THE world's most advanced speed camera - so accurate it can catch you using a mobile phone or not wearing a seatbelt from 600m away - is being assessed for Victoria.

As well as checking speed, the device's camera resolution is reported to be sharp enough to pick out an unbuckled belt at a range of up to 600m.

The world's most advanced speed camera is a speed camera with really good resolution? I was thinking this somehow detected use of a phone or lack of a seatbelt.

Approves.

You guys don't have a problem with make-up applying, eating behind the wheel, drivers staring chicks down, and jabbering on the cell assholes?
/600 meters to hide that beer and that joint

How does the eye of Sauron hold up to a can of black spray paint?

I really don't understand the hate people have for speeding cameras, or ones that check for cellphone and/or seat-belt infringements. If you drive at or just under the speed limit, wear your seat-belt and switch the damn phone off, it wouldn't be a problem.

drjekel_mrhyde: You guys don't have a problem with make-up applying, eating behind the wheel, drivers staring chicks down, and jabbering on the cell assholes?
/600 meters to hide that beer and that joint

I have a problem with all those things. I have a bigger problem with some software trying to determine whether or not I'm doing those things at farkin' 600m out. Who the fark knows what people would be getting erroneous citations for in heavily populated areas in the US.

Smoking GNU: I really don't understand the hate people have for speeding cameras, or ones that check for cellphone and/or seat-belt infringements. If you drive at or just under the speed limit, wear your seat-belt and switch the damn phone off, it wouldn't be a problem.

People are uncomfortable with the idea of being watched every where they go by an electronic mousetrap that is just waiting for them to slip up in some tiny way... then WHAP!! a fine and/or a days wages lost in traffic court trying to argue with a robot.

In the end this isn't about safety anyway, its about the money the government makes by using these devices. Its made so they can bilk random motorists for extra cash to make ends meet. An automated camera cant sort out a man driving like an ass waffle from someone who unfortunately chose a shirt too similar in color to their seat belt.
I propose we just raise the road tax so that the state can get their cash and leave drivers alone to get on with the day.

doglover: Smoking GNU: I really don't understand the hate people have for speeding cameras

You're from California? Or at least the west coast?

Namibia, Africa.

Smoking GNU: doglover: Smoking GNU: I really don't understand the hate people have for speeding cameras

You're from California? Or at least the west coast?

Namibia, Africa.

Yeah, close enough.

doglover: Smoking GNU: doglover: Smoking GNU: I really don't understand the hate people have for speeding cameras

You're from California? Or at least the west coast?

Namibia, Africa.


I still think you're in or from California. They seem to have the largest group of people who support for profit policing and ream after ream of useless additional laws for enforcement.

As was pointed out earlier, the cameras don't make the road safer, they level automated fines in what amounts to literal highway robbery, and the system is so farked up you have to PAY the fine before you can fight it.

Exactly.
Speed cameras have simply become a revenue source.
Government incentive to reduce accidents is now greatly offset by a dependence on this revenue.

Well I imagine that the same proponents of big government on Fark will also praise the virtues of this device.

FTFA:

NSW Police...

Subliminal message seeding your mind to accept the inevitable emergence of the Not Safe for Work Police.

too much coffee

Wow, that's just....

Makh: One does not simply drive into Mordor.

"The camera is able to record both a still image and video evidence to DVD"

So the camera itself may be advanced, but it's form of media storage is out dated.

American Decency Association: doglover: Smoking GNU: doglover: Smoking GNU: I really don't understand the hate people have for speeding cameras

You're from California? Or at least the west coast?

Namibia, Africa.


I still think you're in or from California. They seem to have the largest group of people who support for profit policing and ream after ream of useless additional laws for enforcement.

As was pointed out earlier, the cameras don't make the road safer, they level automated fines in what amounts to literal highway robbery, and the system is so farked up you have to PAY the fine before you can fight it.

hey, it's a great revenue collection system. I'm all for it. Where's the problem?

