Where does the spying end?

[mufc802]

A car is a privilage not a right, so the authorities have every right to monitor people as closely as possible to reduce the morons who go too fast. It's not like they stick a camera in your car and watch you drive, they just monitor your speed which seems a great idea tbh.

It would also means those cops who monitor everyones speed from inside their van parked up in unexpected places, will get to do other work instead.

 

[BigglesPiP]

Haa check this out: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-speed-cameras-trap-motorists-from-space.html

EDIT: oops same story I think

I think they're mistaking GPS with "a map".

 

[alex24]

Dolph, as I said in my earlier post, speed is the major factor in a low proportion of accidents, but it's an important factor in many accidents. It may not make a lot of difference, but I can't see how it can make things any worse.

The other 97% of accidents, what do you suggest we do about those? What options does the government have to tackle the causes of those? I assume most are due to negligent driving, i.e. not looking properly etc.

 

[Maniacfest]

We need to encourage people to have 'accidents' in the areas of these stupid cameras so it shows they do not work!!!

 

[Dolph]

Dolph, as I said in my earlier post, speed is the major factor in a low proportion of accidents, but it's an important factor in many accidents. It may not make a lot of difference, but I can't see how it can make things any worse.

I'm sorry, but that argument is simply wrong. Speed has very little influence on the other accidents when you remove the causes of those accidents and prevent them from happening.

The other 97% of accidents, what do you suggest we do about those? What options does the government have to tackle the causes of those? I assume most are due to negligent driving, i.e. not looking properly etc.

Well, there used to be this bizarre thing called a traffic officer, who used to address many of the bad driving habits that contribute to accidents...

Various people have been right when they say driving is a privilege, not a right, the problem is that the criteria for the privilege has become so twisted through politics over evidence, that the bulk of bad drivers do not get punished, because it would be politically unpopular to start hassling parents who aren't paying attention, old people who are barely fit to drive and so on.

 

[alex24]

I'm not disagreeing, but you're not saying it has no influence. It's a problem that's easy to tackle with a system like this, so I don't see the problem with it. What is the problem with it?

Traffic officers still exist don't they? I do agree here, they need to be tougher on poor drivers, and as has been mentioned plenty of times, something like compulsory re-tests every 10 years or similar.

 

[Dolph]

I'm not disagreeing, but you're not saying it has no influence. It's a problem that's easy to tackle with a system like this, so I don't see the problem with it. What is the problem with it?

Unnecessary restrictions on the behaviour of the population are entirely unjust in a free society? Blanket, heavy handed enforcement of unnecessary restrictions should never be supported if you believe in a free society.

Traffic officers still exist don't they? I do agree here, they need to be tougher on poor drivers, and as has been mentioned plenty of times, something like compulsory re-tests every 10 years or similar.

They do (and indeed they'll rarely stop you for exceeding the speed limit unless you're driving like an idiot in the process), but nowhere near enough of them.

 

[alex24]

I don't think definitely cutting 3% of accidents and possibly avoiding/reducing the severity of others is unnecessary though. Traffic officers, those involved and the families of those involved will also agree there. That's part of the problem, there's no amazing and easy solution to improve road safety that will ever be popular with the government AND the public. Unfortunately, the government are the ones with the real say in these matters, I hope that your vote in may will reflect what you believe in with regards to road safety policies, as I do mine.

Our society isn't as free as you may think either. The whole way it's run is unjust and illogical, though that's definitely a debate for another day.

 

[Dolph]

I don't think definitely cutting 3% of accidents and possibly avoiding/reducing the severity of others is unnecessary though. Traffic officers, those involved and the families of those involved will also agree there. That's part of the problem, there's no amazing and easy solution to improve road safety that will ever be popular with the government AND the public. Unfortunately, the government are the ones with the real say in these matters, I hope that your vote in may will reflect what you believe in with regards to road safety policies, as I do mine.

The problem is that beliefs that are commonly held among the populace don't actually match the evidence of benefit, and politics works on the former, not the latter (because we don't have sufficient protection against populist laws with no real benefit).

We need a strong written constitution that requires laws to be solidly evidence driven and proportionate, shame far too many people want to push their irrational and unjustified emotional beliefs onto others for it to happen.

Our society isn't as free as you may think either. The whole way it's run is unjust and illogical, though that's definitely a debate for another day.

Indeed, that doesn't make it right to support further unjust and illogical actions though.

 

[BigglesPiP]

I wonder if the camera's being in such vast grids will end up in less-monitored locations?

Cue one person with a phone on one side of the grid, and another with a printer and a bicycle in a shady spot the other side.

1000mph anyone?

 

[alex24]

I agree Dolph, but where we disagree is on how just the system would be if implemented. Since I can't see it making anything any worse (and it sends out a clear message to drivers, not just speeders), I don't have an issue with it as you do, but each to their own, this is just difference of opinion. I think only time would tell if it was a good idea once implemented.

Also you mentioned emotional beliefs - not just that, but mainly political and sometimes financial benefits are the real drivers for change at high levels. This is wrong.

 

[D1ngd0ng]

A car is a privilage not a right, so the authorities have every right to monitor people as closely as possible to reduce the morons who go too fast.

Smoking is a privilage not a right but is proven to be harmful, why don't the government ban it for our saftey?

Alcohol is a privilage not a right but is proven to be harmful in quantity, why don't the government ban it for our saftey?

More nanny state state crap and it certainly isn't full proof. What happens if you need to speed to avoid a collision? Good luck trying to justify it in court.

 

[MotherMayI]

Well, yeah. I remember saying years ago that it would come into play eventually. All in the interest of 'safety'.

Why not?

The speed limit is set for a reason. Just because you're a confident driver, doesn't mean you're going to hurt anyone less when you hit them.

 

[BigglesPiP]

A car is a privilage not a right

Could be argued under "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."

 

[Tefal]

Could be argued under "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."

public transport.

 

[xplosiv]

I'm wondering if these are placed in all the cities, and have little or no effect what the government will say then.

I can see this hitting loads of people who have a lapse of judgement and go over the speed limit

 

[alex24]

Cigarettes and alcohol are highly taxed to discourage their use. The government also spend money on advertising and in the NHS relating to education and treatment.

Banning them would be massively unpopular as there are still lots of smokers, though a ban is probably not a million miles away now.

I don't have a problem with people smoking until it affects people who've chosen to do it in the company of people who have chosen not to.

The point is, the government are there to protect the interests of the majority, if you don't like how it's run, you do have a say. Unfortunately I don't think our say goes very far...

 

[Dolph]

Why not?

The speed limit is set for a reason. Just because you're a confident driver, doesn't mean you're going to hurt anyone less when you hit them.

but just because you're exceeding an arbitrary limit on a sign at the side of the road doesn't mean you are any more likely to hit them.

 

[alex24]

I'd say it does. Stopping distances, reaction times etc. You're also likely to do more damage if you do hit. The government has decided a safe speed for that road, it's not for you to take it into your own hands and make that decision for yourself unless you're fully prepared to accept the possible consequences, that being caught, or hurting someone. If you feel you can decide the law for yourself on the road, where does it end?

 

[mmj_uk]

I'd like to see our government try to tackle speeding rather than just thinking up more ingenious ways to profit from it whilst extending the police state.