'Big brother' cameras will soon be 'coordinated' on all UK roads

Rob Henderson said:
*sigh* Chukpike. If a person is traveling the proper speed limit, THEORETICALLY that person would be perfectly able to stop in ample time before a light turned red. Those who travel ABOVE the speed limit (also known as "speeders") would be much more hard-pressed to stop in time, seeing as they are traveling faster, and it is known that the faster you are traveling, the harder it is for you to stop quickly.

But quite honestly, this is happening in the UK, not America, so to bring up America's own red light camera ventures is slightly off topic because there might be large differences between the two.
Click to expand...

*sigh* Rob Henderson. The question posed in the original post was, "Where does this end, does your country use this system, and can they be trusted to use it responsibly?"Perseus post 1
*sigh*I believe my post was on topic as it answered the question. No they can not be trusted to use it responsibly.*sigh*
*sigh*Since it is obvious your only purpose is to act as a moderator, PLEASE at least read the first post on the thread so you will know what the topic is. *sigh*

As for your theory, "If a person is traveling the proper speed limit, THEORETICALLY that person would be perfectly able to stop in ample time before a light turned red."

Unless of course they shorten the duration of the yellow caution to something to short for a person to stop in time.

*sigh* I know it is not going to happen but try and keep up with the topic by reading the first post at least. *sigh*
 
Chukpike said:
*sigh* Rob Henderson. The question posed in the original post was, "Where does this end, does your country use this system, and can they be trusted to use it responsibly?"Perseus post 1
*sigh*I believe my post was on topic as it answered the question. No they can not be trusted to use it responsibly.*sigh*
*sigh*Since it is obvious your only purpose is to act as a moderator, PLEASE at least read the first post on the thread so you will know what the topic is. *sigh*

As for your theory, "If a person is traveling the proper speed limit, THEORETICALLY that person would be perfectly able to stop in ample time before a light turned red."

Unless of course they shorten the duration of the yellow caution to something to short for a person to stop in time.

*sigh* I know it is not going to happen but try and keep up with the topic by reading the first post at least. *sigh*
Click to expand...
Read perseus' article... They ARE using it properly. And you should check that breathing problem... Last thing I'd want is for you to die of asthma or something.
 
Well according to the US Department of Transportation, it's kind of win some, lose some.

The "right angle" crashes, or T-bones, decreased, but the rear-end crashes increased... Makes sense... But in doing further research, I've found that right angle crashes are more likely to be fatal than any other type of accident. Again, it makes sense... So which would you rather have, a rear ending, or a driver's side T-bone?

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05049/index.htm
 
Rob Henderson said:
Well according to the US Department of Transportation, it's kind of win some, lose some.

The "right angle" crashes, or T-bones, decreased, but the rear-end crashes increased... Makes sense... But in doing further research, I've found that right angle crashes are more likely to be fatal than any other type of accident. Again, it makes sense... So which would you rather have, a rear ending, or a driver's side T-bone?

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05049/index.htm
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the topic. Which is:
"Where does this end, does your country use this system, and can they be trusted to use it responsibly?"Perseus post 1
 
Actually, since the installing of CCTV cameras at the intersections is one of the reasons they decreased the yellow-light time it is VERY relevant to the topic. Great rebuttal, by the way. I don't know what I can say next. :roll:
 
Rob Henderson said:
Actually, since the installing of CCTV cameras at the intersections is one of the reasons they decreased the yellow-light time it is VERY relevant to the topic. Great rebuttal, by the way. I don't know what I can say next. :roll:
Click to expand...
Whatever Rob. Are you so anxiuos to argue with me that you can't address the topic? How do you answer the following question?*sigh*:roll:
"Where does this end, does your country use this system, and can they be trusted to use it responsibly?"Perseus post 1

I guess because you are a music major your reading ability is limited to sheet music.:wink:
 
Chukpike said:
Whatever Rob. Are you so anxiuos to argue with me that you can't address the topic? How do you answer the following question?*sigh*:roll:
"Where does this end, does your country use this system, and can they be trusted to use it responsibly?"Perseus post 1

I guess because you are a music major your reading ability is limited to sheet music.:wink:
Click to expand...

You are the one who brought up the AAA and their reasoning for pulling their support because it decreased yellow-light times. "Whatever" is a word commonly associated with someone out of arguments.


The CCTV cameras at intersections have proven to be extremely beneficial to the general public, and therefore should continue to be put in place. However, I don't see it going too far beyond intersections because of the sheer manpower required to monitor all the cameras if we were to say place them on street corners and such. Like I said at the beginning, the only people who complain about these types of things are those who wish to not be caught in the act.

Quite honestly, the government hasn't given us a reason not to trust them with this sort of responsibility... CCTV cameras have been in use for a number of years, and I know of no incidents in which the government used them AGAINST the people (other than those breaking the law). So yes, I believe we can trust them to use something like this responsibly, and I think it would be very helpful to the general public. Sort of like unmarked police cars, you know they're there, so you're less likely to speed in fear of getting caught...
 