Its mislabeled as a safety device and unfair in its application.
You might as well have a random lottery drawing to fine motorists so we can foot the bill for more lottery drawings.

Smoking GNU: I really don't understand the hate people have for speeding cameras, or ones that check for cellphone and/or seat-belt infringements. If you drive at or just under the speed limit, wear your seat-belt and switch the damn phone off, it wouldn't be a problem.

I would have a big problem if they installed them on a local four-lane, one-way road where they set the speed limit to 20 (yes, 20...) for several blocks, yet all the lights are timed such that you must go at least 25 or get a red. And likewise, at least 35 when the limit is set to 30.

erik-k: Smoking GNU: I really don't understand the hate people have for speeding cameras, or ones that check for cellphone and/or seat-belt infringements. If you drive at or just under the speed limit, wear your seat-belt and switch the damn phone off, it wouldn't be a problem.

I would have a big problem if they installed them on a local four-lane, one-way road where they set the speed limit to 20 (yes, 20...) for several blocks, yet all the lights are timed such that you must go at least 25 or get a red. And likewise, at least 35 when the limit is set to 30.

So, breaking the law is acceptable if the law is an inconvenience to you. Gotcha.

Smoking GNU: erik-k: Smoking GNU: I really don't understand the hate people have for speeding cameras, or ones that check for cellphone and/or seat-belt infringements. If you drive at or just under the speed limit, wear your seat-belt and switch the damn phone off, it wouldn't be a problem.

I would have a big problem if they installed them on a local four-lane, one-way road where they set the speed limit to 20 (yes, 20...) for several blocks, yet all the lights are timed such that you must go at least 25 or get a red. And likewise, at least 35 when the limit is set to 30.

So, breaking the law is acceptable if the law is an inconvenience to you. Gotcha.

Because the Law is always right because the Law is the Law and the Law must be obeyed because it's the Law, right?

If you're going to try and convince me that there's anything actually wrong with going 25 on a four-lane one-way road, you're in for a long climb. If you're going to try and convince me it's wrong to go 25 when the lights themselves clearly imply that you should go that speed, just give up. Now you can argue it's a violation of some money-collector's edict, but not too very long ago so was "race mixing"... which takes us back to mindless obedience of the law because it's the law.

It's far safer - for me and everyone else - moving at traffic's group velocity than terrifiedly going the exact speed limit and being buzzed on both sides as a result. And, surprise, the group obeys the lights rather than the number on the side of the road when they conflict.

To make laws that man cannot, and will not, obey serves to bring all law into contempt - Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced - Albert Einstein

Smoking GNU: erik-k: Smoking GNU: I really don't understand the hate people have for speeding cameras, or ones that check for cellphone and/or seat-belt infringements. If you drive at or just under the speed limit, wear your seat-belt and switch the damn phone off, it wouldn't be a problem.

I would have a big problem if they installed them on a local four-lane, one-way road where they set the speed limit to 20 (yes, 20...) for several blocks, yet all the lights are timed such that you must go at least 25 or get a red. And likewise, at least 35 when the limit is set to 30.

So, breaking the law is acceptable if the law is an inconvenience to you. Gotcha.

When the law is written so as to be easily broken, just so some bureaucrat can make a tidy profit off the community... Yes, there are a few problems with that.

These camera systems presume everyone is a criminal and charge you a fee to make the nuisance of proving your innocence go away.

I'm afraid that i'll have to repeat myself.

Gig103: Some people say that they can't understand how engineers who work on weapons sleep at night. At least I know the weapons platforms I work on help our soldiers. I can't understand how engineers who design these Orwellian nightmares sleep at night.

Why would you want to help people who are engaged in wars of aggression against countries that have never done anything to us?

