Roadside cameras to catch drivers using their mobile phones

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:

[...].

Fredrik said -

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.

Andy C replied

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

kind regards

andy

Dear Andy,

Very true! But there are some in the communitee who find the Police are
just ever so slightly unsympathetic. Though I have no doubt at all that called on to do so I would again assist the Police in anyway, I know from personal experience that sarcasm and slackness are not quite so rare as might be ideal. Combine this with members of the public who have been less fortunate in their upbringing and circumstances, and one can indeed see why some people are reluctant to approach the Police over any issue in any circumstance.

The nicest Policeman I met was our local Bobby (an Irish Catholic actually, which may explain why he never was the subject of promotion before he retired), who would come and not just watch the sheep dipping once a year, but if things got tight, get stuck in himself! He came and looked at the shot-guns, and was so familliar with the house, that one time I just said, "Oh, help yourself, they are in the office in the normal place," and gave him the key to the metal cupboard. He used to get his potatoes from us, and certainly knew everything there was to know about everyone on his patch. There would have been no chance that a drug dealer for example would have been able to set up a distibrution centre on his patch, as he knew everyone. He was rather like a Piest, who would call round whether you were expecting him or not.

That was reasuring, but certainly that sort of Policing is no more. It has been replaced by something far less sympathetic in my experience. This is not to tar every member of the Police Forece with the same brush, but standards have fallen in my experience. Sarcasm is too prevavlent rather than a helpful demeanour.

So I agree with you Andy, and then I can see also why your post is a plea for help, rather than a congratulation to the public, generally, for its correct and helpful attitude.

All the best from Fredrik

quote:

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,

Defensive driving involves making no assumptions as to whether the vehicle waiting to emerge from a junction is going to pull out into your path or not. If I'm driving down a road at whatever speed past a junction with a car waiting to pull out I assume that s/he is going to pull out and drop my speed accordingly - just enough that I could stop if required, but short of actually giving way.

quote:

...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.

That's just bad driving.

Regarding fitness to drive, 8 days ago I passed my Group 2 medical examination. Group 1 is the standard that everyone has to reach to be fit to drive. Group 2 is a higher standard for drivers of HGVs, PSVs and Taxis/Private Hire vehicles.

The eyesight test includes peripheral vision in the form of lights flashing either side. Other tests include being able to turn your head to look behind you, hand/eye co-ordination and reflexes. I do not expect all drivers to reach Group 2 standard and as such would not wish to deny you your mobility or livelihood.

DVLA medical requirements


I agree with MEJ above. We should do away with all forms of state-sanctioned remote surveillance. Just because the technology exists does not justify its use. We need real policemen not robots.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:
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.

What about remote surveillance that provides evidence of - murder, rape, GBH, affray, mugging...

or is it just traffic offences you are exercised about?

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:
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.

What about remote surveillance that provides evidence of - murder, rape, GBH, affray, mugging...

or is it just traffic offences you are exercised about?

You couldn't make it up

Sorry

I once saw a guy in an urban area going around a roundabout very slowly because he had a mobile in one hand and a cigarette in the other!

However, it's not just mobile phones...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4785686.stm

(Posted at same time as Rackkit)

Regards
Geoff

quote:

What about remote surveillance that provides evidence of - murder, rape, GBH, affray, mugging...

or is it just traffic offences you are exercised about?

I know of a housing estate a few miles from here where remote surveillance is used. I would desire to live there less not more since the arrival of these grey posts with spikes just beneath the cameras on top. As I said, we need real policemen that cost money as opposed to cameras that create revenue.

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff Cottle:
(Posted at same time as Rackkit)

Regards
Geoff

Nope. You were 2 minutes too slow. Put your foot down and speed up man!

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:
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.

What about remote surveillance that provides evidence of - murder, rape, GBH, affray, mugging...

or is it just traffic offences you are exercised about?

Nigel your examples are ok imo, but it will never take off, do you know why? it does'nt bring money into the treasury/police, speed cameras do.

quote:

As I said, we need real policemen that cost money as opposed to cameras that create revenue.

I would like to know how Council CCTV creates revenue - save in the detection and prevention of anti-social behaviour (Including fights, assaults, commercial burglaries etc) which obviously are easier to prove beyond reasonable doubt with CCTV than without.

Please don't confuse the CCTv you are talking about re traffic offence detection with that used for the latter examples I have given.

The reason is that the use of CCTV also serves to assist a defendant wrongly accused of these types of offence just as much as the prosection!

andy c!

