Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

[UK] New super-cameras mean no hiding for drivers

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by pro-pilot, Dec 31, 2007.

  1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...tml?in_article_id=505020&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

    Another move to a totalitarian state.

  2. I have a question about this:

    On new Renaults, if you look at their windscreens from an angle or through a windscreen/visor (or with polarised sunnies) the glass colours over and you can't see through it.

    Now, could that then mean that a camera lens would block out the windscreen and screen the passengers from being photographed? Possibly useful for UK motorists then.
  3. so don't put polarised lenses on the cameras. THe effect is often from poor quality glass (optically speaking, not structurally), which a camera lens doesn't use. Thus, no problem for the camera to see you behind a polarised glass windscreen.

    Besides, if the current camera guys can get a plate image with yours covered in snow/mud, a little effect like that won't stop em.
  4. I hope this setup comes to AU to be honest

    The way I see it, I can drive 200km without eating, smoking, wanking, drinking, talking on the phone, reading the newspaper, SMSing, yadda yadda yadda..

    If I can do it, anyone can do it. Clearly road users are too self involved to be concerned with what does and does not affect their driving performance.

    If you're driving and smoking, your cigarette can drop embers or whatever into your lap, you freak out, look down, the rest is history.

    Using the phone at all, there's a law against it for a reason.

    Drinking (non alcoholic obviously), meh... maybe a bit overboard with this one but I can drive without doing it, so if it's outlawed, drink before and after the trip, not during. You can pull over for 30 seconds to have a swig.


    Eating, it can be distracting, especially if you drop something, and even moreso if it's hot.

    Just drive the frickin' car when you're behind the wheel, stop trying to run a home office at the same time.
  5. No. The renaults have a metalic windscreen or somesuch. The glass is not inferior its coating or laminate is what the 2CC is on about.

    ShittyStink have trouble with the e-tags not being read on the renaults
  6. Yes, unfortunately for some people the actual act of driving is 4th or 5th down the list of priorities when they're behind the wheel.
  7. I hope it doesn't.

    And I hope anyone who tries to get it here, dies of thirst behind the wheel of their car.
  8. You're being sarcastic right?

    If you're driving in/around the city, you're not going to be in the car THAT long. If you're on a long drive, you can afford to pull over for 1 minute to make sure you are hydrated.

    I may or may not agree that drinking non-alcoholics behind the wheel is or is not dangerous, but the bottom line is that if they bring these cameras in, any action you make with your hands that even remotely resembles a drinking/smoking/eating etc action, you would expect a letter from the government in the mail.

    All or nothing. Given the choice, I'd go all. Even if it saves 1 life, that's worth more than anyones thirst.
  9. Negatory.

    2 scenarios:

    1) it is based upon an officer witnessing the crime with bonus video evidene as proof [cops don't even bust people for dropping cigarette butts as it is - do we need to spend a million dollars on special cameras then give them a quota justification just so they do the bloody job they're already supposed to be doing?!].

    2) It is a dumb system that captures/alerts driver hand movements for review by an operator who judges whether or not an infringement is issued.

    Great - how many asthmatics using their puffers or people putting on sunglasses so they can see better when there's glare are going to get a nice, fat fine they have to deal with in the post?

    No sir: semi-sarcastic.
    It is a flawed and shit system which would be operated for profit by the state.

    Any driver who isn't dangerously undertrained anyway, can operate a vehicle and eat a snack at the same time.
  10. +1
  11. I agree with Ktulu, I wouldn't be surprised if they can this little experiment because there are just too many variables. Do they expect drivers to have both hands on the wheel 100% of the time?

    Instead of wasting money on this bullshit they should be trying to raise public awareness about protecting yourself and your loved ones by being 'on the ball' when you drive.

    It's funny how the ex-policeman who owns the company that makes these cameras is giving them so much praise. Of course he would - his making millions.
  12. Public awareness? Puh-leeeze

    The public knows that there is a speed limit. The public knows you are supposed to drive within an acceptable level either close to or on the speed limit. When some wanker hooks past on the motorway at 140kph in a 100kmh zone, he knows he's breaking the speed limit, and he knows he's doing it by 40kph. He's aware, and doesn't care.

    Same with mobile phone usage. It's the law, just f**king do it.
  13. Laws are meant to reflect community standards in society.
    We elect officials to make, oversee, review and enforce these laws because it's a full-time job.
    Some of these laws are made, seemingly at odds with some behaviours of the community when there is an issue of overall safety.

    -This is normally acceptable to a democracy.

    We are disagreeing because you are of the opinion that speeding/mobile phone use = dangerous driving.

    :arrow: which is incorrect.

    You place faith in a totalitarian system that is maintained for profit rather than safety or any 'good' of the people that elected it. I do not believe it is prudent to blindly do this.
  14. I was in Taiwan before Xmas and my mate said they already have them.
    But they need them!
  15. Filming you in public shouldn't be a problem I suppose, it already happens now. Although a privacy rights advocate would probably have a lot to say.