If you don't use a seat belt you are stupid anyway and deserve to have your money taken.
That said camera is not for safety but for revenue generation.

drjekel_mrhyde: You guys don't have a problem with make-up applying, eating behind the wheel, drivers staring chicks down, and jabbering on the cell assholes?
/600 meters to hide that beer and that joint

What should the punishment be for someone who safely drives from Point A to Point B while applying makeup, eating, staring chicks down, and jabbering on a cell phone?

DrPainMD: drjekel_mrhyde: You guys don't have a problem with make-up applying, eating behind the wheel, drivers staring chicks down, and jabbering on the cell assholes?
/600 meters to hide that beer and that joint

What should the punishment be for someone who safely drives from Point A to Point B while applying makeup, eating, staring chicks down, and jabbering on a cell phone?

Good question, since none of those activities, instead of concentrating on the road, has EVER resulted in any car crashes, EVER.

Smoking GNU: erik-k: Smoking GNU: I really don't understand the hate people have for speeding cameras, or ones that check for cellphone and/or seat-belt infringements. If you drive at or just under the speed limit, wear your seat-belt and switch the damn phone off, it wouldn't be a problem.

I would have a big problem if they installed them on a local four-lane, one-way road where they set the speed limit to 20 (yes, 20...) for several blocks, yet all the lights are timed such that you must go at least 25 or get a red. And likewise, at least 35 when the limit is set to 30.

So, breaking the law is acceptable if the law is an inconvenience to you. Gotcha.

Turn yourself in. You have violated the Clean Water Act several times today. And yesterday. And the day before. Plead guilty to thousands of violations and take your punishment like a man. You MIGHT be out of prison before you die of old age (or butt-rape).

DrPainMD: Smoking GNU: erik-k: Smoking GNU: I really don't understand the hate people have for speeding cameras, or ones that check for cellphone and/or seat-belt infringements. If you drive at or just under the speed limit, wear your seat-belt and switch the damn phone off, it wouldn't be a problem.

I would have a big problem if they installed them on a local four-lane, one-way road where they set the speed limit to 20 (yes, 20...) for several blocks, yet all the lights are timed such that you must go at least 25 or get a red. And likewise, at least 35 when the limit is set to 30.

So, breaking the law is acceptable if the law is an inconvenience to you. Gotcha.

Turn yourself in. You have violated the Clean Water Act several times today. And yesterday. And the day before. Plead guilty to thousands of violations and take your punishment like a man. You MIGHT be out of prison before you die of old age (or butt-rape).

I would, except i'm not in the US, as stated above.

Smoking GNU: DrPainMD: drjekel_mrhyde: You guys don't have a problem with make-up applying, eating behind the wheel, drivers staring chicks down, and jabbering on the cell assholes?
/600 meters to hide that beer and that joint

What should the punishment be for someone who safely drives from Point A to Point B while applying makeup, eating, staring chicks down, and jabbering on a cell phone?

Good question, since none of those activities, instead of concentrating on the road, has EVER resulted in any car crashes, EVER.

Don't change the subject. I'm asking what the punishment should be for those who SAFELY drive while doing all those things.

Also, people have caused fatal car crashes in the absence of all those factors. How much prison time should YOU do for driving with both hands on the wheel and paying attention to the road?

Smoking GNU: DrPainMD: Smoking GNU: erik-k: Smoking GNU: I really don't understand the hate people have for speeding cameras, or ones that check for cellphone and/or seat-belt infringements. If you drive at or just under the speed limit, wear your seat-belt and switch the damn phone off, it wouldn't be a problem.

I would have a big problem if they installed them on a local four-lane, one-way road where they set the speed limit to 20 (yes, 20...) for several blocks, yet all the lights are timed such that you must go at least 25 or get a red. And likewise, at least 35 when the limit is set to 30.

So, breaking the law is acceptable if the law is an inconvenience to you. Gotcha.

Turn yourself in. You have violated the Clean Water Act several times today. And yesterday. And the day before. Plead guilty to thousands of violations and take your punishment like a man. You MIGHT be out of prison before you die of old age (or butt-rape).

