King RA

I'm all for CCTV, if you haven't done anything wrong then you've got nothing to worry.

OllyK

I don't disagree with you on that point. The trouble is, the way it is worked, if you have commited a crime you don't have much to worry about either. Assuming they can find the video (because you can bet nobody actually saw the crime on CCTV at the time and did something to follow it up there and then) the criminals will get bailed and then fail to show up for court, and if they do show they get a slap on the wrists and are sent on their way.

It is all far to re-active and not sufficiently pro-active for my liking. Criminals need to think twice about their actions, they need to think there is a damn good chance of them getting caught quickly and being dealt with in a meaningful way. Both of these will add to the detterant effect, which is better than dealing with the issue after the fact.

C h a z II

too true. now where is my secret garage?

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Or Wurzel will come along in his 300ps German plated Impreza and blitz the lot of you in a clear 3rd lane because none of your cars will go fast enough in order to use it and as the police cars will also be fitted with it they won't catch me, if you do then crash and catch fire due to seeing me HOOOOOONING past you, you will die of your burns on the way to hospital as the Ambulance will not get you there in time and your car will be destroyed by fire as the Fire brigade won't get to you intime to extinguish it.

Good Luck and happy motoring Britain

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

And the first thing you do after getting it fitted is to sell or scrap the car, the new owner will not need the gadget as they are not a convicted criminal and either remove it or have it removed.

The offender then goes out and buys a new car without a gadget in it.

King RA

OllyK I was actually thinking about all those times I've seen on street crime UK where people on a Fri/Sat are caught kicking someones head in, in a city centre. And the police normally catch them.

CCTV in and around city centres are a very good idea.

OllyK

It is still re-active. If there was a deterrant and bobbies on the street preventing the kicking we wouldn't need the CCTV cameras in the first place.

I'd just rather we did more to try and pevent crime than spend loads of money on cameras to follow round prosecuting people after the damage has been done. In the abscence of bobbies on the beat, decent court sentecing and discipline from an early age, I guess CCTV is better than nothing, but not by much.

chiark

Now that really is a secret garage if you don't know where it is yourself...

SJ_Skyline

I was at first a little concerned that I was reading the guardian but after a few paragraphs I was happy to see that my faith in the newspaper has been restored.

What a load of left-wing b0llocks!

I have specially purchased a copy from the local garage because it is both large and absorbent.

Steve Whitehorn

iTrader: (13)

r32 said
'But better training and a higher standard of driving would have more impact than the 'speed kills' brigade!'

That so sums it up. Enough said

Steve

boomer

On similar lines, there was an article on the BBC Breakfast this morning about special cameras to enforce the "high occupancy lanes" in Leeds. It seems that some unscrupulous drivers are using these lanes with only one person - or even placing a dummy in the passenger seat.

This high-tech, very expensive, paid for by you (but fines to the authorities) can differentiate between human flash and plastic - even through tinted or front-heated glass.

I guess they will need other (high-tech, very expensive, paid for by you) cameras to check the rear seats - but we can't allow people to break the law can we?

WTF is going on???

Why does the government want to spend TENS OF BILLIONS trying to constrict, spy and generally bully motorists, when building a few more carefully planned roads (and not having perpetual roadworks on the ones already built) would solve the vast proportion of congestion??

Oh, of course - that's what this thread is all about. It is nothing to do with saving lives or protecting the planet - it is allowing the government (who should be our servants) to have absolute control over every aspect of our lives

Enjoys your Scoobs - there is not much time left

mb

Cold Turkey

usual utter w@nk from monbiot. typical arrogant PC c@nt

Leslie

Boomer's points are right of course, the whole business is frightening,

hedgehog

One of the most frightening developments has been the move away from investigative policing towards clerical process. The camera partnerships have played a leading role in getting the infrastructure in place for this "development" and, as we know, when a camera catches you speeding you just get a letter that says "You have offended. I am the law. Pay up." The circumstances are not investigated and if you object they attempt to hit you with a more serious charge.

Once the ISA and the number plate tagging arrive this clerical process will be further expanded to take in a range of crimes that will not be investigated: you and I will just be deemed guilty by an organisation funded by our fines.

This is one reason why it remains important to fight the cameras as their destruction of the basic legal rights of the motorist turn us into nothing but a second class cash cow in the eyes of the law. The minute you step into your car you have no rights or protection under the law and yet you pay nearly £40 billion per year to ensure that someone who steals your car has legal aid or that a drunken pedestrain who staggers into the road in front of you can not be at fault in any accident.

If the government forced such legislation on any other group of people I believe there would, literally, be riots in the street. That they have managed to force it upon 23 million motorists is beyond me to comprehend. However, you and I are the new criminals in this society. It is said that Stalin killed 26 million Ukranians in his "purges" how long before motorists in the UK start vanishing? Melodramatic exaggeration I know but our freedom and right to personal mobility is certainly vanishing at an amazing rate and in a manner that Stalin himself would have been proud of.

angrynorth

Firstly, monbiot is an idiot.

