×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

British Drivers Destroying Surveillance Cameras

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the probably-not-with-guns dept.

Privacy 259

miletus writes "A Wired article tells us that not everyone in Britain loves the surveillance state." The linked entry (part of Bruce Sterling's blog) quotes a story about British anti-camera groups, one of which claims its up-and-coming methods "will enable them to destroy a roadside camera in just a few seconds," and illustrates with a burned-out camera. I wonder how many Americans are similarly motivated.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

259 comments

Privacy (2, Funny)

Brian Lewis (1011579) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806930)

It's time to build some tin-foil hats for your cars people.

That, or get some kind of cool preditor laser thing that will somehow find the camera and shine it directly into the lens causing it to go "blind" for the brief period that you are in it.

Re:Privacy (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807426)

From tin foil hats to cool predator things eh.

What an utterly pointless comment. Why do little idiots like you bother?

Mod this loser down for heavens sake.

Not CCTV (3, Informative)

Spad (470073) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806932)

To be fair, these groups are targeting speed cameras (or "Safety Cameras" as they are laughably called by councils) rather than CCTV cameras.

Re:Not CCTV (3, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807032)

A shame really, for them, as it'll be the CCTV cameras of their destructive acts which will provide the crucial evidence needed to convict them.

Note: Many, many more people are killed by dangerous/drunk/stupid drivers in the UK than by murderers, disturbed burglars and demented rapists.

Re:Not CCTV (3, Insightful)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807820)

Note: Many, many more people are killed by dangerous/drunk/stupid drivers in the UK than by murderers, disturbed burglars and demented rapists.

And many more people in the UK are killed by coronary disease than by dangerous/drunk/stupid drivers. Quick! Ban McDonald's and boiled potatoes! It'll save lives!

Each "safety" measure must be balanced against the effect it has upon people's lives, liberties, and dignity. For my part, I do not wish for bored nosy strangers to record and view at their leisure my every public move on the off chance I might run a red light.

Re:Not CCTV (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21808066)

The difference being that you have a choice whether you eat McDonalds or not, but you don't have a choice whether you get hit by a car travelling 20mph over the speed limit because the driver is convinced that the laws of nature and the realities of human reaction speeds don't actually apply to him.

Operating something as dangerous to others as a car in public is a privilege, not a right, and that privilege should be revoked if you choose not to obey the safety laws governing that vehicle.

Re:Not CCTV (1)

coastwalker (307620) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808536)

The speed limits in England have all been reduced by >=10 mph on any road where an accident has taken place in the last ten years.

The reason for the reduction is the incontrovertible evidence that reduced impact speed reduces your probability of being killed. This fact has been seized upon by local government who have been given targets for reducing road traffic accident fatalities. Elected officials now have to look as if they are doing something to stop someone suing them and putting them in jail for the rest of their natura lives. So local government have solved the problem by leaving the roads in the same state they came to power in, with the same number of accidents, but they have reduced the death count by cutting everybodies speed.

As a consequence there are a fair number of motorists who would like to take the speed cameras and shove them up the darkest orifices of our elected officials. The accidents continue to happen and the number of people disabled for life in accidents is unchanged. However we have great statistics for reductions in deaths and the whole country is gridlocked with slow moving traffic.

Best of all the self rightous sycophants of government always drive at the speed limit, oblivious of driving conditions because they were born without brains or the ability to make judgments. Happily it is these people who expect someone else to have made the roads totaly safe who are still killed in accidents.

merry Christmas!

Re:Not CCTV (4, Insightful)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808200)

That's great but I live in the UK and some fucktard ran through a red light almost killing me last thursday as I crossed the road. No speed camera there, but I bet if there was he would have stopped instead of thinking he needs the shave off 5 minutes journey time.

These people destroy speed cameras because they want the freedom the break the law, nothing more and I hope everyone of them gets arrested. The law is you go a certain speed if you break it ITS YOUR OWN FAULT NOT THE CAMERA THAT CAUGHT YOU BREAKING THE LAW.

Quick! Ban McDonald's and boiled potatoes!
What a stupid comparison. Are you twelve years old or something? A McDonald's doesn't run through red lights, almost killing me. To kill me I (As in myself not some random asshole) would have to eat way too many. Just like how water kills you if you drink too much.

Re:Not CCTV (5, Insightful)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808522)

The flaw in your logic is that speed limits are not the same as proper laws. They are not set by politicians, debated in parliament, and you can't vote out the people who choose them if you disagree with them. They are set by mysterious quangos, with no accountability and no effective means to appeal against them when they are set wrongly.

In the UK we have a law against dangerous driving. Have you ever wondered who someone caught doing 31 mph in a non-residential area on an empty dual carriageway is charged with speeding but not dangerous driving? It's because breaking a speed limit that is only there to give revenue to a 'camera partnership' isn't dangerous.

You're right about red lights being a real danger point. Why do we have far more speed traps than red light cameras? It's because safe drivers do go faster than wrongly set limits, but they don't run red lights, so red light cameras wouldn't rake in the cash like speed traps.

Re:Not CCTV (4, Insightful)

damburger (981828) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807122)

Yep, its a misleading article headline - these are not surveillance cameras. They take a static photo when a car passes above the speed limit by a certain margin (5-10% IIRC).

The UK government places these in accident-prone areas, and makes their locations available to the public. If you have satellite navigation in your car it will warn you as you approach one. They are not in any way a violation of civil liberties because doing 80 through a residential area is not any kind of right. Petrolheads claiming they are fighting back against a police state are doing nothing more than trivialising the actual civil liberty violations committed by the UK government.

Re:Not CCTV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807464)

They can't be placing too many in residential areas, because if you read the article, they don't blow up the ones there (partly because they aren't the issue, and partly because that's not where most of them are). They are blowing up cameras in the country and on highways. In the country, accidents tend to only involve the people causing them (yes, they can involve others, but that's the exception, not the rule). On the highway, the only time you are able to speed at a ridiculous speed is generally when nobody is on it (in which case you'll only hurt yourself), or if you are swerving like a madman (in which case you're likely to be arrested). These cameras don't catch people swerving, just speeding, anyways.

