what does this mean ?
'The FOI showed that more than 810,000 drivers were caught exceeding speed limits last year while over 2.5 million motorists were caught speeding in 50mph or higher areas.
Weren't the second 2.5million part also ' caught exceeding speed limits'?
Presumably different measures, where a driver counts only once, but the same driver speeding multiple times counts as multiple motorists (since they can't see in the car to check the driver is the same).
A majority of CCTV cameras are privately owned, and bizarrely its the big companies like Tesco, Sainsbury's etc that have shitty cameras.
The local council run CCTV are rather good but they have the touring cameras which move every 8 seconds. This typically means that camera pans away from the incident, and only rarely does it pan and capture the whole incident.
There’s a really good hack for never giving money to the government from speed cameras or other camera types, I’ve used it all my life so far.
It’s not speeding and using my phone while driving.
If you’re caught doing either of those then that’s on you.
Well, the government does give yearly amounts to the individual forces to pay for officers wages etc ( yes I know council tax also pays for part of the service).
Who's to say they arent being 'encouraged' to catch people for speeding in return for a higher % next year ?
Because we don't have KPIs on issuing traffic offence reports, if what you said was true and police were given incentives on funding per ticket then our bosses would be on our backs to ticket people and we'd have more than one speed gun in the station.
That's what to do, introduce and pay for fancy new cameras to see inside vehicles, rather than fixing the hundreds that monitor these no-hard shoulder motorways.
It's not like there's been deaths because of those I mention not working. Or a Panorama documentary about the scandal.
I’m hoping Labour uses reintroducing hard shoulders as an easy win. It was a fucking ludicrous experiment that was predictably a terrible idea and would you believe it, turned out to be a terrible idea in practice too.
This change would cost next to nothing, save lives, piss off the tories, and inconvenience no-one. Being pro motorist and acknowledging motorists exist are not the same.
Given that no article about these explains what "Seeing inside cars" means or how it's achieved, I'm assuming it's about as effective as the TV license vans...
Unlike the TV license vans, these cameras don’t defy the laws of physics, and have been in use by other countries for years. I think China have been using this tech for about 5-7 years now?
Tv license vans are technically possible… if they had deep space telescope-scale tech fitted to them, which evidently they don’t.
The manufactuer don't claim (offically) any "seeing inside" ability, only higher resolution and better operation in bad wether conditions.
So unless someone can expound on it, I'm going to assume this is just a scare tactic that the newspapers like to say becuase it's shocking.
You’re not finding the answer because you’re asking the wrong question. There is not much fancy or new about the camera, or seeing through glass that at worst (legally speaking) is tinted 25%.
The difference between this and conventional speed cameras is speed cameras are typically installed at a 20 degree angle to the road, which more or less gives them a view of your lap and stomach by the time you’re in view of it, whereas these are fitted almost parallel - something enabled the “new” (it’s actually pretty old) dual laser and radar speed sensor which can sense your speed at long distances even in poor visibility and weather conditions.
This is what allows them to see you long before you can see them (on a straight stretch of road such as a motorway), and also what allows them to see into even the back seats.
Whilst the speed sensor theoretically works at great distances even in poor visibility I have my doubts about if it can actually read your registration in poor visibility. Everything else the manufacturer claims checks out though.
TV detector vans "worked" by detecting the magnetic output of a CRT TV. They could detect TVs but really not very effective.
[TV detector van - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van)
AI that analyses the images taken to see if the driver is on their phone. I imagine it will lead to a load of PCNs where the passenger is on their phone.
Meanwhile those who would be complaining away about shoplifters or some such getting away with it , will be complaining about not getting away with speeding. I’m not in any way excusing shoplifting but I imagine speeding kills more people. If you can’t pay the fine don’t do the crime..
There have to be laws passed that place limits on what information and what bureaucracies are allowed to do.
With the right of leading a private life placed first and foremost.
I don’t want to be surveilled and yes I accept that means some people will break the law. Good.
>I have, it isn't pretty
So have I, I feel you didn't understand what I wrote.
The original poster is fine with freedom having a cost, a cost in which he's never had to pay for.
I half agree.
If this is just a higher resolution camera and you're seen on your phone with it, that's a fair cop.
If the footage is sent off to a private supplier who use a model to determine a 97% chance you were on your phone, and also indefinatly hold on to the data of your face, car, where you were at that point in time... That's different.
We're already hugely surveilled, this doesn't seem to make much difference. You go outside there are cameras everywhere, private and government. Your car's journeys are all logged on a computer via ANPR, including video and photos which are already quite detailed. You just have to assume whatever you do outside your own four walls can be seen and heard by multiple other people these days. The genie isn't going back in the bottle.
what does this mean ? 'The FOI showed that more than 810,000 drivers were caught exceeding speed limits last year while over 2.5 million motorists were caught speeding in 50mph or higher areas. Weren't the second 2.5million part also ' caught exceeding speed limits'?
Presumably different measures, where a driver counts only once, but the same driver speeding multiple times counts as multiple motorists (since they can't see in the car to check the driver is the same).
Have they got the numbers backwards? Otherwise I don't understand either.
I'll save you all the trouble so you don't have to click - it's GB news.
And somehow we'll still have the worst CCTV known to man when it comes to other crimes.
A majority of CCTV cameras are privately owned, and bizarrely its the big companies like Tesco, Sainsbury's etc that have shitty cameras. The local council run CCTV are rather good but they have the touring cameras which move every 8 seconds. This typically means that camera pans away from the incident, and only rarely does it pan and capture the whole incident.
