Big Brother is coming

[GuzziHero]

Now I'm normally an advocate of CCTV security but this is taking the mickey...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7994449.stm

[Jagdraben]

What is this now? Big Brother is coming? I thought he was already here.

 

But seriously, how is this different from having CCTV cameras watching intersections?

[rhino]

unlimited technology, yet they still use a joystick from an Atari 2600... FAIL!

[GuzziHero]

As far as I know, CCTV is generally done reactively...as in, being used to provide evidence of crimes committed. These actually go looking for 'crime' (such as it is).

 

[Stealthbomber]

But seriously, how is this different from having CCTV cameras watching intersections?

Well, as Guzzi says, the idea of these cars is to specifically target drivers with the intent of prosecuting them for driving "without due care and attention".

Don't forget, as well, that the cost of a Mercedes Smart car and the person (or people) to crew it isn't gonna be small either.

 

This reminds me of when they came out with the idea of camera vans.

Used to be that gypsies and grocers would set up stalls in lay-bys and on the hard shoulder then flog clothes-pegs and strawberries etc.

The cops didn't like this and stopped them from doing it, claiming that blocking lay-bys and hard shoulders was a hazard to other road traffic who might need to use these facilities.

Then they invented camera vans.

...and park them in lay-bys, on hard shoulders, in bus-stops, on footpaths and anywhere they bloody-well feel like.

So, what's the deal with these camera vans?

Are they made of super-soft foam which repels other vehicles? Are they, in fact, holograms which are completely unhazardous?

So how come the police don't have an issue with camera vans being parked in these places?

 

Same thing applies to these new camera cars, in fact even more so.

Unless I'm mistaken, it's illegal to park a vehicle within a certain distance of a junction (50ft?) so I can't really see how one of these cars can be ligally parked across the road from a T-Junction, for example.

 

[Handsome Pete]

Old news, had a camera carrying smart car outside the yard where I used to work, been about for atleast a year. Would take pictures of our trucks parked on the yellow after 8am, next thing you know, £50 fine for the driver.

 

cheers.

[snorkelman]

whats more distracting driving while talking on the phone, or having someone shout "quick! pull into the other lane and slow down, theres a guy with a phone I need to get a photo of" in your lughole..

 

 

[Xaccers]

It's a money making scam.

If they were interested in catching people who were driving without due care and attention then they'd have humans there (without "targets" to reach) who are able to judge whether that person who reached down for a second to change channel on the radio was actually driving without due care and attention.

A camera will just take a photo, a fine will be sent out, in the hope that the driver just coughs up the money whether a crime has actually been committed or not.

Just look at the number of illegal speeding fines that get sent out, and the effort the police go to to try and intimidate you into paying if you know you are not in the wrong.

[Danke]

Cash grab for sure, and the un-funny part is as folks become more law-abiding the more outrageous and nit-picky the camera vans get. Not nicking enough speeders? Move onto some other by-law.

 

That said I am for red light cameras over here. We get so many folks running reds it is a hazard.

[Kyrian_Zenda]

As far as I know, CCTV is generally done reactively...as in, being used to provide evidence of crimes committed. These actually go looking for 'crime' (such as it is).

CCTV is used more proactively that you'd think, and is as much preventative as a bloke on the ground in uniform. I've got myself a Public Space Surveillance licence, and the way you're trained to use it is much the same as someone on the ground, with the obvious difference that you've got eyes practically everywhere at the same time. Identify potential trouble-makers, keep an eye on them and record their movements in case you're proved correct and will need the evidence later on.

 

 

[Xaccers]

That said I am for red light cameras over here. We get so many folks running reds it is a hazard.

 

Red light running cameras are great because they're catching people doing something obviously dangerous.

Similarly the number plate recognition cameras which check to see if the car's owner (and likely driver) has any outstanding convictions, or is driving without tax/mot/insurance.

Those are crimes which are either being committed or not, ie someone's either driving through a red light and so catch them on film, or they're not, so don't.

Something as wooly as driving without due care and attention, similarly with dangerous driving, needs the assessment of a suitably qualified human to make the judgment call.

Instead this is going to rely on people's ignorance of the law in order to punish them when no crime has actually occured, or an illegal prosecution is being attempted (I've been on the recieving end of two of those, one actually got to court and was thrown out with both the CPS and Clerk of the Justice being disgusted at the police's conduct and wasting the court's time).

 

I also think that it's wrong to theaten people that if they contest the charge they run the risk of a higher penalty, again this is relying on people's fears of courts being corrupt and unjust (although in my experience unlike the police, the courts are indeed fair and just).

If it's ok to give out a £60 fine and 3 points, then that should be the penalty in court as well.

If that was the case though, you'd have many more people going to court, and that would expose police corruption and the number of illegal fines they issue.

[Chimpy]

As far as I know, CCTV is generally done reactively...as in, being used to provide evidence of crimes committed. These actually go looking for 'crime' (such as it is).

 

Yes and next they'll have Policemen walking about the street on something called 'a beat'. It's a slippery slope I tells yah!