Rob Henderson said:
You are the one who brought up the AAA and their reasoning for pulling their support because it decreased yellow-light times. "Whatever" is a word commonly associated with someone out of arguments.
Click to expand...
You wish. :)


Rob Henderson said:
The CCTV cameras at intersections have proven to be extremely beneficial to the general public, and therefore should continue to be put in place. However, I don't see it going too far beyond intersections because of the sheer manpower required to monitor all the cameras if we were to say place them on street corners and such. Like I said at the beginning, the only people who complain about these types of things are those who wish to not be caught in the act.
Click to expand...
There is no question that they could be beneficial if not abused.

Rob Henderson said:
Quite honestly, the government hasn't given us a reason not to trust them with this sort of responsibility... CCTV cameras have been in use for a number of years, and I know of no incidents in which the government used them AGAINST the people (other than those breaking the law). So yes, I believe we can trust them to use something like this responsibly, and I think it would be very helpful to the general public. Sort of like unmarked police cars, you know they're there, so you're less likely to speed in fear of getting caught...
Click to expand...

Of course if you had read Peresus example in post 39 you could be aware of incidents like this:
As an example, 80-year-old pensioner John Catt and his daughter Linda (with no criminal record between them) were stopped by City of London Police while driving in London, UK in 2005, had their vehicle searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and were threatened with arrest if they refused to answer questions. After they complained formally, it was discovered they were stopped when their car was picked up by roadside ANPR CCTV cameras; it had been flagged in the Police National Computer database when they were seen near EDO MBM demonstrations in Brighton. Critics point out that the Catts had been suspected of no crime, however the UK's mass surveillance infrastructure allowed them to be targeted due to their association.

Or the article I posted listing the AAA reservations in using the system.

If we could only find a way to enter our posts on sheet music we might be able to get you to read them.
"and I know of no incidents in which the government used them AGAINST the people." Rob Henderson

Just because you are unaware doesn't mean it isn't happening. Big Brother kind of likes it that way.
At your age there are lots of things you are unaware of, same goes for me even though I have been around longer. Knowing this helps me keep from burying my head in the sand. Helps me be wary of things like the Patriot Act, or things your favorite President Bush might have done in the name of security.

Have a nice day!:smile:
 
Chukpike said:
Of course if you had read Peresus example in post 39 you could be aware of incidents like this:
As an example, 80-year-old pensioner John Catt and his daughter Linda (with no criminal record between them) were stopped by City of London Police while driving in London, UK in 2005, had their vehicle searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and were threatened with arrest if they refused to answer questions. After they complained formally, it was discovered they were stopped when their car was picked up by roadside ANPR CCTV cameras; it had been flagged in the Police National Computer database when they were seen near EDO MBM demonstrations in Brighton. Critics point out that the Catts had been suspected of no crime, however the UK's mass surveillance infrastructure allowed them to be targeted due to their association.
Click to expand...
Well this is not JUST CCTV... This is a formal law that violates citizen's rights. Just like the Patriot Act here in America. I'm for the cameras, but against the laws that say government can do anything they want without good reason.
Chukpike said:
Or the article I posted listing the AAA reservations in using the system.

If we could only find a way to enter our posts on sheet music we might be able to get you to read them.
Click to expand...
I read them, I was wondering if you had read mine. The one where the CCTV cameras used for traffic safety decreased fatal accidents...
Chukpike said:
"and I know of no incidents in which the government used them AGAINST the people." Rob Henderson

Just because you are unaware doesn't mean it isn't happening. Big Brother kind of likes it that way.
At your age there are lots of things you are unaware of, same goes for me even though I have been around longer. Knowing this helps me keep from burying my head in the sand. Helps me be wary of things like the Patriot Act, or things your favorite President Bush might have done in the name of security.

Have a nice day!:smile:
Click to expand...
Yes, you're right... It could be happening. But do you really think that SOME news crew wouldn't get a hold on "CCTV cameras taken advantage of by oppressive government" That would be GOLD. Trust me, I might be a liberal, but I DEFINITELY don't like being told what to do all the time... I was against the Patriot Act from the beginning.
 
Rob Henderson said:
Well this is not JUST CCTV... This is a formal law that violates citizen's rights. Just like the Patriot Act here in America. I'm for the cameras, but against the laws that say government can do anything they want without good reason.
I read them, I was wondering if you had read mine. The one where the CCTV cameras used for traffic safety decreased fatal accidents...
Yes, you're right... It could be happening. But do you really think that SOME news crew wouldn't get a hold on "CCTV cameras taken advantage of by oppressive government" That would be GOLD. Trust me, I might be a liberal, but I DEFINITELY don't like being told what to do all the time... I was against the Patriot Act from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Thanks, then you agree the answer to the topic is, that we can not completely trust the government to act responsibly. I am glad you have finally seen the light.
 
I've never said that we should trust our government completely, and I never will... Not completely... I think if we can't trust our government, then we need a new government, but I think we have to give them a certain measure of trust until they do something to break that trust. But in this particular case, I believe we CAN trust them.
 
I've just been watching about controversal techniques used by paediatricians to show parents were abusing their children. Cameras were specially rigged up from various angles whilst the suspect was left alone with the child in a segregated hospital ward. In most of the cases there was evidence caught on camera of abuse including attempted suffocation and a broken arm.
 
Wow... That's absolutely insane... See, if we didn't have people like this, then we wouldn't HAVE to put things like this on... That's completely ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top