July 22, 2011, 10:13 am
Do you folks think law enforcement cameras are an invasion of privacy?
July 22, 2011, 3:20 pm
I wouldnt say an invasion of privacy - unnecessary, expensive, revenue generating, irritating, pointless, and there are so many better methods of reducing speed, and accidents.
Or are we referring more to CCTV
July 22, 2011, 6:49 pm
If you mean CCTV then no, I'd prefer them to be everywhere. I don't commit crimes so I don't have any reason to worry about them.
If you mean speed cameras then no again. I don't understand how people can say they're only used to generate money, don't speed and they wont make any money, it isn't rocket science. I don't speed, therefore they don't concern me either.
July 22, 2011, 8:17 pm
I think speed camera's are a waste of time/money.
They only catch out those who are unfamiliar with the area, who may also be unfamiliar with the speed limit along that road. Those who live local tend to know where they are, and if they want to speed they'll just slow down for the camera and then get back on their way again. I've also seen someone rear ended who was trying to slow down for a speed camera. I believe this is quite a common accident at speed camera sites, so are they really reducing accidents? Speed camera vans are twice as worse, at least you can anticipate a static camera.
CCTV can be very useful for evidence, and can even serve as a deterrent for crime, so I'm quite happy with them.
Number plate recognition camera's cut down police costs by providing static support to catch out those who are driving without insurance/tax and tracking down stolen cars. I personally think these should be on every road.
In conclusion, lose the speed cameras, more number plate cameras.
I find the "Speed Signs" more effective than speed cameras, they use a laser to measure your speed, which is displayed on a sign as you approach it.
Or the "X deaths/collisions on this road between 1st January 2010 - 30th December 2010" Signs
July 24, 2011, 10:00 am
Pumkin Steve, I agree with MRC89, dont get me wrong, the idea behind speed camera's is good, but, as MRC said, if your in unfamiliar territory, you spend more time looking around at what the speed should be, and what your doing, instead of spending more time trying to focus on the road itself. which as stated helps to cause accidents.
Besides, if you visit an unfamiliar area, dont know what the speed restrictions are, and get penalised for the fact that your paying more attention to the road, than you are trying to focus on your speed, then is that really a reason to be punished?
I would rather the sign flashed and warned me I was speeding, so then I am much more aware, £60 and 3 points is a lot to take, especially when peoples livelihood requires a clean license.
that said, I personally think ANPR on the speed signs would be better, if you are continuously seen on roads and the sign has to flash at you X times, then maybe the £60 3 points should apply, but not for a one off.
August 24, 2011, 8:52 pm
it is all just a money making scheme
August 24, 2011, 10:38 pm
It's simple don't speed and the speed camera won't catch you.
August 25, 2011, 1:51 am
I think its more the fact with speed camera positions that are naughty e.g on the way to work it goes from a 30 to 50 zone, sometimes at the bottom of the hill before you reach the 50 zone there is a cheeky mobile scamera watching people coming down the hill who may accidently go over 30 as a result of the decline on to which the camera bike has the most tiny camera symbol ever whoch you cannot see until your next to the bike. the bike is not even sideways to make it easy to see either! I really do HATE speed cameras, i agree with traffic light cameras and cameras outside of schools but main roads where the car has right of way......nope!
August 25, 2011, 8:46 am
I never knew they did camera bikes... that is rediculous, that is just a scam!
If they replaced the camera's with other speed reduction advisors then it would have the same affect...
Driving through some of the local towns, there are notices on the roads next to the speed cameras lowest - "this speed camera saved 1 accident over the last 3 years" and the highest "this speed camera has saved 4 accidents over the last three years"...
question is can you "really" put that down to the camera?
August 25, 2011, 5:17 pm
[quote name='Steve' timestamp='1311325990' post='136939']
Do you folks think law enforcement cameras are an invasion of privacy?[/quote]
if we are talking about CCTV then no, but I do ask the question are they worth it?
many looters have been caught due to their 'appearance' on the local cctv network - but does the cost of cctv prevent more police from being on the streets. More 'visible' police might have prevented a lot of the looting in the first place.
As for traffic camera - they do not catch the driver who is drunk, has no insurance, mot, etc and makes no allowance for a motorist doing 38 mph in a 30 mph at 4pm or 4am.
The ANPR cameras are more worth while and more likely to catch the more serious offender.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here