 

To me using cameras to proactively look for crime is identical to having a cop in place doing the same which sounds pretty ethical. Using cameras reactively and thus catching everyone regardless of what they are doing is pretty unethical in terms of personal privacy and hence it's usual comparison to 1984.

[L4byr1nth]

Like that thing in the news earlier this year - they announced they were trialling the attachment of a loudspeaker system to CCTV cameras, to facilitate the shouting at minor offenders ("Oi, you, the knobhead with the sleeping bag - PICK THAT SPECIAL BREW CAN BACK UP AND PUT IT IN THE BIN!!").

 

One side argues that it's unfair, and oppressive, especially with the extortionate amounts British motorists are already paying.

 

The other lot argue that what's the point in having a Government (and supposed Law And Order) if you're not going to proactively go out and police what you set in place.

 

Too many fat rich MP's making way too much money for doing way too little. Not going to fix it by whining about it, that's for sure.

 

I'm not sure this is a new concept though - CCTV vans (the big yellow ones) have been around yonks... This is just updating old technology, correct?

 

Ben.

[Stealthbomber]

To me using cameras to proactively look for crime is identical to having a cop in place doing the same which sounds pretty ethical. Using cameras reactively and thus catching everyone regardless of what they are doing is pretty unethical in terms of personal privacy and hence it's usual comparison to 1984.

I guess it depends on your POV.

 

I mean, for example, let's say there's a long straight road with no intersections. Is it ethical for a camera van to park up in somebodies drive and fine people speeding along that road?

 

I am genuinely not trying to put any "spin" on this. I just use that example because some people will feel that "it's not a big deal" to speed along an apparently safe stretch of road whereas others will think that the law is the law and ANY breach of it should be punished.

I suspect that the thing that worries Guzzi' (as it worries me) is that a camera van that sits across the street from traffic lights all day will, inevitably, be able to photograph people (while the lights are on red) as they glance down and change their CD or check a map for directions as well as the people who're shaving, drinking coffee or applying make-up.

 

If a policeman is responsible for this procedure then he's likely to excercise a certain amount of discretion whereas a private company, driven by profit rather than any inclination to see justice done, is more likely to prosecute every offence.

[Xaccers]

Depends on whether the police have targets to hit, if they do, then all thoughts of justice go out the window.

Need to catch 10 people a day? Then 10 people will be caught.

 

Look at the incident which resulted in someone getting two points on their licence while sitting in their living room.

The police had set up a speed trap, and they couldn't accept they weren't catching anyone (gotta meet those targets), so they went round the corner and found someone had put up a warning sign.

Now, I don't know about you, but usually when people help prevent crimes taking place, they're not punished for it.

He was arrested fined and given two points.

Now, had the coppers not been motivated by targets, they'd have been happy that no one was speeding, after all it's better to have motorists that don't speed, than have some that do and only a few that get caught for it. Also their presence serves as a warning to potential speeders that they operate along that stretch of road so best stick to the limit and be safe.

Problem is, deterrents don't look good on statistics.

Imagine an effective police force with large numbers of beat bobbies, preventing crime by their presence, but a large bill to go with it.

With low crime, statistically it could be shown that the numbers of PCs are not justified, resulting in a reduction of the force and an increase in crime.

 

[Crimson]

wow what a whole load of *suitcase*, i am glad the met havent even considered this and i hope it fails for manchester police

 

It wont matter in populated areas or city centers as there are many corners and blocks etc

[Chimpy]

I guess it depends on your POV.

 

I mean, for example, let's say there's a long straight road with no intersections. Is it ethical for a camera van to park up in somebodies drive and fine people speeding along that road?

 

I am genuinely not trying to put any "spin" on this. I just use that example because some people will feel that "it's not a big deal" to speed along an apparently safe stretch of road whereas others will think that the law is the law and ANY breach of it should be punished.

 

In that specific example the issue is the speed limit on the road section and not the enforcement of the speed limit. People that think it's too low should petition the local council to have it changed rather than speeding.

 

I vaguely agree on the public versus private thing and also the quota issue that Xaccers brings up. There are obvious ways of making both approaches useful though but it's not really pertinent to the discussion.

[Cannonfodder80]

Probably going to get flamed for this, but surely anyone who doesn't spot a smart car with hi vis markings and a 12ft pole sticking out of the roof obviously isn't paying attention to the road

[HaVoC]

According to the Partnership - also known as Drivesafe - there have been 406 collisions in Greater Manchester in the past two years which can be attributed to distracted drivers.

406 collisions per 2 years, that's an average of 203 collisions per year caused by distracted drivers.

 

I can't find a figure for a total number of car journeys in Greater Manchester per year, but according to the Campaign For Free Public Transport, quoting a report by the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive:

 

Their own data shows that in the year 2004/5 there were 12.9 million kilometres of vehicle journeys on Greater Manchester's roads.

 

If we calculate:

 

( 203 / 12,900,000 ) * 100 = 0.001574

 

Therefore, for each 1km you drive, you have a 0.0016% chance of being involved in an accident 'attributable to a distracted driver'.