    Actively encouraging our police force to spy on us "for our own good" is a bit draconian. Maybe it's just me but turning our police force into peeping toms can't be healthy......even if it save one life.
  16. I'm sure this will cause just as many problems as it solves. How is a police officer supposed to destinguish between someone in the process of scratching their nose, or putting a small snack in their mouth? They may just see that one of your hands is away from the wheel (which is not illegal at all, how else would you change gears in a manual car!) and decide to book you for driving without due care or something similar!

    Pure revenue raising in my opinion.
  17. Oh ok, I guess you're right.

    Can you explain your wonderful theory to my brother who has scars about 9 inches long up and down his leg from a biatch on a mobile phone not paying attention and hitting him at about 50kph off his bike?

    And whilst you're at it, can you explain it to my sister who was on the back and may never have a chance to give birth thanks to this mobile phone call that was obviously more important than watching the road?

    Get the fcuk out, seriously. I think some speed limits are outrageously slow, I think that charging someone with a fine for 8kph over the limit is ludicrous.

    Doing 70kph in a 50 zone where kids can run out on the road is dangerous driving. Next time you're hooking down a road because you're such a free spirit, think about what would happen if a kid ran out from behind a parked car.

    I have a news flash for you mate, your f**king phonecall isn't that important, and you're f**king time isn't that precious. Perhaps the camera system listed above is a little heavy-handed, but our speed limits and cellphone laws are not. Unsuitable at times, perhaps, but not heavy-handed.

    I can't believe I'm hearing this from a goddamn bike rider! You can't tell me that you've never been almost run off the side of a road or something by some douchebag who was too busy talkin on the phone to notice you?

    My brother can't get the purple scars removed, and my sister can't have her pelvis un-f**ked. You CAN pull over for 1 minute to take a phonecall.
  18. Fine.

    Dear Screwball's brother and sister,

    You were knocked off your bike by an unobservant, criminally negligent and moronic female; who should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon and probably never allowed to drive again.

    That she was on a phone is purely coincidental with her idiocy which did cause the horrible and regrettable accident you were involved in.
    Furthermore, I do not believe law makers should financially benefit from arbitrary punishments handed to people with diminishing recourse based on 'the possibility that they might be distracted from driving safely' rather than actually punishing people for an act of criminal wrong: driving dangerously.

    I wish you a happy and safe 2008.

    Best Regards,


    There are an infinite number of distractions on the road - but it is not compulsory to divide our attention between them. If you aren't focussed on driving your vehicle properly, you won't be doing it very well :arrow: and during that time period, are what scientists call "A stupid shit".

    Of course a phonecall isn't as important as a life - but if you actually have to CHOOSE only one of those: you shouldn't be driving anyway.

    Why can't your brother get the scars removed?
    Nearly anything is possible with plastic surgery these days if you have the money.
    ... I guess finances are the limiting factor. I can't afford exotic surgery either.

    "Can't afford it, so I'll just put up with it."

    The same reason compels people to pay false fines and wrongly admit to crimes. I'd rather we didn't open up another category for the state to issue similar fines in.
  19. Considering half the drivers out there in this day and age are either too incompetent, ignorant or self-involved to drive a car, I can see why the government would implement a rule whereby cellphone use is outlawed whilst operating a vehicle.

    Just because YOU can do it, doesn't mean everyone can, whether they know it or not.

    Driving a manual vehicle on the phone disables your ability to either change gears or steer considering you're using 1 arm when you really need two to control the vehicle.

    I can drift! Does that mean that because I personally am capable of doing so in a safe manner, I should be allowed to? Would it be fair for me to be excused from an infringement notice purely because I can do it safely?

    Hell, I don't think I'll obey a single road rule anymore, based on your logic. I know where all cars are on the road at all times because I am very observant, therefor I will not use indicators anymore. Further, bike lanes are mostly empty usually anyway so I'll use that as a part of my lane. Motorcycles only use a portion of their lane so I'll feel free to use the other part at my own will. I can control my car at 100kph in a 60kph zone, so I will.

    Your logic is flawed. Quite a few people I know happily obey ALL road rules, not because we live in a totalitarian state whereby we're forced to pay fines we don't deserve. If you speed, and you're caught, you pay the fine you DO deserve because you knew the acceptable speed that the government that the majority of your peers voted in has set, yet you chose to drive at a speed that was faster then that... why? That's a great question. Why?

    If you're arguing that it's wrong that the suits can tell you how fast you're allowed to drive, so be it. If you're saying you condone speeding on the grounds that YOU didn't agree to the speed limit, tell me.

    I'm not sure what you're getting at... Are you saying that the speed limits are restrictive for the purpose of revenue raising, or that you are saying that you don't see a problem with doing (for example) 80kph in a 60kph zone?
  20. If you can't drive a car down a highway, and drink at the same time you should be have your right to procreate removed. If you can't do the above mentioned procedure and perform an emergency evasion or stop then you should have your licence removed.

    Why risk increased driver fatigue through wandering minds and dehydration for the sake of the incompetent few? It's boring enough driving country miles; if I can't drink munch the time honoured travel mint I know for a fact that I will be much more susceptible to fatigue.