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

Posted: 9th Mar 2006
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.

Posted: 9th Mar 2006
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

Posted: 9th Mar 2006
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

Posted: 9th Mar 2006
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

Posted: 9th Mar 2006
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

"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!

Posted: 9th Mar 2006

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

---

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"

Posted: 9th Mar 2006
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!

Posted: 16th Mar 2006
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.

Posted: 16th Mar 2006
Yeah.

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

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.

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.

Posted: 16th Mar 2006
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)

Posted: 16th Mar 2006

 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.

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.

Posted: 16th Mar 2006
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 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