 

How long is your daily commute in the Greater Manchester area? Let's say it's 30km, there and back.

 

0.001574 * 30 = 0.04722

 

On your average daily commute of 30km, you therefore have a 0.047% chance of being involved in such an accident. Rounded up to 0.05%, that's a 5 in 10000 chance. You have about a 1 in 1000 chance of getting 4 numbers on the lottery - how many times have you had that happen to you? This is another 10 times less likely again.

 

What's the big problem here? Seems to me that the Police are, as usual, cracking down on a non-existant problem in an effort to make some easy cash and meet some targets, and of course, we'll all go along with it because the general public are spineless morons.

 

Pathetic.

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Hoo boy do I hope that maths isn't wrong. It's been a long day, so...

[QQexDERA]

What amuses me is that they come up with ###### like this, and then in the next sentence bemoan the fact that the general public distrust the authorities in general, and the Police in particular - hardly surprising when the constabulary seems to be nothing more than another revenue generating section of the Treasury.

 

I've got a mate who used to be on Traffic. His theory - and I think it's fairly sound - was that a NIP dropping through a letterbox does nothing more than increase resentment of plod and their minions, whereas a right old ######ing handed out on a one to one basis tends to get peoples attentions. Mind you, that approach did land him in a world of *suitcase* with his boss. Apparently he wasn't handing out enough speeding tickets!

 

Which kinda proves that it really is all about revenue, not road safety.

 

 

[Chimpy]

406 collisions per 2 years, that's an average of 203 collisions per year caused by distracted drivers.

 

I can't find a figure for a total number of car journeys in Greater Manchester per year, but according to the Campaign For Free Public Transport, quoting a report by the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive:

 

 

 

If we calculate:

 

( 203 / 12,900,000 ) * 100 = 0.001574

 

Therefore, for each 1km you drive, you have a 0.0016% chance of being involved in an accident 'attributable to a distracted driver'.

 

How long is your daily commute in the Greater Manchester area? Let's say it's 30km, there and back.

 

0.001574 * 30 = 0.04722

 

On your average daily commute of 30km, you therefore have a 0.047% chance of being involved in such an accident. Rounded up to 0.05%, that's a 5 in 10000 chance. You have about a 1 in 1000 chance of getting 4 numbers on the lottery - how many times have you had that happen to you? This is another 10 times less likely again.

 

What's the big problem here? Seems to me that the Police are, as usual, cracking down on a non-existant problem in an effort to make some easy cash and meet some targets, and of course, we'll all go along with it because the general public are spineless morons.

 

Pathetic.

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Hoo boy do I hope that maths isn't wrong. It's been a long day, so...

 

This is obviously not a individual protection issue as you demonstrate but then the police aren't about protecting individuals. However from your own figures there is an accident the police didn't need to be dealing with and presumably one or more victims suffered from in some way everyday for approximately two-thirds of the year. Which sounds rather less like a non-issue. This also only accounts for reported incidents involving collisions and not necessarily all the incidents of dangerous driving there were. As a definitive proof that these measures are a waste of time your methodology needs a lot more work.

 

Lies, damn lies and statistics after all.

 

(BTW 5/10000 is better expressed as 1/2000 so it's actually only twice as likely you'll getting 4 numbers on the lottery, but bear in mind you can only play the lottery twice a week but drive five times a week to work so the actual odds in a week if you play the lottery both times and drive to work everyday are 1/500 of getting four numbers and 1/400 of getting hit by a distracted driver so you are actually more likely to get hit by a distracted driver, when treating them as mutually exclusive events, only allowing you to get four numbers once and get hit once as I'm too lazy to do more then simple mental calculation atm)

 

Mind you I've been in work all day, climbed for four hours this evening and have drunk two beers so my maths won't be perfect either.

[HaVoC]

Bah, well done on catching the stats brainfart

[Chimpy]

It's not really stats brainfarts it's just calculating pretty meaingless numbers in a fancy sounding way. You can use statistics (the discipline) as an analytical tool on data or you bastardise it in anyway you like to prove what you want near enough. Back of the envelope calculations like ours, especially with odd comparisons like lottery winning sound great, irrefutable even but often in the face of proper analysis turn into dust. Ben Goldacre busts a lot of this sort of ###### in his Bad Science blog as media reporting of medicine and science is pretty poor (e.g. MMR scare).

[HaVoC]

Oh yeah, not saying it had any real meaning. I'm a scientist and I'm about the most skeptical person you could find of all these meaningless stats churned out by the government to prove this or that.

 

My point was more that is the government can bombard you with fancy-looking numbers to make you think "Crikey, we should do something about that problem!", there's no reason why it can't work the other way as well.

 

406 accidents per 2 years! Sounds like a lot until you work it out as something else, upon which it doesn't sound like much at all.

 

This government, in particular, is very good at manipulating figures to back pointless legislation. Sadly, the majority of the dumb sheeple in this country seem to fall for it every time, too.

[Victory]

Seeing the title, I was hoping for a 1984 movie remake.

 

Bummer.

 

-Vic