Roadside cameras to catch drivers using their mobile phones

Humbug!

I think Volvo are on the right lines:

"Big news on the Volvo stand was the new S80 exec car. As with any new Volvo, the S80 introduces a raft of new and improved safety features which promise to make it one of the safest cars in the world. Most controversial of these features was the new Driver Exclusion Protection System (DEPS) which claims to offer a remarkable 100 percent reduction in accident rates by the simple expedient of not letting anyone drive the car. "Our research shows that a car is at its most dangerous when someone is behind the wheel and the car is moving along," said a Swedish sporksman. "By not letting that happen we can make the car much safer. Of course some say that this completely undermines the point of having a car at all, but I would argue that not being able to drive anywhere is both safe and of course gives you more time to read pornography, develop a drink problem and kill yourself in other ways." *



* Snatched from Sniffpetrol.

There's plenty of headsets in the shops!
This morning i had to let a woman go ahead reducing my speed at half of her.
She was slowing down, then accelerate, then slowing down again.............this for kilometers.
I personally don't care if they end up in cornfields, but last time the one drove inside my car and destroy it while i was stationary waiting for a man to pass the pedestrian crossing.
In his point of view fault was mine because i'd have to go and don't stop to let the pedestrian cross!

Steve

Sorry, I disagree fundamentally. Anyone holding a phone and carrying on a conversation while driving is knowingly flouting the law and deserves an outright ban of at least two years. Possibly longer.

None of the other instances that you give involves at least 50% of your capacity to hold the wheel plus most, if not all, of your concentration.

And, of course, you can't get convicted/banned, if you're not doing it, so there could be no fear of unsafe convictions.

Graham

graham,

Read my first post again very very carefully. Your two-year ban versus my Cat?

The fact that driving and using a mobile phone is so irresponsible does not justify the use of intrusive remote surveillance. I think a bollocking from a traffic cop in addition to a big fine is fairer and more effective.

Cameras nurture politicians' egos more than they make the world a safer place.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:

The fact that driving and using a mobile phone is so irresponsible does not justify the use of intrusive remote surveillance.

Is there anything for which you would consider the use of remote surveillance?

In police stations so that when detainees get a good kicking it's recorded on camera.

On private property put there at the behest of the owners.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:
graham,

Read my first post again very very carefully. Your two-year ban versus my Cat?

The fact that driving and using a mobile phone is so irresponsible does not justify the use of intrusive remote surveillance. I think a bollocking from a traffic cop in addition to a big fine is fairer and more effective.

Cameras nurture politicians' egos more than they make the world a safer place.

Don't forget Steve, it was worse than the film Death Race 2000 on our roads before all the cameras were introduced.

Not.

I do believe that all new mobile phones sold should be Bluetooth compatible by law.

A decent earpiece costs as little as forty quid or is included in some phone packages.

It may have escaped your notice but traffic cops don't exist anymore.

As soon as people accept this, the sooner we can get away from post after post about cameras.

quote:

Is there anything for which you would consider the use of remote surveillance?

Steve,

Council CCTV has assisted in the fair trial/prosecution of countless offences since its introduction. Usually you know its there as well.

The instance you quote, on their own, would not probably in most cases end up in prosecution IMV. As usual I have left the door open for ridicule and negativity (LOL)...

Steve

I've read again your original post, but your suggested reprimand is, with respect, sh*te.

Obtrusive surveillance, as you term it, is wholly justified if it stops the ars*holes who believe that they are able to drive while having one hand off the wheel and concentrating on their mobile phone call.

As I said earlier, there's no possibility of a wrongful conviction for this particular crime.

Graham

Graham,

My view is that it depend upon how long the driver is doing some of the above things for? As such, the "momentary lape of concentration/driving below what is expected of a competant & careful driver" test would be interesting to prove, using a still image.

Now it also depends upon the moving image, and what it actually captures.

I also see a u turn beginning re use of uniformed police officers to prevent/detect such offences, especially if some of the rumours are true re increasing fatalities/AIC's.

andy c!

andy c

I just can't agree. Illegal is illegal.

How long do you believe that a driver should be allowed to hold/speak on a mobile telephone while driving?

How long should such a driver be allowed to hold a loaded pistol? Or a rattlesnake? Should a driver be allowed to comb his/her hair using the rear view mirror if he/she only does so for a moment?

Why do car drivers think that they should be allowed to disregard the criminal law?

Graham

Incidentally, are you one of those drivers who regards maximum speed limits as a general guide, to be ignored as long as you can get away with it?

quote:

Originally posted by rackkit:
I think Volvo are on the right lines:

"Big news on the Volvo stand was the new S80 exec car. As with any new Volvo, the S80 introduces a raft of new and improved safety features which promise to make it one of the safest cars in the world. Most controversial of these features was the new Driver Exclusion Protection System (DEPS) which claims to offer a remarkable 100 percent reduction in accident rates by the simple expedient of not letting anyone drive the car. "Our research shows that a car is at its most dangerous when someone is behind the wheel and the car is moving along," said a Swedish sporksman. "By not letting that happen we can make the car much safer. Of course some say that this completely undermines the point of having a car at all, but I would argue that not being able to drive anywhere is both safe and of course gives you more time to read pornography, develop a drink problem and kill yourself in other ways." *



* Snatched from Sniffpetrol.

Is there an upgrade for the old 240 model, or would that not be a reasonable economic proposition? Fredrik

I think they should bring back hanging for taxi drivers who talk into handsets whilst driving, especially the ones that get their handset cable wrapped around the steering wheel during cornering...

Dear Barney

I would have thought that true professionals like Taxi-driver would know better, wouldn't you? Mind I have even seen coach drivers do such things. It is crass stupidity in my opinion.

