Speed Camera in Horse Box!

[st4]

Average speed camera's would cut all speeding out for sure. Slight problem and its the survelience society I mentioned earlier, I don't want the state to know where I am driving and when. Its too big brother for me, and I think the government should have less interference, not more in the motorist. I am very against the black box idea and GPS survellence being linked to road pricing, the government has no business knowing where I am going and when.

However when you here about nut bags about that lady, the SPECs system seems the only way, but natural selection will see her off the road, hopefully just taking herself

I am all for cops pulling you over, giving you a ticking off, explaining the consquences of what you are doing is wrong, and more importantly why. an NIP fails to deliver on all these counts except the fine. Also being pulled over slows you up even more, and it teaches you that speed alone will not be the fastest way from A to B. A NIP does none of these.

 

[chriswt]

Average speed camera's would cut all speeding out for sure. Slight problem and its the survelience society I mentioned earlier, I don't want the state to know where I am driving and when. Its too big brother for me, and I think the government should have less interference, not more.

Sorry, I was refering to the motorway type average speed cameras fixed at two points, but then again I guess they'd have to be two points without side roads to nip down.

Speeding is a difficult issue and causes the destruction of many peoples lives, be it accident victims and their families or the drivers that cause them.

In some ways what I think speed cameras have done is to have a negative effect onpeoples attitude towards speeding. The focus seems to be more on the taxation side of things than the actual potential effect of inappropriate speed and dangerous driving which is not helping at all.

 

[st4]

Speeding is a difficult issue and causes the destruction of many peoples lives, be it accident victims and their families or the drivers that cause them.

In some ways what I think speed cameras have done is to have a negative effect onpeoples attitude towards speeding. The focus seems to be more on the taxation side of things than the actual potential effect of inappropriate speed and dangerous driving which is not helping at all.

100% right there.

 

[st13phil]

Speeding is a difficult issue and causes the destruction of many peoples lives, be it accident victims and their families or the drivers that cause them.

Without wishing to cover old ground again, I'll make one point: Bad driving can have deplorable consequences including causing injury or death. Exceeding a posted speed limit (i.e. "speeding" in popular parlance) may or may not constitute bad driving. Incorrectly equating the two has resulted in UK road safety policies that have failed to address the key issue of driver quality and have left us with more or less the same appalling rate of injury and death on the road that we had 10 years ago. Bumstorm's horsebox wheeze will not make one jot of difference to that.

 

[st4]

Without wishing to cover old ground again, I'll make one point: Bad driving can have deplorable consequences including causing injury or death. Exceeding a posted speed limit (i.e. "speeding" in popular parlance) may or may not constitute bad driving. Incorrectly equating the two has resulted in UK road safety policies that have failed to address the key issue of driver quality and have left us with more or less the same appalling rate of injury and death on the road that we had 10 years ago. Bumstorm's horsebox wheeze will not make one jot of difference to that.

True, and that is even more reason to have police on the roads doing patrols rather than hiding in vans, how can a camera judge good and bad driving. This has been covered and the conclusion that was arrived at was a human touch is better.

I know a copper and he agree's with the notion of increased man presence as opposed to increased camera presence.

To bring us back on thread, look at your speedo if you see a horse box. By not speeding you will save fuel, and that will save you money these days.

 

[MBManInKen]

It is deception in so much as they are trying to conceal themselves.

First of all, where the police is concerned, we're mostly talking about criminal rather than civil matters. As such, I have absolutely no problems with the police using hidden tactics to catch those criminals. Or should we give the advantage to those law breakers?

Maybe its not even so much that but the method in which the fine is then delivered.

Perception <> reality

After all, a breach of the rules is a breach of the rules. I find it quite bizarre how so many keep banging on about how they would want more of the other law breakers to be caught, but don't like strong enforcement where it impacts on their breaking the law. In the end, you get the fine for not adhering to the rules.

The whole hidden camera thing is a bit to Big Brother and Orwellian for me, it seems as if you don't mind it

No, I don't mind cameras in public spaces. Those spaces belong to all of us, they are not private space - by definition. Some people don't want cameras flashing them when they go past them above the speed limit, but on the other hand would be quite keen to use them to catch the idiot that dents their car in the supermarket, or the pick pocket that nicked their wallet in the tube. It's either one or the other. Many places here in Central London are a lot safer because of the presence of cameras. What I do in the privacy of my home is my business, but on the public roads, I can only welcome methods to make them safer and to offer suitable evidence if anything were to happen to me.

Whether or not cameras are the suitable instrument to tackle speeding is quite a different matter and I have said already that I currently don't believe they are. I would welcome more police out and about to enforce the law and make communities safer, but if I get caught by a camera because I break the law, I should not moan about but stand up to my actions and take it on the chin.

Its perceived, by many, to be a money raising exercise under the guise of law enforcement, rightly or wrongly. Ask yourself this, would the police still do this if the punishment for speeding was different, i.e. no fine and just speeding points or community service punishment?

I have said this in the past: it is by and large not the policy who decide on what policies there are. It is in theory the law making body of this country (Parliament) and in practice the government that sets out policy guidelines and makes the laws. The justice system is there to enforce them. That is a basic tenet of a democratic system: separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers.