The ones fighting against a police state are really just fighting against putting cameras in places they are completely unnecessary.

Re:Not CCTV (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807916)

Actually, I support the destruction of these speed cameras in residential areas, because I don't want to be exposed to the massive amounts of X-band microwave radiation they emit.

Re:Not CCTV (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808264)

The UK government places these in accident-prone areas
Which then makes them more accident-prone as all the people entering that area slam on the brakes to not get a ticket.

It's just like when they put red-light cameras at intersections and rear-end accidents skyrocket. Brilliant!

Re:Not CCTV (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808796)

They take a static photo when a car passes above the speed limit by a certain margin (5-10% IIRC).

For the record, the current ACPO guidelines are 10% + 2mph over the legal limit.

The UK government places these in accident-prone areas, and makes their locations available to the public.

If that were true, people wouldn't be (quite) so upset. But the fact is that many of the cameras violate the official guidelines, and are posted in highly revenue-generating but statistically very safe areas. Similarly, if the locations were reported accurately and completely, then that would be one thing, but not all police forces and "safety camera partnerships" respect this.

They are not in any way a violation of civil liberties because doing 80 through a residential area is not any kind of right.

That's one side of it. On the flip side, I believe restricting people's freedom (in this case, their freedom to travel quickly) without a good reason is unethical. If driving at a certain speed is not dangerous or inconsiderate, making it illegal as a means of conveniently taxing the motorist is inappropriate, and if cameras are used as the instrument of that inappropriate behaviour then they are inappropriate too.

Re:Not CCTV (4, Interesting)

Cheesey (70139) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807414)

Sometimes they are both. The automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) network uses CCTV cameras to (a) enforce special road taxes like the "congestion charge", (b) make a timestamped record of every number plate that passes each camera, and (c) enforce speed limits.

This is arguably worse than non-automated CCTV systems even though a human operator may never see the pictures that are recorded. The number plate information goes into a database, where it may be stored indefinitely for "crime prevention purposes". Bruce Schneier wrote [schneier.com] that 'It's not "follow that car," it's "follow every car."' So there are certainly valid political reasons to object to this type of surveillance beyond simply objecting to a speed limit. It is nice to see people who actually give a shit about this stuff, even if I do not agree with their methods, since most Brits couldn't give a fuck about anything the Government does.

Re:Not CCTV (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807624)

Actually they are targeting the single instant gatso type cameras which flash you for daring to drive past a bit quick.
I doubt you could take down a whole colony of averaging cameras in enough time to not be detected.

Americans? (2, Insightful)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806934)

Ha, we'd pull ours down and sell 'em. They'll be called American Camera Chop shops. "ACCs" for short. I can see it now, gangstas running around and selling cameras. It'll happen.

The Revolution? (3, Interesting)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#21806950)

All of these actions have me wondering if the revolution is happening, and nobody in the public mind knows it?

Re:The Revolution? (0, Redundant)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807004)

To quote Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for a little added security deserve neither freedom nor security."

Rock on Ben!

Uh, Big Ben doesn't rock anymore, (1)

DRAGONWEEZEL (125809) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807152)

He's been dead for a little while now, but he would love to rock on if he could, I am sure!

Re:The Revolution? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807290)

I know this is the #1 most popular quote for Slashbots, but really, is it too much to ask that people only trot it out in stories where it is at least slightly relevant?

This story is nothing to do with surveillance (despite the misleading summary), and nothing to do with giving up necessary freedom for temporary security. The cameras in question are not surveillance cameras, they are merely automatic speed traps. They detect when people are breaking the law (unlike surveillance cameras, they do not make any record at all of people who are not breaking the law), and record only the minimum data required to prove that a crime has been committed.

Sorry, but while I don't like being spied on any more than anyone else, I find it hard to work out exactly what "right" is being infringed by speed cameras. If you want to protest about the surveillance state, protest about CCTV or something like that that actually invades your privacy.

Re:The Revolution? (-1, Troll)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807566)

This story is nothing to do with surveillance (despite the misleading summary), and nothing to do with giving up necessary freedom for temporary security
Oh really? what is the excuse for cameras and what the hell do cameras do? Think about it... you have enough braincells to figure this one out on your own I'm sure.

Re:The Revolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807920)

If it's just speed cameras that the article is talking about, then what's the difference between having a camera watching the road or a police officer? Either way, speeders would be caught; using an automated camera instead of an officer merely reduces staffing requirements and whatever the officers would pay for coffee, donuts, and gas each day.

Re:The Revolution? (1)

lluBdeR (466879) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808044)

what is the excuse for cameras and what the hell do cameras do?

Well, "the excuse for these cameras": ... they are merely automatic speed traps. ... and "what the hell do these cameras do? They detect when people are breaking the law
In the larger scope, cameras take pictures. The excuse for cameras existing is some people enjoy having pictures.

you have enough braincells to figure this one out on your own I'm sure.

I can think of at someone who needs a roadmap. Are you one of those idiots against red light cameras because they infringe on your freedom to do something stupid, dangerous and illegal?

Re:The Revolution? (1)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807786)

Well it seems it's too much to ask them to quote it properly - it's essential liberty and temporary safety for a start.

Re:The Revolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807846)

it's essential liberty and temporary safety for a start.
Yes, but that makes it a pointless thing to say. Of course giving up "essential" anything is a bad move. That follows automatically from being essential. It would be equally stupid to give up "essential" safety for temporary liberty. If its essential then don't give it up!

If you're going to quote someone then it's polite to leave out the bits that make them sound like a complete imbecile, so in that spirit I think the misquotation here was forgivable.

Re:The Revolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21808154)

If you're going to quote someone and change the words, it's no longer a quote. It's a paraphrasing.