Fredrik

PS I would like to see spaced cameras every five miles or so on all major roads, so that the police could actually enforce the legal speed limit over a whole journey and not just for a quarter of a mile around the known sites of the current Gatsos. I would ban for life all offenders scoring three 10% excess speeding law infringements. Simple - that would curb that lunatics, and also while we are at it would the traffic authorities like to investigate a system that would detect tailgating? If a workable system cab be developed, one offense should be enough for temporary ban and three a life ban

Fredrik,

Trouble is - in the real world the "professionals" think they know best..

I would propose all licenced taxis should be fitted with onboard surveillance cameras, this would ensure they set a good example for the rest of us, and keep them safe from the public at large.

quote:

I think they should bring back hanging for taxi drivers who talk into handsets whilst driving, especially the ones that get their handset cable wrapped around the steering wheel during cornering...

Funnlily enough, taxi drivers using hand-held microphones are exempt from prosection unless they actually cause an accident. The difference being that messages via two-way radios are short and sweet. I often annoy radio ops by not answering until I've completed a manoeuvre or turn.

"Yeah, gotcha base, 42 Swan Lane."

If the vehicle doesn't have a clip on the dash for the mike I wrap it round the rear-view mirror.

quote:

How long should such a driver be allowed to hold a loaded pistol? Or a rattlesnake? Should a driver be allowed to comb his/her hair using the rear view mirror if he/she only does so for a moment?

That's just as obtuse as Brunstrom saying that drifting over a speed limit is like drifting a knife into someone. Even HE has seen the error of his ways more recently.

Frederik,

As a musician I fail to reconcile the serenity of your love for creativity with a penchant for authoritarianism for its own sake. I agree with you re. tailgating though.

quote:

I just can't agree. Illegal is illegal.

That is precisely the justification for authoritarian control that really makes me cringe.

I really loved the brainstorm sesh on another forum not so long back between Andy c and Alex Taylor (both cops) on silly laws that really don't need enforcement.

As a decent human being it is your duty to act responsibly. On occasions that can mean saying fuck to the law. Really it can.

Confession: Sometimes at red trafic lights I pick up my handset to dial a number from my address book. By the time the lights have changed to green I'm talking via my bluetooth earpiece and the handset is back on the dash slightly covering the rev counter.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:

[...].

I really loved the brainstorm sesh on another forum not so long back between Andy c and Alex Taylor (both cops) on silly laws that really don't need enforcement.

As a decent human being it is your duty to act responsibly. On occasions that can mean saying fuck to the law. Really it can.

Dear Steve,

I certainly don't have a general penchant for authoritarianism! I wish I could say I was always a Saint in regard to Road Traffic Legislation. I have certainly sinned in this regard in my younger days, but I am pretty careful now, and still have never had a charge let alone conviction for a Road Traffic Offense!

So why, you may ask, am I quite severe (and would always have taken my punishement in the olden days in good part) on the issue of Road traffic Legislation, where I would definately agree that I am not so tolerant as some?

The answer is that not all drivers are equally good. I consider myself a poor driver. My eyesight, though sufficient to be legal, and this is checked every six months to keep me reassured, is enough to make me realise that I am less well equiped than many. Speeding in others can cause a problem they can hardly understand for they judge the reactions of the less able, by their own standards, and abilities. Thus they may approach a junction (being on the priority road) at a speed in excess of the limit, and fail to comprehend that their own very speed may be the cause of difficulty to another, who may consequently misjudge pulling out in front of them, thus baulking the speeder, who often then takes umbrage and tailgates the less able driver until an aggresive overtake, often combined with a cut-up, is employed, just to show how angry they are.

If you say I should not be driving, given such experiences, I can only say I wish I did not have to, but a job is a job, and few jobs are within walking distance of housing these days. I would sell the car tomorrow, if pleasure was my motivation. So yes, I might seem a bit tough on what others regards as minor misdemeanours.

As for the first point in my quotation from your post, then there are perhaps times where the law is indeed so wrong that a mass protest is useful. The Poll Tax was an example of this, but I think that the demonstration of mass displeasure at silly laws is something that best takes the form of public demonstration rather than law-breaking for all that.

Andy C and other Policemen and women should remember what they are employed for. They are servants of the community, whose job is to maintain the laws that community democratically elects administration to enact. Whilst I have no problem with a Policemen or woman expressing a private opinion, this should in no way affect the way he or she do their job! In the possition of Law-upholders it is certainly beholden on any member of the Policeforce to clarify that what they are saying is their private view, and state clearly that their role remains to uphold the law as it exists. That is not authoritarian is it?

All the best from Fredrik

quote:

I just can't agree. Illegal is illegal.

Indeed - perhaps you should have a look at the stated cases for what is 'due care', then? And it's also worth reminding that the courts, in the end, decide this.

Fredrik - I usually say if its a private/professional opinion. In related to the issues surrounding traffic legislation, Steve knows my competancy to comment on such matters.

quote:

Andy C and other Policemen and women should remember what they are employed for. They are servants of the community, whose job is to maintain the laws that community democratically elects administration to enact.

How apt - and members of the 'community' should assist, should they not?

kind regards

andy

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:
I hate remote surveillance technology in principle.

I agree. Taking a few steps back, it seems that over the last five years or so, we have been deluged with prohibitions of one sort or another. It is possible to construct convincing cases in favour of each of these, such that each is individually democratically justifiable and entirely reasonable, and this is how the slippery slope is approached. The totality of the situation is seriously disturbing, particularly as much of it stems from the fact that it is only available technology which allows enforcement.

Should we not be looking at why these prohibitions are required when previously they clearly weren't? What is it that is causing us to want to do things which once we didn't? Isn't that what our beloved government should be tackling?

I for one would vote for anyone advocating "less law" -- we have far too much.