Speed Cameras Used To Charge People With Other Crimes
from the not-just-for-speed dept
We've pointed out all sorts of problems with speed cameras that automatically give out tickets for people who aren't speeding -- but what if they try to cite you for some other infraction? Politech points to the case of a young man who has been convicted of dangerous driving via a speed camera -- despite the fact that he wasn't speeding. His crime? Giving the "V" symbol (the equivalent to the middle finger here in the US) to the speed camera and taking his hands off the wheel. Of course, this should raise a question about why anyone looked at the photo at all if it didn't trigger for him speeding? Does the UK just have people randomly monitoring what they see on these speed cameras?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The UK is one of the worst...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The UK is one of the worst...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The UK is one of the worst...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The UK is one of the worst...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The UK is one of the worst...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The UK is one of the worst...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The UK is one of the worst...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Australia has been doing this for a while...
The police check for other offences including;
not wearing a seat belt
unregistered vehicles
In my state they had to bring in a law this year that made the owner of the vehicle responsible for any fines unless they could identify the driver.
This is because it became well known that the police could not _prove_ the drivers identity from the black and white cameras photos.
So if you had enough 'front' to deny it was you (while the police officer insists it is clearly you in the photo), then say you don't know who it was driving your car, you could not be fined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Australia has been doing this for a while...
For those unfamiliar it's a very convenient short term/hourly car rental.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Australia has been doing this for a while...
They would only have to add a clause to their leasing agreement stating that all fines incurred would be charged to the leasor's credit card.
They could even profit from it. If you get a speeding ticket while leasing one of their cars, and the ticket is, for example, $150, they could charge you the $150 plus an "administration fee" of $75. Additionally, they could use the record as an excuse to charge higher lease rates to you in the future, since you're obviously not a perfect driver.
Or... they could just get offended about you flipping them the bird. Whatever works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Australia has been doing this for a while...
This simply proves that speed cameras exist for one reason only: to generate revenue. They have a similar law here in Ontario. Vehicle owner is responsible for fines. No demerit points are issued. It's all about revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here in the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here in the U.S.
Hee hee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Australia has been doing this for a while...
You get caught and go to jail for drugs offences and you drive a car.
Your data is entered into the police computer system.
All passengers for the last 5 years who have been scanned in your car or previously owned cars are connected to the search.
The software shows your movements like a family tree along a timeline and the movements of your family members and friends and anyone else that has come into contact with you and been recorded and identified.
Similarities are searched out for movements and patterns appear to confirm the illegal activities of the convicted persons family members and friends.
3am. Door gets pushed in and they take you away for questioning. Under the terror laws the police dont even have to tell your family that you have been taken. You simply vanish.
Criminal profiling applied to traffic and pedestrian monitoring systems is the thing of horror sci-fi.
Sleep well people, we voted them in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Australia has been doing this for a while...
No, I have voted for NONE of the ones in office.
Still doesn't mean jack when they show up on my doorstep looking to come into my home because it was fingered by someone as 'a drug lab'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speed Cams
reason? When in the UK did you last see a bike with a reg number on the FRONT? also with that wonderful helmet try proving who the driver was.
there is apparently the get out of more than one person saying they think they could have ben driving, since obviously more than one CANNOT, but now it has to be proved who it was. hence rules like the registered keeper getting the fine regardless.
I don't have a problem with speed cams as such, but the placement raises questions over the 'safety' issue, not yet seen one near an accident blackspot, amazing how many are on arrow straight roads though.
surveilance is indeed an option, but frankly unless they can program a computer, and we all know how good governments are at that, are they *really* going to have the time? once a few people get hold of a sample dataset and see just how low the accuracy is it becomes a good way to backup other evidence.
the biggest problem, the move from actual human enforcement, who can actually be helpful in the case of say a crash to a camera, which will take a nice picture of a crash and be bugger all use.
I don't even have a problem with them being used for raising revenue, mostly since by not speeding etc the costa are avoided. I just wish gov's were a bit more open about it. e.g.