Re:The Revolution? (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808326)

Well then I beg all the quote gods forgiveness. Lets hope the point of the quote can still be understood through the misquotation.

Franklin (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808808)

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for a little added security deserve neither freedom nor security."

Franklin also said that he who cannot obey cannot command.

Franklin is the lone Founder identified with the life and welfare, the governance, of the city:

The reform of the postal service. Fire Insurance. The first volunteer fire Department. The first public library. The first American hospital.

He would as a diplomat in France have been exposed to the recklessness and arrogance of the nobles who traveled anonymously in closed carriages and were answerable to no one.

Freedom in his mind meant something larger than freedom from responsibility for the consequences of your actions. That is why he joins in signing the Declaration of Independence, rather than take the safer course of posting it anonymously to a blog.

He was a JP in 1749. The President of Pennsylvania in 1785. He was throughout his public career a significant and powerful centralizing force in American life and politics.

Political correctness makes it possible. (0)

JonTurner (178845) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807120)

Not that I condone such antisocial behaviour, of course, but there's a simple technique for getting away with this: Just put on a Hijab (the Muslim full-face mask). If you're caught by CCTV in the act of sabotage, the hijab conceals your identity! Additionally, the authorities are so terrified of singling out any Asians that they would never dream of stopping/questioning/arresting "women" in hijabs. Just fling your burning tyre (hidden neatly under a burqua), then slip away and toss your mask in the nearest rubbish bin. Mission accomplished.

(And for those who would mod this flamebait, please hear me out: I'm not casting aspersions on any one group but merely pointing out a significant weakness in a survelliance society -- namely the permitting of some to wear full-face masks in public. Rather undermines the whole stated purpose of CCTV, doesn't it? But then again, the gatsos aren't doing their stated purpose, either, which is making the streets safer...)

Who gets the ticket? (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807176)

In much of America, camera-generated tickets go to whoever registered the license plates not the driver. The logic is if you let someone drive your car too fast the city will come after you for the money and it's up to you to get it from the driver.

By the way, don't try hiding your license plate. That will just make things worse the next time a real cop sees your car.

It's typically a "civil" or "administrative" fine so you don't get the same due process rights as you would for a criminal offense.

Re:Who gets the ticket? (1)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808238)

It's typically a "civil" or "administrative" fine so you don't get the same due process rights as you would for a criminal offense.

If you engage a lawyer, you'll get your due process (actually, they'll probably just waive the fine since they don't want to deal with the process if they don't have to). The trick is finding a lawyer who costs less than the fine.

Re:Who gets the ticket? (1)

TommydCat (791543) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808578)

If you engage a lawyer, you'll get your due process (actually, they'll probably just waive the fine since they don't want to deal with the process if they don't have to). The trick is finding a lawyer who costs less than the fine.
In the States, it seems common enough to pay much more for the lawyer than for the fine. The real hidden cost is the increase in your insurance premium being many time the amount of the fine itself. Your insurance company is pretty much guaranteed to make much more than the government for these infractions, and they both lobby for laws enabling this sort of thing as well as underwriting installation of such equipment in local municipalities.

It's pretty much free money for the (local) government, as well as letting them decrease manpower for patrol in those areas. (As far as actually decreasing the workforce versus freeing them to work on "real" crime is a separate debate.)

Is this true in the UK as well?

Re:The Revolution? (4, Insightful)

ZombieWomble (893157) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807774)

Pfft, revolution my ass. This is just a bunch of people who are cranky because they got speeding tickets (and/or wanted to avoid tickets in the future) and took it out on the machines. Not to mention it's been going on for years on a low level (random BBC news story [bbc.co.uk] from September 2006). They don't care about liberty or the like, which is demonstrated both by their actions - they aren't bothering to try and destroy any sort of CCTV which actually keeps track of people in public areas - and their actual manifesto - that is, that the cameras are just a money-making scheme by the government.

It just demonstrates that civil liberties are to these people, a rather lower concern than, say, 50 quid in fines.

Re:The Revolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807934)

Since the current US government in their infinite short-sightedness instituted "Free Speech Zones" [wikipedia.org] - i.e. restricting rights to "approved" areas instead of fundamental within the Nations borders, I believe that the entire government is already guilty of violating the principles of the Constitution and under those same documents needs to be overthrown and replaced with a more civil and just system for the people. To further this end I believe everyone should boot up Limewire and search for "TM31-210, Improvised Munitions Handbook" and exercise their legal right to bear arms. While you still have that right. The right to bear arms in a figurative interpretation includes such documents as the aformentioned US Military publication as these arms are required to keep politicians in check - under punishment of death. So if armed insurrection becomes truly neccessary I would hope it would be highly targeted against those who have actually betrayed the principles of Freedom only, collateral damage is as evil as the current injustices emanating from Washington.
Merry Christmas.

Re:The Revolution? (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808584)

Supporting those who support our rights, *all* of them, is a much better and more proactive form of protecting your rights.

Even as a strong supporter and partaker of the right to bear arms I think it's much better if we step outside of the pretenses of party politics and not feed into the lie thus stopping the complacent at the ballot box instead of having to resort to the cartridge box.

After all, if you're too lazy to pull a lever I doubt you'll be much more motivated to pull a trigger.

Bad summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807002)

This has absolutely nothing to do with the "surveillance state", these are drivers that resent being fined for breaking the law by speeding. These people don't give a damn about other kinds of CCTV. It's not about getting caught on camera, it's about getting caught breaking the law.

Re:Bad summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807200)

Yes and no. Draconian enforcement of traffic regulations is usually a sign of an overly zealous State apparatus, and the anger caused by the speed traps might carry over into other areas.

You're probably right that it won't, but it's possible that this is the straw that's breaking the camel's back.