I wonder if they will be used to pursue £80 fines for dropping a fag end?

Eee you sure are a sceptical lot...

Where there's muck there's brass!

Indeed, and for every negative there is a positive...!

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:

quote:

As I said, we need real policemen that cost money as opposed to cameras that create revenue.

I would like to know how Council CCTV creates revenue - save in the detection and prevention of anti-social behaviour (Including fights, assaults, commercial burglaries etc) which obviously are easier to prove beyond reasonable doubt with CCTV than without.

Please don't confuse the CCTv you are talking about re traffic offence detection with that used for the latter examples I have given.

The reason is that the use of CCTV also serves to assist a defendant wrongly accused of these types of offence just as much as the prosection!

andy c!

All well and good having these cctv cameras the problem is manning them.
Our local council had them installed, at the expense of the hard hit tax payer, as usual, then 12 months later admitted they were not manned, so any anti social behaviour was not being monitored, therefore no action could be brought against offenders.
I dont know what area you are in andy c but around here you're hard pressed to get a bobby.
Staff at our local shop are constantly harrassed every night of the week, what is the police's attitude? " sorry we will get someone there when we can "
That is not good enough when people are expecting a level of service, sorry to be so sceptical, but do away with all the harrassment of the motorist and get them back where they should be, in the neighbourhood, around here they wont attend unless there are atleast three of them in a car, then people wonder why locals decide to deal out justice in their own way, because sorry to say it, the police prescence is useless to put it mildly.

*

Fritz,

what you doing over here, dude?

Van,

I think I've answered your point before.

quote:

" sorry we will get someone there when we can "

Thats called priorities. Before you hit me with 'they ought to go to that rather than do the motorist', lets remember that the staff running the traffic camera's may well not be warranted police officers?!?

Oh, and ask yourself who, indirectly, sets such priorities IMOPO?

Roadside cameras to catch drivers using their mobile phones or applying eye-shadow

Steve,

It's been happening for years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/3819443.stm

quote:

Originally posted by Justyn:
Steve,

It's been happening for years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/3819443.stm

Maybe the guy should have stopped his car, applied the brake, turned the ignition off and got out the car and done his v sign, another example of political correctness going fucking tits up in this nanny state we live in.
Andy. Who sets priorities? explain your abbreviation first, but whoever does has obviously got things tits up have'nt they?
When we are paying the wages and the pensions that you lot get at 45 I think we are entitled to a better service.
Take the example of the policewoman, caught shooting up, given a £17000.00 handshake and £300.00 per month, total madness and a waste of money, she should have been booted out without a penny.

In My Own Personal Opinion(which is what I'm referring to in all cases re my postings unless otherwise stated, ta)

You need to look at the National Policing Plan, which is set by the government.

Some light reading: http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/communitysafety01.htm?fp

&
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/national-policing-plan/

You imply that we 'all' are not providing a service - again this is indicative of the way some folk think - 'lets be negative about everything, and not acknowledge owt positive is being done, or has been achieved'.

The police woman in question - are you saying she was paid the sum you quote as a pay off? Are you sure she was not just claiming the pension she paid into and is therefore entitled to? Clarification is needed here, please.

Oh, and you are NOT paying my pension. You may have paid part of my wages, but I paid a %age of that into MY pension, thanks.

quote:

Maybe the guy should have stopped his car, applied the brake, turned the ignition off and got out the car and done his v sign, another example of political correctness going fucking tits up in this nanny state we live in.

Maybe the bloke was frustrated? Maybe he was being abusive? maybe it was not the right thing to do, and its right he didn't get away with it?

Just 'cos you don't agree with something does not give you a right to be abusive in putting a counter argument accross, does it?

andy c!

A V sign is a form of expression. If I said to a police officer I had utter contempt for a given law and its enforcement, could he arrest me?

If I said (after I'd been handed the fixed penalty notice) upon being caught doing 81mph on a deserted motorway,

"It's a fair cop I was breaking the letter of the law ocifer. However my conscience is completely clear so spare me the lecture."

Is that no different to the V sign?

Steve,
the problem with verbal and visual gestures is that as soon as you say/do them, its then the interpretation of them that 'may' cause offence, isn't it?

The next thing is to decide whether the recipiant of such gestures should just accept them and get on with things?