"This hospital paid for by x speeding motorists" or a sign below the 'speed camera' sign indicating just how much its raised to date etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bring 'em on!
Sure, there may be issues at this time with the cams giving false positives, but on balance I think it would be a good thing. Best case scenario would be like it was in Germany 15 years ago; the cams aren't everywhere, but they are movable so they could show up at anytime. I got "blitzed" once, and my German wife explained how it was, and you can believe I didn't speed again. You never know when you're going to go by one, so you tend to be more careful.
And the dumbasses who just keep on speeding regardless? Hey, they get away with it 9 times out of 10, but that 1 time they get "caught" is more than worth it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bring 'em on!
As Benjamin Franklin said, "They that give up their liberty in order to obtain security deserve neither their liberty, nor their security."
While I want safety and security, I am loathe to give up liberty in the vain hope that doing so will guarantee their existance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mobile van used for camera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mobile van used for camera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mobile van used for camera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mobile van used for camera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mobile van used for camera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mobile van used for camera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slight correction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_sign
Also, the camera is not the standard UK GATSO style camera (rear facing), but more likely a camera mounted on a police vehicle monitoring a speed trap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatso
My feeling is that the young man was driving along and the police officer was running a speed trap. When the young man is surprised by the speed trap's existence he realises that he was under the speed limit and therefore "safe" from the speed trap. He makes the sign and takes his hands off the wheel, and as a result becomes a "dangerous driver".
That single act of defiant rebellion against authority cost him his licence and the copper probably only really arrested him because he thought the young man was taking the piss. The golden rule of dealing with the police is to be calm, assertive and polite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually Mike
This means that 1.) A human cites you, you don't get it automatically because the camera snapped you.
2.) The constitution is very thinly, technically, satisfied because now you can face your accuser in a court of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
If Bush wanted a police state, we'd have had one on 9/11. If Bush had declared martial law that day no one would have questioned his authority to do so. Stop whining already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We're still fighting a war"
/jerk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
as for the war being trumped up so Bush can do whatever he wants to do, what is it he wants to do? We are at war, we were at war before 9/11 and you just dn't get it. Oh, is /jerk your name?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "We're still fighting a war"
As for the real issue here... It's a tough one. These cameras can and do save lives, and offer evidence in other crimes like rape and murder and such too. The real question here is how do you punish people who abuse the power of these cameras, I think. Everything can be abused in one way or another. Most of the time the consequences are obvious and are big enough to keep all but the most determined people from breaking the rules.
Oh and for the comment about government developers: yes government work sucks and that's why they created the internet before private business right? I think maybe you are a bit uninformed. Oh, and I would be willing to bet that this kind of software would come from a private contractor. That's right you can sleep tight knowing that our government is using the best and the brightest from the private industry, as well as the public sector, to accomplish its goals (this or others).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
No. We are not. We're occupying two countries after we invaded them, and swiped their oil and pipeline right of ways. And bungling it.
We invaded because we wanted to, because we were lied to and made afraid, so we want a daddy to make it all go away and keep us safe. After daddy admited he lied, we then accept the idea that it is all fine because we are bringing civilization to the dark peoples, so it's all right then.
Who are we at war with? Can you name the leader of that country? How will we win the war? When will the war be over? Who declared the war? Who declares it over? Where is it? Who speaks for the other side, if negotiations for surrender are to be expected? Who is the other side? Who surrenders? What are the terms of surrender?
How do you defeat a common noun?
Nonsense. No war. No enemy. Just infinite power for the executive until a Democrat becomes president. Then, of course, the limits to power will be rediscovered. Not that there is any difference between the two parties anymore -- both are fascist, one because of general beliefs, the other because they think that's what the people want of them.
no one speaks for sanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
If Bush wanted a police state, we'd have had one on 9/11. If Bush had declared martial law that day no one would have questioned his authority to do so. Stop whining already.
STOP WATCHING FOXNEWS YOU IGNORANT JACKASS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]