Re:Bad summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807968)

Draconian enforcement of traffic regulations is usually a sign of an overly zealous State apparatus, and the anger caused by the speed traps might carry over into other areas.
Yeah, but this is hardly draconian. The cameras don't snap you the moment you slip over the limit briefly, they only catch drivers who are breaking the law by a significant amount. The punishment for getting caught isn't particularly severe either. And finally, traffic regulations aren't being enforced with these cameras everywhere, but only in places where a history of speed-related accidents has demonstrated that action is needed to force drivers to slow down to safe speeds.

The only people who are "angry" about this are people who have done the crime regularly for years and never realised that they might one day be expected to pay the fine. They have only themselves to blame.

To listen to the anti-camera groups, you'd think that people were being jailed for doing 1 MPH over the limit on wide, straight roads. But that just doesn't happen. They can shout "help! help! I'm being oppressed!" as much as they like, but it doesn't make it true.

Re:Bad summary (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808334)

"The cameras don't snap you the moment you slip over the limit briefly, they only catch drivers who are breaking the law by a significant amount."

Dunno where you lived, but plenty of people in the UK have been fined for driving a few miles per hour over the limit, on a safe straight road in good conditions, where the limit has already been reduced to an absurd level. Caught four times and you lose your driving license, and quite possibly your job and your house.

Speed cameras have done nothing to improve road safety, they exist purely to screw over motorists and suck out money which goes to the government's mates running the speed cameras. I've never met anyone in the UK who drives (the majority of the adult population) and supports speed cameras; yet the country has been plastered with them. You may have missed it, but Britain is supposed to be a democracy, and when the majority are seeing something they don't want pushed on them by an authoritarian government, it should be no surprise that a minority decide to take things into their own hands.

Speed cameras have done more than any other single cause to destroy respect for the law among the general public in the UK over the last decade. If the government had any sense, they'd rip them all out tomorrow.

Re:Bad summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21808476)

Caught four times and you lose your driving license, and quite possibly your job and your house.

If your job requires you to drive, and you continually break the law, knowing that they can take away your license for it, then you deserve to lose your house. Seriously, it's not that hard to drive under the speed limit. If you have a compulsion to drive at illegal speeds, I suggest seeing a psychiatrist, it's a lot less costly than constantly breaking the law.

Re:Bad summary (1)

tsstahl (812393) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808672)

Speed cameras have done more than any other single cause to destroy respect for the law among the general public in the UK

MOD PARENT UP!

This little bit of wisdom needs to be shouted from the rooftops, plastered on billboards, and used for the vision test at the DMV.

100% adherence to the law is impossible. Rational laws with rational law enforcement keeps the most egregious (read dangerous) offenders at bay. If enforcement becomes universal all the time every time, then why bother with adherence? Why not do whatever, or go however far since the punishment is the same. If I'm going to lose my license doing 5 over 4 times in a week, hell, why not have fun with it?

Once the public loses respect for law enforcement it is most plainly evident in their disregard of the law. How many times must human kind travel down the same road?

Sweet! (2, Interesting)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807014)

In a surveillance society, who watches the watchers?

Re:Sweet! (1)

ccguy (1116865) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807230)

In a surveillance society, who watches the watchers?


Ideally everybody is both a watcher and a 'watchee'. For example you watch for speeders and I watch for tax evaders, etc. Plus of course your peers watch you and viceversa.

Nothing new... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807068)

Firstly, the group are attacking speed cameras, not surveillance cameras And secondly the vandalising(?) of such cameras is certainly nothing new, there is one on the major road near my house which is torched weekly - the council just come and replace it the day after

Woo Hoo (4, Insightful)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807136)

Let's celebrate destruction of public property. These heroes are standing up for their right to break traffic laws and they need our support. Let the road be free of the tyranny of civility.

Re:Woo Hoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807312)

"Let the road be free of the tyranny."

Fixed.

Re:Woo Hoo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807576)

These heroes are standing up for their right to break traffic laws

Q: Who is harmed if I speed??

A: No one.

Q: Why should something that harms no one be illegal?

A: It shouldn't.

Fighting againt unjust laws is everyones duty.

Re:Woo Hoo (1, Insightful)

malkavian (9512) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807680)

No, they're standing up and saying that arbitrary limits set up in arbitrary places and now enforced by automated cameras that fine you and put points on your license for performing what may be a perfectly safe action are grossly unfair.

Take two cases for example:

1) Driving at 40 miles an hour down an empty, open street at 4:30am, with a 30 speed limit.

2) Driving the wrong way down a road at 15 miles an hour in broad daylight in a crowded street.

Which of the above cases do you think should be picked up as being most dangerous?
Guess which one isn't?

Most people aren't against traffic monitoring per se. What they're up in arms about is the purely money grabbing enforcement of arbitrary limits. Mathematical analysis of the cameras has shown that at BEST, they make no difference. At worst, they increase the incidence of accidents.
Now, the technology is around in image processing to detect honest to goodness dangerous driving. Just the cameras would be a little more expensive. So guess what they don't do?
They don't put the cameras in that would actually enforce civility and good driving. They just put in the ones that get the easy buck, and do nothing at all to prevent dangerous driving.
Dangerous driving should be what they concentrate on, then EVERYONE would be happy (apart from the dangerous drivers of course who wouldn't be able to force people off the road, ignore traffic lanes, lights, crossings, cut people up, swerve across roads, and ride the wrong way up a street. And yes, all the above are pretty common on the route I take into work every day.

Re:Woo Hoo (1)

earthforce_1 (454968) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807756)

When the purpose of the law is to sow a minefield to rob honest and otherwise law abiding people, then it is time for the people to rise up and become outlaws if necessary. As it was with the underground railroad in the US - unjust and immoral laws must be opposed.

Re:Woo Hoo (1)

leoxx (992) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808252)

Mathematical analysis of the cameras has shown that at BEST, they make no difference. At worst, they increase the incidence of accidents.


Sources please.

