Nicker on 7/5/2007 at 10:17
The other drivers who aided their escape attempt could not have been suffering "shock" and have even less excuse for criminal behaviour. I hope they are charged with aiding and abetting.
The lives of the rich and brainless.
Thirith on 7/5/2007 at 10:54
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
In Seattle, they finally installed a few cameras that take pictures when people run red lights - but they have big signs warning you that the cameras are there, which is so stupid.
Not really. The aim of such a thing is not to fine people who drive too fast or run red lights, the aim is to keep them from doing so. Punishing people after the fact doesn't have much of a deterring effect; telling people in advance, "If you speed here, you can hand us a couple of hundreds of this or that currency, fuckwit!" does.
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
Only CRIMINALS would oppose surveillance, right guys?
Are you suggesting there's no difference between cameras that snap traffic offenders in the offense and omnipresent cameras that film any- and everything constantly? I love how such arguments bring out the best in complex thinking...
Rogue Keeper on 7/5/2007 at 12:58
I'm so attended to Ice Hockey Championship I don't even known what's happeining in my hometown, thanks guys for enlightening yet another car racing ignorant. :p
Ulukai on 7/5/2007 at 18:27
There's some of them there pedestrians in this thread. The Gumball isn't a race, either.
Swiss Mercenary on 8/5/2007 at 13:48
Quote Posted by Thirith
Are you suggesting there's no difference between cameras that snap traffic offenders in the offense
Right, and the next thing we see, is cameras that snap the license plate of any vehicle entering or leaving a city, no?
Fingernail on 8/5/2007 at 14:39
1984 more like 2007!!!
SubJeff on 9/5/2007 at 21:56
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
Right, and the next thing we see, is cameras that snap the license plate of any vehicle entering or leaving a city, no?
The answer to not going down a slippery slope is not to run screaming in the other direction when a sensible idea presents itself. Of course no-one wants this kind of insane Big-Brother-is-watching-you type scenario but from your response I doubt you've heard the anti-camera squad ranting. Or you're one of those nutballs.
Do you drive? Because if you have ever had to regularly drive down a stretch of road that then gets a speed camera you'd see that they really make a difference to speeding, and to me that's a good thing.
Sombras on 9/5/2007 at 22:33
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Do you drive? Because if you have ever had to regularly drive down a stretch of road that then gets a speed camera you'd see that they really make a difference to speeding, and to me that's a good thing.
Here's an article about (
http://www.caranddriver.com/carnews/12563/the-147-mph-hyundai-sonata.html)
TRAFFIC CAMERAS from
Car and Driver magazine--a loud critic of camera encroachment. Interestingly, the story cites Arizona statistics suggesting that the presence of cameras, accompanied by stepped up citations, reduced the number of detected speeders. It doesn't discuss whether this was an effect of the cameras themselves, the stepped-up law enforcement necessary to put teeth into the cameras, or both.
(
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/10/1036.asp)
THIS ARTICLE, on the other hand, discusses another study that strongly questions the usefulness of traffic cameras. (Granted, the Arizona article is about
speeding, whereas the Canuckistani story is about
traffic. Not exactly identical animals.) This report provided critics of cameras with some compelling ammunition not too long ago.
There are MANY people (like myself) who believe that police forces are willing to spend a great deal of money (in partnerships with opportunistic private interests) on untested and unverified law enforcement methods and equipment. Particularly galling is the fact that law enforcement agencies are increasingly resorting to profit-motivated law enforcement to cover not only existing operating costs, but also to spend additional funds on things like, oh...cameras.
I've raced in high-speed, (
http://www.carcraft.com/eventcoverage/116_0402_silver_state_classic_challenge_car_race/)
open road races. I agree with AGWPT. Racing should be enjoyed in places meant for racing. Those who attempt to enjoy racing in any other place should be strapped to their bumpers by their testicles (if they have them) and dragged behind their own cars for a few miles. :thumb:
Swiss Mercenary on 10/5/2007 at 01:01
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
The answer to not going down a slippery slope is not to run screaming in the other direction when a sensible idea presents itself. Of course no-one wants this kind of insane Big-Brother-is-watching-you type scenario but from your response I doubt you've heard the anti-camera squad ranting. Or you're one of those nutballs.
There's slippery slope, and there's inviting Hannibal Lector to a daycare.
After all, once we get the cameras in place, how difficult will it be to argue that "Oh, you know, it would be REALLY useful to use them in such a way, to stop TERRISTS. After all, the system is already there, and it's not like we identify the people in those cars!"
It's only a little bit more sensible then your lovely upcoming ID cards.
TBE on 10/5/2007 at 07:42
Traffic cameras in Arizona spotted a (
http://www.caranddriver.com/carnews/12563/the-147-mph-hyundai-sonata.html) Hyundai Sonata doing 147 miles per hour. (That's 236 kilometers per hour for you non-USA-type people)
Big Brother cameras doing whatever they are doing does seem to raise an eyebrow, but if they are legitimately used for traffic things, then WTF? Not a big deal. If I'm trying to hideout from police, the last thing I'd be doing is using a car registered in my name with my license plate numbers on it.
