that would be perfect. You'd have to have them set to take a picture at say 120- 130mph on the motorway though, most people really shouldn't be driving that fast (and a lot of young drivers would if they could)

Delete

TheBovrilMonkey
TheBovrilMonkey

Liquid Cow
Location: High Wycombe, England
Member Since: 3rd Sep 2001
Total posts: 2629
Posted: Written by: Leaning_Towards_Corruption


You can be the only person on the road, and the camera won't pick up that you're too close to another car, but you could be doing say, 70mph and hit a kid. frown



Yep, that's why you'd need to keep speed limits in areas with lots of pedestrians.
The idea's probably only really viable for motorways and other large roads, certainly not inside towns, but I think it's a good one nonetheless.


But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Delete

Birgit
Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 27th Jan 2005
Total posts: 4145
Posted:I'd love a system like that. It really scares me, having survived a bad accident, when people don't keep distance, especially when I'm a passenger and can't do anything about the situation...

For areas with lots of pedestrians, there is another nice system. It actually shows you your speed without flashing, so you have time to slow down before entering that area smile Works fine for me, though of course some people may take advantage knowing they won't have to pay fines. But then, the ones who want to brake can.


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

Page: 12

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [speed camera* big brother watching] we found the following similar topics.
1. Learn > Juggling > Bounce juggling > big v (crossed columns) *help/resource
2. Learn > Staff > Magnetic Batons ( Iso Sticks ) Mr Jeff > big box quarter iso *help/resource
3. Learn > Yoyo > Level 1 > Brother *help/resource
4. Forums > Clapham 2006 next big on on the 11th and 12th nov *DELETED* [899 replies]
5. Forums > More speed cameras (big brother is watching) [47 replies]

     Show more..