Re:Woo Hoo (1)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808568)

Not citing anything, but: Which is more likely to cause an accident, taking that left on a yellow arrow, or slamming your brakes because the speed camera will ticket you if you don't?

Re:Woo Hoo (1)

palmersperry (242842) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808736)

I couldn't count the number of speed cameras I've driven past, but I suspect it's a really large number. I can, however, confidently state that I've never applied the brakes (or done anything else to reduce my speed) as I approached them. Despite my "careless attitude" towards them, I've never been the recipient of a speeding fine ... Because I find it remarkably easy to drive within the speed limit!

Nb: I said "within;" not "at". If, in my judgement, the maximum safe speed for the conditions is lower than the speed limit (eg: I have some eejit tailgating me), I slow down rather than continuing to drive at the speed limit.

Re:Woo Hoo (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808700)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/07/740.asp [thenewspaper.com]
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp [thenewspaper.com]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844.html [washingtonpost.com]

I'll stop there, but you can google for dozens more, because every experiment with red-light cameras has had the same effect: Increased rear-end collisions when people stop fast to avoid a ticket.

Re:Woo Hoo (1)

Thwomp (773873) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808220)

Yes, let's celebrate the ~£20k cost that taxpayers have to bear for each camera that's destroyed. Yeah, thanks for that guys.

Re:Woo Hoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21808562)

Alright, I will. Three cheers to these guys! If the gov't ignores every statement saying almost noone wants these speed cameras, they will have to be persuaded by hitting them in the wallet.

          They are right to eliminate speed camers. They are a simple money grab, and eliminate due process. They also disturbingly fine the vehicle owner, rather than the driver. Finally, they don't detect dangerous driving, just breaking some often arbitrary speed limit. (That is, a driver could drive the wrong way up a 1 way street, hitting parked cars the whole way, and tailgating, but they're not speeding so they're home free. While someone going 26 in a 25 but driving perfectly safely would get a fine.)

Petty vandalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807140)

There was a disgusting C4 documentary on road charging broadcast recently in the UK. It focused on one of these masked thugs in order to poison the well before proceeding to ignore any the relevant issues and staging a flawed pro-road charging example.

Myself, I don't understand (other than lending a flimsy credence to it) what criminal damage has to do with the arguments against state surveillance and control.

America? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807246)

I wonder how many Americans are similarly motivated.
Are there even any speed cameras in America? I know we have traffic and stoplight cameras, but where do they have speed cameras? Personally I have never seen one.

Re:America? (1)

Fluffy the attack ki (890645) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807704)

It varies from state to state. In Oregon we've got mobile ones mounted on trailers, some other places I believe use intersection cameras with radar.

Re:America? (1)

Skater (41976) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808280)

DC has several. They are mostly movable rigs, but there are a few fixed setups, too. However, there are signs marking at least the ones I drive through, and of course everyone knows about them so they all slow down until they see if it's clear. DC even has a map of the zones [dc.gov] , which doesn't tell you where they are right now, but it does tell you where they could be.

Good Idea (5, Insightful)

foreverdisillusioned (763799) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807260)

There are certain to be plenty of replies saying how this is a bad thing, people should write to their lawmakers instead, etc. Let me offer a preemptive rebuttal: Fuck that. The information age has made permanent archival cheap, and improvements in pattern recognition are fast giving us the ability to rapidly search through those archives. There isn't a single government in existence today that's responsible enough to handle such data. Certainly, Britain's (and to a much greater extent, the USA's) extremely self-destructive War on Drugs is evidence enough of that.

Speeding isn't good, but it isn't the scourge of society. The fact is, governments (and the UK government especially) have repeatedly shown a propensity to never throw away any data gathered from the public (if you are arrested in the UK for any reason, your DNA is put into a database and never deleted, even if the charges are dropped.) The speeding *obsession* is a joke anyway--the only reason why law enforcement cares so much about it is it's easy to prove and tickets are an easy source of revenue. The solution to the traffic problem is ultimately a technical one--within the next 50-75 years, we should have fully automated cars anyway (if not flying.)

Despite what the evening news tells you, law enforcement is NOT the primary problem of our times. In the quest for a peaceful society, law enforcement is a merely one tool of many and it's a very dangerous and cumbersome tool at that. If our lawmakers cannot recognize this and continue to blaze a merry path towards a privacy-less society--one where surveillance is abused to persecute the law-abiding and civil disobedience is utterly impossible because law enforcement is just too damn omniscient--then the populace at large can and should take measures into their own hands.

I'm certainly not happy *at all* about the destruction of taxpayer-funded property, but this issues involve here transcend your average political quibbling. If these Brits are willing to risk imprisonment to fight the naive Orwellians in charge, good for them. (If on the other hand they're just doing this so they can speed with impunity, shame on them.)

Re:Good Idea (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807360)

These guys are simple-minded arseholes who want to speed. Anyone fighting for civil liberties would be trying to distance themselves from these idiots. Not that these gatso speed cameras work anyway, all that happens is drivers slam on the brakes to pass by the camera before accelerating off again.

Re:Good Idea (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808380)

"The information age has made permanent archival cheap, and improvements in pattern recognition are fast giving us the ability to rapidly search through those archives. There isn't a single government in existence today that's responsible enough to handle such data."

Lets assume it's true (I'm only half-agreeing with both statements). So that means we should burn them, no? I know, let's burn all the computer centres. Hell, while we're at it, let's burn the court records. And the courts. Hold on, let's just burn all the judges. See how stupid your justifications are?

"Speeding isn't good, but it isn't the scourge of society."

No. But people who flout the laws that have been clearly written down for DECADES and have never bothered to challenge or provide evidence AGAINST the law (e.g. that speeding DOESN'T kill, or that kids hit at 40 aren't more likely to die than those hit at thirty etc.)... those people ARE the scourge of society. What law would you like to blatantly ignore and boast about ignoring next? You even had to pass a damn test by displaying your knowledge of this law and you didn't query it. So abide by it. Or get the law changed.

