Knowing everyones dislike for the things, I notice on the Beeb this morning that the BTP are putting some in at level crossings to catch those who run the red lights:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12401430
Ignoring those who actually get hit for a moment, but did you know that if a driver has a "near miss" (where the driver actually sees the person/vehicle, brakes, but misses them) they have to stop and report it and thus delay their train and all others behind it? That level crossing is just outside Southampton and the railway is very busy, commuter, expresses and freight all use the line.. Its worth thinking of the delays which occur just down to the ones who don't get hit and think they've saved those few seconds and its harmed no-one...
On the TV she said that she's already seen 5 people ignore the red lights including one where the car had to mount the pavement on the other side to get off the crossing (the road in front of the car was blocked with traffic!!).... BTW there's a footbridge alongside for pedestrians, just it seems they don't want to use it...
|
>> Knowing everyones dislike for the things
I don't dislike the things in certain uses - and this is one use I don't necessarily find objectionable. Recordings that are just that - of people in the street, for instance - are OK too. When people's movements are routinely analysed, though, I'm dead set against it.
|
>> When people's movements are routinely analysed, though, I'm dead
>> set against it.
Just out of interest FT, what kind of situations are you thinking of?
|
Not with CCTV (yet, perhaps) - things like the possible "road pricing" setup. I'm also extremely distrustful of centralised/cross-referenced State databases, too.
|
I've only seen the pictures, no sound on work PC, but the report seems to say the cameras are being used for prosecutions. I certainly hope so. The safety issue here is so overwhelming that I cannot see any rational objection.
Even the most fervent anti for speed or parking cameras would struggle to label these as revenue raisers.
|