Some folk would not be offended a the v sign. Some folk would not be offended at a verbal outcry at being done for something in principle they disagree with, but is indeed the law of the land. The problem is that others would, and this is why the laws relating to causing harassment, alarm or distress etc under the Public Order Act are worded the way they are.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
What about remote surveillance that provides evidence of - murder, rape, GBH, affray, mugging...

Your use of the phrase "provides evidence of" neatly illustrates the problem. Once it is accepted that "remote surveillance video" is incontrovertible evidence of what actually happened, then anyone in the right position who is so motivated can effectively re-write history by producing a date-stamped video. Basically, you can fit up anyone you want for whatever you want -- the technology is all in place for this to happen. We just don't yet know if it has actually happened so far. When (not if, IMHO) it does, all the money spent on this crap will have been completely wasted.

Remote surveillance video is actually pretty low-grade as evidence goes, but has much more convicting power than it deserves because of public perceptions of its incontrovertability. It is at best circumstantial. But as a tool of control, it's very efficient.

And a few years down the road, if the person in the viewfinder is carrying their RFID-equipped ID card (as required by law, naturally) or has their ID chip embedded under their skin (much cheaper for the taxpayer), then their identity could be "verified beyond doubt" at a distance, using the same camera.

Apparently we now don't need juries in many court cases -- how long will it be before the court itself is "not required"?

Best;

Mark

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
In My Own Personal Opinion(which is what I'm referring to in all cases re my postings unless otherwise stated, ta)

You need to look at the National Policing Plan, which is set by the government.

Some light reading: http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/communitysafety01.htm?fp

&
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/national-policing-plan/

You imply that we 'all' are not providing a service - again this is indicative of the way some folk think - 'lets be negative about everything, and not acknowledge owt positive is being done, or has been achieved'.

The police woman in question - are you saying she was paid the sum you quote as a pay off? Are you sure she was not just claiming the pension she paid into and is therefore entitled to? Clarification is needed here, please.

Oh, and you are NOT paying my pension. You may have paid part of my wages, but I paid a %age of that into MY pension, thanks.

quote:

Maybe the guy should have stopped his car, applied the brake, turned the ignition off and got out the car and done his v sign, another example of political correctness going fucking tits up in this nanny state we live in.

Maybe the bloke was frustrated? Maybe he was being abusive? maybe it was not the right thing to do, and its right he didn't get away with it?

Just 'cos you don't agree with something does not give you a right to be abusive in putting a counter argument accross, does it?

andy c!

" You imply that we 'all' are not providing a service - again this is indicative of the way some folk think - 'lets be negative about everything, and not acknowledge owt positive is being done, or has been achieved'."

People can only see things " as they are " ie as they experience in their own area.
Let me give you an example andy, as I mention, around here you would be left in the gutter to pass away if you were mugged and somebody called the police, because the police, imo, see this as " small fry " crime, again that is imo, people do not have to agree with my opinion it is after all a free country.
However, given the above scenario, now look at about two weeks ago, 10 women and a couple of blokes are protesting about the run down of our local bus service, what happens? they send out 4 police cars fully manned to attend, sorry but that is a waste of police resources.


" The police woman in question - are you saying she was paid the sum you quote as a pay off? Are you sure she was not just claiming the pension she paid into and is therefore entitled to? Clarification is needed here, please."

Whatever the circumstances she should not have been paid, imo, tell me, what signal does it send out?


" Oh, and you are NOT paying my pension. You may have paid part of my wages, but I paid a %age of that into MY pension, thanks. "


You may pay a percentage, which as far as I know is relatively low compared to other people paying into pension plans, but part of my council tax DOES go towards police pensions, I suggest you research your local council expenditure as I have.

" Just 'cos you don't agree with something does not give you a right to be abusive in putting a counter argument accross, does it?"

If someone does not agree with something, I do believe they are right to be abusive if they so feel like, read up the definition of freedom of speech.

What is wrong in a v sign? for christ sake come down to earth.
If someone cant live with it tough titty, imo.

Regards.

quote:

Originally posted by Mark Ellis-Jones:

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
What about remote surveillance that provides evidence of - murder, rape, GBH, affray, mugging...

Your use of the phrase "provides evidence of" neatly illustrates the problem. Once it is accepted that "remote surveillance video" is incontrovertible evidence of what actually happened,

Best;

Mark

I didn't say that remote surveillance provides "incontrovertible evidence" only that it provides evidence. And, in common with all other evidence - eye-witness, forensic, testimony and cross-examination - its ultimate value is for the courts to deceide.