"The fact is, governments (and the UK government especially) have repeatedly shown a propensity to never throw away any data gathered from the public (if you are arrested in the UK for any reason, your DNA is put into a database and never deleted, even if the charges are dropped.)"

And that has what to do with burning speed cameras? And if you disagree with it, do something about it which does not destroy tax-paid property in the process of a public-endangering arson. Or does your brain stop you thinking past "burn them all"?

"The speeding *obsession* is a joke anyway--the only reason why law enforcement cares so much about it is it's easy to prove and tickets are an easy source of revenue."

Because people like yourself are so incredibly stupid that they blatantly break a law, when in the prescence of an BRIGHTLY-COLOURED, EASILY VISIBLE (because your lot asked for it) very accurate detector. And each time you do, you KNOW that you've broken a law (hence the slamming on of brakes and the panicked looks whenever people see a flash by the side of the road) and then pay up - because you KNOW you've broken the law. If you hadn't, you'd contest it. And then not have to pay. And then run up thousands of pounds of court costs for both sides which ultimately would lead police to abandon prosecutions due to the expense.

But the fact is that you broke a very old law that you knew full well and then decide to pay up - that's what makes it profitable for the police. It's like the pharmacuetical industry and cold remedies - we could cure colds no problem, but the billion-dollar industry surrounding minor coughs and colds would then collapse, leaving no revenue to actually develop highly-complex drugs for rare conditions. You don't want the police to profit? Stay below 30. It's not hard. You just don't press as hard. It's really, really easy. Every person who's ever passed a driving test has had to do it, under strict supervision, and managed it perfectly.

"The solution to the traffic problem is ultimately a technical one--within the next 50-75 years, we should have fully automated cars anyway (if not flying.)"

Yep. And then we can get rid of all those idiots like yourself from spouting rubbish. But then, no, when your automated car is limited to 40, you'll be modifying (against the law) to go to 50. And then when it crashes or you get arrested you'll spout the same rubbish as you are now.

"Despite what the evening news tells you, law enforcement is NOT the primary problem of our times."

Nope. It's law enforcement being prevented from doing their job because of red tape. And that red tape comes from people who, e.g., argue that, because the officer didn't show them the locked display of a speed camera when arresting them, they weren't speeding. Or having to chase people through courts when they have ABSOLUTE photographic evidence of you breaking the law and you try to "fight the system" by not paying.

"the populace at large can and should take measures into their own hands."

Oh bugger. You said the magic "revolution because I can't do 31mph" words. Remind me never to live near you, please. I don't want you on my roads. I don't want you in my neighbourhood. I don't want you on my planet, really, but I can't do much about any of that. This is how law works, by the way, just because I don't want to leave near you doesn't mean I can set fire to your house.

"I'm certainly not happy *at all* about the destruction of taxpayer-funded property, but this issues involve here transcend your average political quibbling. If these Brits are willing to risk imprisonment to fight the naive Orwellians in charge, good for them. (If on the other hand they're just doing this so they can speed with impunity, shame on them.)"

How hard is it? You don't want to be surveyed, stop breaking established laws. Either get them repealed or, and here's an idea to resist an Orwellian society, MAKE SURE THAT REAL, IMPORTANT laws regarding personal privacy get attention and forget this "I need to be able to go fast enough to kill people, because I want to" rubbish. What about the "guilty-until-proven-innocent" encryption laws? Or how about "if we think you're a terrorist, we can use all these new laws against you, including detaining you virtually indefinitely, whether you turn out to be a terrorist or not?". Or how about "you can't have a relative visit you from a foreign country unless you sponser them with £1000 first?" (google it!)

It's a speed camera. It can ONLY catch you if you speed. Which is a crime (whether you like it or not). So either, a) don't speed or b) make it NOT be a crime. Otherwise what happens is you then get done for speeding, destruction of property AND arson. And then speeding, destruction of property, arson AND contempt of court when you spout off in front of the judge. Or even *possibly* speeding, destruction of property, arson AND manslaughter when the fire gets out of control (don't give me this "it won't" rubbish - that's what children say. Responsible adults have a can of water standing by for even a small bonfire/firework).

What this method of "avoiding the Orwellian society" does is NOT get the job done. What happens next is the police put a CCTV camera to watch the speed camera. And then when people pull up in anonymous cars and burn that "as a protest", they fight for tagging of all cars. And then all people.

These people are a bunch of idiots.

Re:Good Idea (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808576)

Wouldn't the easiest solution just be to legislate that the data must be thrown out after 30 days and can only be viewed by a court order?

Capt Gatso deserves a knighthood (4, Funny)

earthforce_1 (454968) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807332)

George Orwell was about 25 years too early in his predictions.

Re:Capt Gatso deserves a knighthood (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807542)

not at all, the events in 1984 don't necessarily take place in 1984, that's just the year the State said it was, and anyone who disagreed would change their tune after a visit to room 101.

Re:Capt Gatso deserves a knighthood (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21808060)

1984 is just the date the book was made with the last two digits reversed: 1948.

Of course he didn't just look into a crystal ball; he was inspired by current politics.

This shit is not new. This shit has been going on forever. Imagine a boot...stomping on the face of humanity...that never stops, ever.

Firefighters & paramedics get attacked too (4, Interesting)

Peter Cooper (660482) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807442)

This speed camera vandalizing is nothing new. It's been going on for at least seven years now. It's usually idiots who've been caught by the camera that day who go back to destroy the evidence. Thankfully the new "digital" speed cameras that transmit pictures back to the base instantly will resolve this.

However, I think this sort of cowardly attack on public property is nothing new in the UK. Whereas citizens of other countries will attempt to use the law to defeat things, the British are typically content to moan and be passive aggressive about things rather than effect real change. One curious development in the last several years here has been the increase in attacks against firefighters and paramedics. You can't go a week without hearing about firefighters getting rocks thrown at them and their tenders by gangs of feral teens. Even paramedics rushing to people's aid have been attacked and beaten up for no reason at all. Why? The British underclass is powerless, and aggression is all they know, because our legal and political systems are so limp wristed that the ordinary man on the street cannot effect change.