In that respect, there does not seem to be much difference between left or right governments.

 

[MBManInKen]

CCTV and camera's are merely a deterent, the actual enforcement should come from a human, not a letter in the post.

Why? Surely enforcement should be related to an incidence of breaking the law?

Firstly we are made to feel like criminals for what is now deemed a socially acceptable crime. Be that right or wrong that is how its perceived.

What is socially acceptable? Speeding? Not in my book it isn't. Of course, there were times when driving around when boozed up was considered "socially acceptable". Fortunately we have now moved on. In some countries the same has already happened with speeding and it is perceived more and more as quite unacceptable.

In any event, there can only be one measure in law: the law. If the laws are no longer relevant or need changing, there is a process for that. In the mean time, you can't have a lawful society where at the same time every individual decides what is right and what is wrong. The whole principle is that we all, young or old, rich or poor, are subject to the same laws. When we break the law and the state then punishes us for it by taking our dosh, we only have ourselves to blame.

Its commercially viable for "safety camera vans" to opperate but not so viable to the same number of officers out on the beat and round up vandals etc.

Policing should not be about "viable". Yes, I would like to see more police out and about. But if I have to choose between policemen investigating more serious crime while the cameras catch the speeders (hidden or not), I know what I would do. My main gripe is that more and more red tape is keeping policemen stuck behind a desk or reluctant to enforce the law out of fear of the administrative overhead. Policy makers should get rid of that and use the freed resource to send more police out on the roads.

My advice, don't speed, so don't give them money unneccesarily.

I don't speed and consequently they haven't taken my money. But I must say that there is something rather appalling about the theory that you should stick to the law because it costs you money. In a civil society we should stick to the law because that is what makes a lawful, free and fair society. In other words, we should adhere to the law because that is the responsible thing to do. After all, we would expect others to respect our legal rights, so we should in turn respect them too.

Those laws most certainly aren't perfect. But they are better than a society where every individual decides what they want to do. If the laws aren't up to it, then we should jolly well change them. And that also depends on the quality of politicians we vote in or out.

 

[Dryce]

Exceeding a posted speed limit (i.e. "speeding" in popular parlance) may or may not constitute bad driving. Incorrectly equating the two has resulted in UK road safety policies that have failed to address the key issue of driver quality and have left us with more or less the same appalling rate of injury and death on the road that we had 10 years ago.

My observation is that speeding and bad driving do, more often than not, go hand in hand.

Far from being appalling the UK has one of the best records for road injuries and fatalities in the world. And that's with a large increase in road users and an influx of foreign drivers over the last decade.

 

[DaveK]

With have more CCTV cameras per head of population than any other country in the world....and still have a massive crime problem. Explain that to me please.

 

[st4]

Okay, so if the law was changed and motorists were not fined for their actions, would the police be so rigerous in enforcement of traffic law. Can anyone answer this question (with their opinion).

You are absolutely right to the extent that speeding is law breaking AND that if we want camera survellience as to catch one sector of society then its only fair to use it on another.

But I am of the view that camera's "catch" the lawabiding too, and in road traffic you are still been watched even though you are not breaking the law, and that your movements are in theory stored on a data base. This goes with CCTV. I regard this a breach of personal privacy. A man with a laser gun is only separating the "criminals" from the "law abiders". You can argue that CCTV/camera does the same, but your law abiding movements are being stored somewhere (for the government to lose).

I feel that if we give an inch, they'll take a mile. Initially what would start as a law enforcement camera system will subsequently morph into a road pricing system monitored by cameras, and this will morph into a GPS based in car monitoring with the state armed with knoledge of where you drive, when you drive, and how long you stay at your destination. Why should the government have that? CCTV can be used in a such away, and I don't think this is right.

Fuel is so heavily taxed it is pay as you drive (but the government can't tell how you burn it). Thats the difference.

 

[chriswt]

My observation is that speeding and bad driving do, more often than not, go hand in hand.

Now that’s a big old can of worms there.

In alot of cases you are right but I think speeding can only be judged case by case, road by road and is not so easy to generalise.

I would say that doing 5mph over the limit on a clear and wide rural road is, although technically speeding, far less dangerous than driving a driving at the legal limit of 30mph on a residential road in a built up area flanked by parked cars.

 

[chriswt]

With have more CCTV cameras per head of population than any other country in the world....and still have a massive crime problem. Explain that to me please.

I don't necessary disagree with your first statement but what do you mean by 'a massive' crime problem?

CCTV is only part of the picture. It may do its job in protecting the public and catching offenders but its not the CCTV that passes the sentences and runs the rehabilitation centres.

 

[davidjpowell]

I don't mind the cameras as a whole, particuarly when around schools and built up areas. However to prioritise an open country road (which looked straight) to me means that those built up areas have not been (unless North Wales Police have a fleet of Horse Boxes)?

I generally do not drive that quickly and have not acquired any points, touch wood. I have had one or two chats, and had a finger wave. I think that is because if I do speed it would tend to be on open / faster roads such as Motorways. In any case as I get older the rush to save 5 mins seems to get less.