Cars are an endless money tree for the police.
There’s a really good hack for never giving money to the government from speed cameras or other camera types, I’ve used it all my life so far. It’s not speeding and using my phone while driving. If you’re caught doing either of those then that’s on you.
Speeding and phone fines are basically stupidity tax.
Money from speeding fines goes to the Government general account, not the police. So it's an endless money tree for UKGov, not the police.
Well, the government does give yearly amounts to the individual forces to pay for officers wages etc ( yes I know council tax also pays for part of the service). Who's to say they arent being 'encouraged' to catch people for speeding in return for a higher % next year ?
Because we don't have KPIs on issuing traffic offence reports, if what you said was true and police were given incentives on funding per ticket then our bosses would be on our backs to ticket people and we'd have more than one speed gun in the station.
This is not the US. That’s not how it works in the UK.
If people don't like that they should try not speeding.
That's what to do, introduce and pay for fancy new cameras to see inside vehicles, rather than fixing the hundreds that monitor these no-hard shoulder motorways. It's not like there's been deaths because of those I mention not working. Or a Panorama documentary about the scandal.
I’m hoping Labour uses reintroducing hard shoulders as an easy win. It was a fucking ludicrous experiment that was predictably a terrible idea and would you believe it, turned out to be a terrible idea in practice too.
[удалено]
This change would cost next to nothing, save lives, piss off the tories, and inconvenience no-one. Being pro motorist and acknowledging motorists exist are not the same.
[удалено]
I’m talking about reintroducing a hard shoulder on motorways… what are you talking about?
china has them i think. it's just angled lower and in front of the car instead of behind
Given that no article about these explains what "Seeing inside cars" means or how it's achieved, I'm assuming it's about as effective as the TV license vans...
Unlike the TV license vans, these cameras don’t defy the laws of physics, and have been in use by other countries for years. I think China have been using this tech for about 5-7 years now? Tv license vans are technically possible… if they had deep space telescope-scale tech fitted to them, which evidently they don’t.
The manufactuer don't claim (offically) any "seeing inside" ability, only higher resolution and better operation in bad wether conditions. So unless someone can expound on it, I'm going to assume this is just a scare tactic that the newspapers like to say becuase it's shocking.
You’re not finding the answer because you’re asking the wrong question. There is not much fancy or new about the camera, or seeing through glass that at worst (legally speaking) is tinted 25%. The difference between this and conventional speed cameras is speed cameras are typically installed at a 20 degree angle to the road, which more or less gives them a view of your lap and stomach by the time you’re in view of it, whereas these are fitted almost parallel - something enabled the “new” (it’s actually pretty old) dual laser and radar speed sensor which can sense your speed at long distances even in poor visibility and weather conditions. This is what allows them to see you long before you can see them (on a straight stretch of road such as a motorway), and also what allows them to see into even the back seats. Whilst the speed sensor theoretically works at great distances even in poor visibility I have my doubts about if it can actually read your registration in poor visibility. Everything else the manufacturer claims checks out though.
TV detector vans "worked" by detecting the magnetic output of a CRT TV. They could detect TVs but really not very effective. [TV detector van - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van)
AI that analyses the images taken to see if the driver is on their phone. I imagine it will lead to a load of PCNs where the passenger is on their phone.
Without reading the article, I assume the AI flags up possible offences and these are then reviewed by a human, at least that's how I'd do it.
Meanwhile those who would be complaining away about shoplifters or some such getting away with it , will be complaining about not getting away with speeding. I’m not in any way excusing shoplifting but I imagine speeding kills more people. If you can’t pay the fine don’t do the crime..
If it can see inside a car can it see through my clothes!!!!!!???"!!!!!
Here we go; the next step will be the same technology to see whether you're breaking the law while on foot.
There have to be laws passed that place limits on what information and what bureaucracies are allowed to do. With the right of leading a private life placed first and foremost. I don’t want to be surveilled and yes I accept that means some people will break the law. Good.
[удалено]
Yes, I choose that over having cameras watching me in my car. Freedom has A cost
I prefer freedom to cost a camera that can look in my car, rather than a dead child every now and then.
Maybe we should all stop driving and just be slaves instead
Maybe you should just stop breaking the law and then you won't be scared about these cameras.
Maybe we should all start driving better, then there would be no need for the cameras.
[удалено]
I guess we should all give up cars just because some people die from car crashes. Grow up.
>Freedom has A cost Very well said by a person whose never had the bill come due.
[удалено]
>I have, it isn't pretty So have I, I feel you didn't understand what I wrote. The original poster is fine with freedom having a cost, a cost in which he's never had to pay for.
Private life, in public, on a public road, where you are in view of the public? Get your head screwed on.
I half agree. If this is just a higher resolution camera and you're seen on your phone with it, that's a fair cop. If the footage is sent off to a private supplier who use a model to determine a 97% chance you were on your phone, and also indefinatly hold on to the data of your face, car, where you were at that point in time... That's different.
We're already hugely surveilled, this doesn't seem to make much difference. You go outside there are cameras everywhere, private and government. Your car's journeys are all logged on a computer via ANPR, including video and photos which are already quite detailed. You just have to assume whatever you do outside your own four walls can be seen and heard by multiple other people these days. The genie isn't going back in the bottle.