I would, except i'm not in the US, as stated above.

Then turn yourself in for whatever local laws you violate on a daily basis. I'm sure there are several.

All i'm hearing from all of you is: "WAAAAA, they won't let me do what i want on the road! Driving slow is SO BORING! DOWN WITH RULES!"

And with that i'll leave this thread. Nothing productive will come from this conversation.

The world is not made for your personal expedience.

Gig103: Some people say that they can't understand how engineers who work on weapons sleep at night. At least I know the weapons platforms I work on help our soldiers. I can't understand how engineers who design these Orwellian nightmares sleep at night.

By counting stock options instead of sheep.

So as these automated revenue generators become more common, will the human police be able to go back to actually solving crimes?

Makh: One does not simply drive into Mordor.

Why drive and face the horrible traffic when there is a regular, scheduled, catapult service?

Smoking GNU: All i'm hearing from all of you is: "WAAAAA, they won't let me do what i want on the road! Driving slow is SO BORING! DOWN WITH RULES!"

I don't see that at all. What I see is a disgust with a system that constantly monitors your movement along streets. Looking at your every move just waiting for you to slip up so they can nail you with a hefty fine.

I see disgust with a system that makes you pay money to have your day in court to fight the charges. Name me one other civil or criminal case that makes the defendant pay to have a trial.

I see disgust with a system that tosses out due process and permits a municipality to fine you on the word of a camera and a computer that you cannot cross examine.

I see disgust with a system that allows "testimony" of a camera where no one is there to testify as to the veracity of the calculations

I see disgust with a system that allows the "testimony" of a camera when no one is there to testify if the calibration was correct on the date and time of the offense.

I see disgust with a system that has set forth regulations that sets the burden of proof upon the defendant to prove that they were not the one driving the car rather than, as in every other civil or criminal case, the one bringing the claim has to show that the defendant committed the act.

I see disgust with a system that states that unless I give the municipality the name of a person and their address who was driving the car, I am still liable even if I can show beyond any reasonable doubt that I was not the one operating the vehicle. Trust me, that is how the ones set up in my state operate.

I see disgust that merely because the car is registered in my name, I am liable unless I rat someone else out.

I see disgust with a system that requires one to testify under oath that someone else was committing the offense in my car when, if I wasn't in it, I cannot testify with personal knowledge who was actually driving it. I can speculate, I can guess, but I do not "know". This is a perversion of the law the way the US created it. This is outright contempt for the rules of law, justice, due process, evidence, sworn testimony just so a city can make a few bucks.

The whole thing is anathema to the rule of law that the US has established and it is disgusting.

Smoking GNU
2012-02-04 04:27:41 AM

I really don't understand the hate people have for speeding cameras, or ones that check for cellphone and/or seat-belt infringements. If you drive at or just under the speed limit, wear your seat-belt and switch the damn phone off, it wouldn't be a problem.

"1984" was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
ffs :(

The real problem with the speed cameras is that to maximize the revenue, the administration shortens the yellow light instead of leaving it to turn in a reasonable amount of time.. The red light then triggers so fast that drivers which are just a few yards from the intersection when it turned yellow were getting "caught" by bad timing. The fines got so bad in my town that people were literally slamming on their breaks when they saw a yellow and more accidents were happening from cars getting rear-ended.

Between the accidents and the fact that many drivers started taking alternate routes just to avoid the cameras, the city started losing money on the gig. It didn't take long for them to remove them after that.

If they really wanted to make cameras about safety, they'd make you attend some sort of driver's safety class that you were required to pay to attend. That way, you're paying the cost to host and provide staff for the class (yea, no tax dollars) and you're being taught a lesson in SAFETY, not writing checks.

Until you actually get some lesson in safety, cameras are merely ANOTHER revenue stream. As if there aren't enough already.