But, if I think in my family terms where do I want to see enforcement. Is it on the main road to Doncaster, which is, or used to be a fast moving wide main road. Or is on the entry to my town where traffic comes flying in from said main road. I would be quite happy with a camera / van / horsebox? on the entry. I see the need, and even as someone who does drive quickly occasionally agree with its use.

This whole government seems to have got tied up with rules which now come into our lives on a daily basis. I personally am mighty fed up with my freedom being ever tightened, and my pocket being continually picked. I would all other things beign equal (which they are not) quite happily move out of the country.

As a side note, I am astonished at the MP's behaviour over expenses. If I tried to claim against tax, or god forbid VAT without a receipt mr Taxman would be most unhappy, so why do they not need recepits. I hope that none of these fines fund their expenses in anyway.

Rant over!!

David

 

[st4]

I don't necessary disagree with your first statement but what do you mean by 'a massive' crime problem?

CCTV is only part of the picture. It may do its job in protecting the public and catching offenders but its not the CCTV that passes the sentences and runs the rehabilitation centres.

CCTV is an "evidence gatherer" and assists in prosecution, but arrests have to be made. With motoring speed cameras etc gather the evidence, feeds the information into the system and generates an NIP.

Since when did shop CCTV have automatic facial recognition and when seeing the face of the criminal call the police and have a copper or two waiting at his house.

Big difference between CCTV and speed camera's.

 

[MBManInKen]

Okay, so if the law was changed and motorists were not fined for their actions, would the police be so rigerous in enforcement of traffic law. Can anyone answer this question (with their opinion).

I have said it before: the police don't make the laws and don't decide what their strategy should be. That is by and large a responsibility for Parliament and the Government.

But I am of the view that camera's "catch" the lawabiding too, and in road traffic you are still been watched even though you are not breaking the law, and that your movements are in theory stored on a data base.

Woa, we're mixing up various issues here. Ye olde speed camera doesn't store anything if you go past and not speed. It only "catches" you if you go too fast past it.

Other camera systems are a different matter. For example, the CC cameras here in London do feed a database, and even an average speed camera system will have to store your details at least for the duration of your transit through their zone. However, any concerns about privacy (justified or not) are really a red herring when it comes to law enforcement. That is just an entirely different subject - the one about privacy and data protection. While I really don't care if anyone knows where I have driven my vehicle, I can accept that there is a need for a proper debate on the privacy aspects of such systems, the security of the information in them, etc. But that is really a different issue. Let's try to stick to one debate at the time .

This goes with CCTV. I regard this a breach of personal privacy.

When you go into a public place, why do you expect privacy? The whole idea of a public place is that we can all go there. You might as well be seen there by other people. Whether or not they are behind a camera or life in front of you surely makes little difference?

There is a related issue around privacy and data protection, as per the previous paragraph, but it really ought not to be confused with the principle of enforcement in public spaces.

I feel that if we give an inch, they'll take a mile.

Now we're talking emotions rather than fact again. In reality, many aspects of your privacy are better protected today than in Victorian England. But of course at the same time new technologies have opened up new problems and issues.

Whatever personal opinions (and stereotypes ) about modern politicians, conspiracy theories are really not supported by facts. There are some real challenges around data protection and we'd better focus on the factual debate rather than all the emotive stuff.

My better half comes from the last police state in Europe and they don't need CCTV or anything of the kind to suppress their population. Whatever your gripe with British or European society, they are not authoritarian or police states.

 

[st4]

I take the point that I've mixed the topic from your Gatso camera, and wasn't that clear about it, I meant more the SPECS style cameras and CCcamera's. Gatso in principle is a good system as its triggered by someone speeding, and not constantly watching you go by.

A new thread is in order maybe for the other issues that I raised, no doubt it will happen anyway. It matters when I go into a public space as CCTV and people are different, it would take a miracle of various eye witnesses to peice together my movements in sainsburys, but for a camera operator it would be too easy.

I can see people who see me, but I can't see the eye behind the camera. Sorry, but its too sinister for me personally.

 

[chriswt]

This is why I, for one, don't see the problem with CCTV:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4062023.stm

I don't really mind being watched to be honest as I'm sure my daily pattern of live in public makes for some very dull viewing.

 

[janner]

Using a horse trailer isn't really cricket is it?
If it was a hog trailer there would at least be some sort of clue

 

[DaveK]

Christwt.. imagine that one day the govt does something that you really don't like or agree with. it's so abhorrent to you that you decide to join a group and make your voice heard. How do you feel about the CCVT network being used to track you and your fellow objectors with a view to stopping you having the right to object. ?

 

[chriswt]

Christwt.. imagine that one day the govt does something that you really don't like or agree with. it's so abhorrent to you that you decide to join a group and make your voice heard. How do you feel about the CCVT network being used to track you and your fellow objectors with a view to stopping you having the right to object. ?

I can understand the point you are trying to make, but with all due respect that sounds a little far fetched.

there are 60 million people in this country who enjoy a freedom which some nations, even today, can only dream of. I would say things would have to go very very wrong in this country before CCTV networks are used to track my whereabouts.

I fear the power of the tabloid media far more than our government.