You are mostly correct (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807872)

Your observations are correct. I disagree with your judgement of the situation as being bad though. It is what it is. The powers-that-be can take a lesson or they can carry on and things will continue to change in a direction that they will ultimately not like.

You can create a police state and crush all anti-state activity. That has been done lots of times in the past and there is no reason to think it won't happen again. The trouble is that the loss of freedom also tends to remove the conditions that allow the economy to thrive and adapt. Communism collapsed because of that.

We have got where we are because of freedom. If we kill freedom, we kill innovation. If we kill innovation, we can't adapt to the changes with which we are faced. Ultimately, society will collapse.

The British underclass is powerless, and aggression is all they know, because our legal and political systems are so limp wristed that the ordinary man on the street cannot effect change.

Actually, the legal and political system works well for some people. In that respect they aren't limp at all. They are a stick with which the rich can beat the poor. It used to be that the political system had two parties that could be relied to look after their respecitve constituancies. That hasn't been the case lately. That will lead most people to give up on the system. They won't meekly accept their yokes though. They will adopt the maxim of communist workers everywhere: "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work." In the long term, the powers-that-be are screwing themselves in the ear.

Re:Firefighters & paramedics get attacked too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21808112)

You can't go a week without hearing about firefighters getting rocks thrown at them and their tenders by gangs of feral teens.

Citation needed!

Re:Firefighters & paramedics get attacked too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21808210)

Destroying something in public isn't cowardly. Setting up cameras to watch the citizenry all the time... that's cowardly.

Re:Firefighters & paramedics get attacked too (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808312)

You can't go a week without hearing about firefighters getting rocks thrown at them and their tenders by gangs of feral teens. Even paramedics rushing to people's aid have been attacked and beaten up for no reason at all.
Another reason could be, if UK practices are similar to US ones of late, is that firefighters and paramedics are being trained to snitch on those whom they are supposed to be helping. Then they are (correctly) regarded as just another instrument of the police state.

Hypocrites (2, Insightful)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807504)

In the US, cops are seen as reckless thugs who are drunk on power and out of control. And yet, given the choice between being ticketed by a cop and ticketed by a machine, the very people who hate cops most get pissed about the machine.

The problem isn't that the machine is faulty, it's because it is always on. Cops can't be everywhere, but the camera is. The people destroying these things aren't anarchists or vigilantes, they're just dumb thugs who want to live in a world without rules and want to continue to risk others' safety with impunity.

I wonder, are there groups intent on catching these people and thrashing them within inches of their lives? Lawlessness sounds like much fun.

my safety (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807578)

As a regular cyclist who has almost been killed on numerous occasions by speeding, reckless, and/or irresponsible drivers, I fully support the use of any and all technology (surveillance or otherwise) to FORCE people to drive safely and within the law. I think it should be abundantly clear at this point (annual traffic fatalities in the U.S. being just one data point) that people simply cannot be relied upon to voluntarily drive safely at all times. I believe that the reason why people drive irresponsibly so often is simply that 99.9% of the time they can get away with it.

Speeding is reckless behavior that not only endangers yourself but everyone else around you (if it only endangered the driver, actually I wouldn't care about it all. I fully support the right of people to be careless with their own lives, as long as it is ONLY their own lives.) Speed limits exist for a reason. I believe governments have the right to use every tool at their disposal to enforce them.

My life is more important that your "right" to act recklessly in public without being monitored.

Re:my safety (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808438)

"As a regular cyclist who has almost been killed on numerous occasions by speeding, reckless, and/or irresponsible drivers, I fully support the use of any and all technology (surveillance or otherwise) to FORCE people to drive safely and within the law."

Thanks to speed cameras, you can drive as recklessly or irresponsibly as you want provided you do so below the speed limit, as there are very few traffic police left on the roads. And if you get fake plates, or don't register your car, you can do those at any speed you want, because the speed cameras can't touch you.

"Speeding is reckless behavior"

No it's not; otherwise they'd be charged with 'reckless driving', not speeding. The only reason speeding laws exist is so that the police can punish true reckless drivers on a technicality rather than having to prove reckless driving, which is much harder; they were never intended to be applied universally because that would be absurdly stupid.

"Speed limits exist for a reason."

Yes, to give the police a means to punish people when they can't readily prove reckless driving in court.

Speed limits in the UK are regularly set wrong, often for political reasons. I used to live on a long, wide, mostly straight road where everyone had off-road parking... the speed limit was 40mph. Turn off that onto one of the narrow roads with parked cars on both sides, and the speed limit _INCREASED_ to 60mph. Needless to say, people regularly drove at 60mph through the 40 limit because it was f-ing stupid.

Worse than that, we had two speed cameras in the village where I lived. Both were on safe straight sections of road, both hidden behind trees or road signs in order to raise money rather than discourage people from driving fast. The most dangerous place in the village was a poorly designed pedestrian crossing where going faster than the 30mph speed limit meant you might not be able to stop if a pedestrian was crossing because you couldn't see far enough ahead; so why weren't the speed cameras there, with flashing lights and signs saying 'don't speed and we mean it'?

Ah, because they wouldn't have brought in any money.

And I'm always amused to see cyclists lecturing people on the need to obey road laws when I almost never saw a cyclist in the UK stop at a red light or a pedestrian crossing, and death rates per mile from cycling are similar to death rates per mile from driving; I was almost knocked flying myself last year by a cyclist racing through a 'pedestrianised' area.