Secondly, I will drive uninsured before I drive with this piece of equipment in my car. Its not that I drive dramatically above the speed limit or recklessly, in fact I'm quite a boring driver. But I want to retain my right to be free from constant monitoring.

I'm sure that the day it comes out there will be a piece of firmware on the net to disable it.

unclebuck

I'm about to re-read 1984. I'm sure it will be full of interesting quotations and parallels to what Blair's 'reforms' are doing to our society.

Image how bad it could be if fools like Monbiot actually had any real power. Oh s**t they already have - they're called the Government.

UB

angrynorth

The one thing that bothers me about this is that he says that

"people who refuse to drive are more likely to be killed by a car"

We all know that this will be down to the arrogant attitude these people will take, such as "I am crossing the road. You WILL stop for me." It also doesn't help that they will have absolutely no road sense whatsoever. Cyclists, (sweeping generalisation, my apologies ) in particular are constantly ignoring the rules of the road, skipping traffic lights, flailing across lanes etc.

This kind of thing really grates me and its typical of the average "holier than thou" attitude that befalls these PC *******.

ProperCharlie

i would like to see the basis for that statement. i would think that once you take away people who *can't* drive a car (kids and so on), there would be at least as many motorists killed as non motorists. sounds like distorting the statistcs for a political purpose, to me.

hedgehog

The other worthwhile statistic when it comes to pedestrians involved in accidents with cars is that by the governments own figures the average impact speed is 11.5mph! How does that fit in with the images they try to present of drivers mowing down innocent pedestrians at high speed?

Other factors worthy of note are that it is common for pedestrians to enter the road to get knocked down. In excess of 80% of pedestrian accidents are recorded as "entered carriageway without looking." However, it is very rare indeed for a motor vehicle to enter the footpath in order to hit a pedestrian.

With this in mind it might be more reasonable to assert that people who refuse to drive are more likely to cause an accident and that even when they do the motorist is usually driving very slowly in reaction to a perceived problem. That the pedestrian didn't perceive the problem can hardly be our fault but suggests that non driving pedestrians should have to undergo extensive training and should feel the full force of the law when they do enter the carriageway without looking. Perhaps cameras could be installed to detect these crimes and pedestrians should have to wear number plates so they can be identified?

SCOSaltire

this will happen.
just like Minority Report....
Its madness. When ever happened to humanity?
we dont have it in this country nemore. I am sure, by the way he speaks, that Blair is really a robot.

Lets make everyone go at the same speed. Lets make them share vehicles. Lets charge them for how far they go. Need them closer togeter, lets make bigger vehicles and run routes. They make polution, lets have rails to power the vechicles and generate the energy from fixed locations. Lets provide places with facilities for people to get on and off. Lets provide timetables. Need bigger vehicles and faster.

Isnt this the railway?

Come on! Someone in power stop wasting our time and energy in this motor-vehicle obesssion. Get the money REAL MONEY into the railways, get the HGVs off the roads, provide nicely equiped carriages and trains that run on time (its not hard!!)

In fact, its soooo easy!

U know where they have to go, what time they need to be there, where all the other ones are.

It will transform our country for the good. Everyone will want to pay for that.

I dont see the problem.

angrynorth

Couldn't agree more, we definatley need to send more by rail and rid the roads of HGV's and and other large vehicles.

SomeDude

FWIW, there is a similar experiment going on in Ghent (Belgium) for 3 years now, so it's not just a UK thing...

Can't find any references, but it would first be used "on a voluntary basis".

The next step... we can all guess.

SCOSaltire

rail from town to town, region to region.

like the distrubution of electricity... there would be a break down into other methods.
integrated transport, they call it.

you cannot be sure that ur car would get u to a town on time if ur on the motorway - 1 accident = 3 hrs delay and then ur stuffed. happens alot.

hedgehog

I agree that except for very large urban areas, such as london, the private car is the best possible solution in terms of personal mobility. The very fact that so many people have a car despite the huge expense of owning one just highlights this fact. If the car didn't work for the people then none of us would be willing to contribute our part to the nearly £40 billion that the government extract from motorists every year.

What the government needs to do is accept these facts and to increase the provision for motorists. They should encourage the best system rather than trying to cripple it in favour of outdated, impractical, inefficient and downright useless alternatives. Coming back to the fundamental point of this thread is the fear the government have about giving personal mobility to people like you and me. Controlling train travel, for example, is easy as soon you will have to present your ID card to get a ticket but tracking our cars is a tricky political problem which they are now addressing.

Leslie

You have obviously seen the light UB, I am sure that all these so called different methods of control which are supposed to be for our own good are really part of the overall plans for the future and we should all be alive to that possibility.

Before reading "1984", why not read "Animal Farm" first, that will set the scene in its correct context for you. Orwell was a very farseeing chap. he just got the year wrong thats all!

Les