When, for example, will Britain see compulsory insurance for bikes, along with compulsory registration and number plates so they can be caught and punished for breaking traffic laws? Ah, when Hell freezes over.

only innocent decent people doing their job speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21807682)

Indeed, the only thing the cameras have done successfully is to reduce the number of traffic officers patrolling our roads and lose a lot of decent people their driving licences and their livelihoods."
So were these decent people speeding or not? My guess is that the cameras accurately picked them up speeding and they were punished for it. The organisation also states they won't blow up camera's outside schools and in built up areas. Which leaves .. country lanes? I'm not really sure. And the way the article says 'livelihoods' as if they are more innocent because they were just doing their job. I understand there are economic pressures in a driving job to drive fast. However there has to be a limit where your personal gain is not worth the danger you pose to those around you. I can't believe how smug the article is, and to be honest many of the comments here. These people may be intelligent and care for children, but that doesn't change the fact they were caught speeding.

The easiest way of avoiding these fines and pumping the government with all your hard earned cash is to .. not speed.

Re:only innocent decent people doing their job spe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21808186)

The problem is that many/most cameras are not placed to maximize safety, they're placed to maximize revenue. Placing a camera to enforce a low-speed zone at the bottom of a steep hill is a common example.

I don't understand... (2, Insightful)

Stanislav_J (947290) | more than 6 years ago | (#21807744)

If British drivers don't want to be seen by the cameras, why can't they just engage their cloaking devices?

Signed,
Every Sci-Fi Geek in the World

Re:I don't understand... (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808484)

"If British drivers don't want to be seen by the cameras, why can't they just engage their cloaking devices?"

They do. From what I've been told, in some areas (typically Chav-towns), 50% or more of cars either have fake plates or are unregistered, or are registered abroad... that instantly 'cloaks' them from speed cameras, and they can drive as badly as they want.

That's fine if you're a chav who's probably in and out of jail anyway; what more do you have to lose? But when you're one of the middle class workers who pay the taxes that keep the government running, you can't risk sticking fake plates on your car to avoid losing your license for driving perfectly safely on a motorway at 80mph.

Re:I don't understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21808662)

If British drivers don't want to be seen by the cameras, why can't they just engage their cloaking devices?

Duh. Every British Sci-Fi geek knows that those things are bloody unreliable. They tend to get stuck in the wrong mode, such as the form of a mid-20th century police box.



... How'd the parent post get modded Insightful, anyway?

PETHW condemns these senseless attack against hw (3, Interesting)

gorbachev (512743) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808398)

PETHW (People for the Ethical Treatment of Hardware) strongly condemns these senseless attacks on the completely innocent pieces of perfectly fine hardware.

What harm have the cameras done to these afwul people? They just take photos, that's all. They don't care what anyone does with the photos. If you have a problem with those photos PETHW suggests you either drive slower, or take it up with the local constabulary, who are, after all, ultimately responsible for taking the photos and placing the cameras where they stand.

We urge all citizens to act upon this travesty and rise against these lawless individuals. How can they sleep at night knowing what they've done???

Join PETHW in fighting hardware abuse at http://pethw.org/ [pethw.org]

10 Year Old Site (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808570)

Bruce Sterling has just discovered a web site that has been amusing many of us for years. 10 years in fact.

For those who haven't seen this before, the site documents obnoxious installations of GATSO speed cameras in places where its obvious purpose is revenue generation rather than safety. The result is that someone usually hangs a tire around the camera, fills it with diesel, then adds a flare. Burns quite nicely. Peruse the site [speedcam.co.uk] though for more creative solutions like chain saws.

WHOIS information

Domain name:
speedcam.co.uk

Registrant:
James Bancroft

Trading as:
James Bancroft

Registrant type:
UK Individual

Registrant's address:
11 Belmont Close
Rawcliffe
York
North Yorkshire
YO30 5QR
GB

Registrar:
Namesco Limited [Tag = NAMESCO]
URL: http://www.names.co.uk/

Relevant dates:
Registered on: 21-Oct-1999
Renewal date: 21-Oct-2009
Last updated: 27-Sep-2007

Registration status:
Registered until renewal date.

Name servers:
dns.site5.com
dns2.site5.com

WHOIS lookup made at 19:26:32 24-Dec-2007

--
This WHOIS information is provided for free by Nominet UK the central registry
for .uk domain names. This information and the .uk WHOIS are:

Copyright Nominet UK 1996 - 2007.

You may not access the .uk WHOIS or use any data from it except as permitted
by the terms of use available in full at http://www.nominet.org.uk/whois, which
includes restrictions on: (A) use of the data for advertising, or its
repackaging, recompilation, redistribution or reuse (B) obscuring, removing
or hiding any or all of this notice and (C) exceeding query rate or volume
limits. The data is provided on an 'as-is' basis and may lag behind the
register. Access may be withdrawn or restricted at any time.

Something to remember when installing cameras (1)

GregPK (991973) | more than 5 years ago | (#21808768)

After getting nailed by a redlight camera when turning right .2 seconds after the light turned red. I can totally understand the frustration here. The camera takes a picture, the officer reviews it, stamps a ticket on it and sends you your fine. No explaination, no please, no thank you for your payment. Etc.

If were and officer pulling me over, the officer would have told me why it was unsafe, the reason he pulled me over and have a good day or at least been a small conversation with a few laughs. But instead, I get a totally dry letter with no explaination of how my action was unsafe, or, the reason they put that camera there, nothing.. My emotional reaction was pure anger, and actually drove worse for a few months in that town because of it.

The way its done now, it gives the impression that they set them up to make money. Because of that, it serves more to annoy. I just feel angry about the whole thing. I'll gladly pay more taxes to put more officers on the road, because they don't just write tickets. They also set the examples, and help with other things like fires, public saftey, medical, etc. I will not pay to put more camera's on the road because it's primary achievement is annoying drivers rather than making roads safer.

Don't forget, that the camera manufactures also have rigged google so that if you search anything out about them you'll find nothing but good about them for the first 20 pages or so.

I personaly shed no tears for the destroyed cameras. They dug thier own hole with them.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...