I wish there were more CCTV cameras...

[JJMcClure]

There is plenty of evidence that cameras have moved from safety to revenue generation.

Won't be hard, or particularly time consuming to provide it then. Can't wait to see it. Really, please link some actual evidence, as opposed to opinion.

Or perhaps you think they should all be removed. If you were in charge, what would you do to promote road safety and enforce it? My personal view is that APR cameras are more effective and safer to implement since they force slower driving speeds over longer distances rather than in one particular location.

Even chief constables have said so on record unlike the friends of posters in this thread whose identities need to be protected.

The guy I met yesterday, for the first time, never expressed an opinion on speed cameras and re-reading my post I didn't make it look like he did either, so your comment which is clearly intended to make him look like he wasn't brave enough or sure enough of his opinion to make it public himself is completely uncalled for. Chief constables, or anyone else speaking on their own behalf and at a time of their own choosing is a completely different situation from me reporting second hand on a brief conversation with someone I'd just met.

I respected his desire for someone he'd only just met not to be appear to be completely representing his opinions online and naming him after a 15 minute conversation. You'd probably have agreed with his opinons on Facebook and Google. Would you then be seeking to undermine him with comments about 'on record'..? I doubt it.

Generally, as a policeman with actual experience of real life that most of us are insulated from by the very system you seek to destabalise for the sake of your privacy, he supported CCTV as a useful means of gathering evidence and prosecuting criminals. He also pointed out that most CCTV is not owned or operated by the police but by councils and the government and he couldn't speak for their actions or intentions, I mention that for accuracy. Also, CCTV as a privacy issue and speed cameras as a hidden revenue generating tool are two completely different issues, please don't confuse the two. Unless you have a way to tie speed cameras to the privacy debate, which I'd love to hear?

Now, can we carry on this debate without those kind of tactics being used? Let's just stick to facts.

[Clinton]

If you were in charge, what would you do to promote road safety and enforce it? My personal view is that APR cameras are more effective and safer to implement since they force slower driving speeds over longer distances

It's not speed that kills. Given a choice of a) 140 mph with an expert driver who has superb reflexes and top notch brakes under his foot and driving on a dry clear day and b) 40 mph with an 80 year old granddad who has sight problems and is driving an old banger with dodgy brakes in wet and foggy conditions.... I'd go for the former any time.

It's not speed that kills. It's the wrong speed for the road conditions/ car ability / driver ability that has the potential to kill. Where there's a 40 mph sign there may be occasions where it's safe to do 60 mph on that stretch and occasions where 20 mph would be dangerous.

He also pointed out that most CCTV is not owned or operated by the police but by councils and the government and he couldn't speak for their actions or intentions

Exactly! He probably knows what councils are using cameras for - to spy on who is using his neighbour's allowance of black sacks on rubbish day, to monitor employees who are taking five minutes too long on their breaks or to spy on which taxi drivers are having a quiet cigarette in their taxis while waiting at taxi ranks. There've even been cases of cameras being turned to sneak a peek through girls' bedroom windows. Those girls have nothing to hide, right?

the very system you seek to destabalise for the sake of your privacy, he supported CCTV as a useful means of gathering evidence and prosecuting criminals

Maybe he could tell us why then, despite Britain having 20% of the world's CCTV cameras, our crime rate is not significantly lower than other countries and our crime solving rates aren't significantly higher.

In the last four years councils spent £515 million on CCTV which could have paid for over 4000 police constables.

so your comment which is clearly intended to make him look like he wasn't brave enough

It's not. But we're talking several chief constables' public statements vs a private conversation you had with someone who said he knows someone whose third cousin works in the police...or something like that. A reasonable conclusion, which I'm sure we can both agree with, is that police aren't unanimous on this issue.

[Nidec]

It's not speed that kills.

These people in Australia seem to disagree with you, as does this campaign by the UK government

In the last four years councils spent £515 million on CCTV which could have paid for over 4000 police constables.

But the cameras will cost a lot less to maintain over the next 10 years than it would cost to continue employing 4000 police officers. Also, while 4000 officers may sound like a lot, they can't see as much as the 51,000 cameras will see 24/7, 365 days a year. And the cameras won't spend the bulk of their time filling in paperwork because the Liberals in our society have them frightened of offending all and sundry.

[JJMcClure]

Where there's a 40 mph sign there may be occasions where it's safe to do 60 mph on that stretch and occasions where 20 mph would be dangerous.

I asked you how you'd enforce whatever driving laws you do consider necessary, which you haven't answered. I've already said in this thread that it's not possible to police driving on an individual basis and driving is an area where many people think their judgment and driving abilities are much better and safer than they actually are. The answer is simple, you have a blanket law and everybody has to obey it whether or not they're capable of safely choosing their own speed limit. Many many areas of daily life are regulated the same way.

There's a reason we have speed limits, it's not the government messing with you for fun. Cameras help enforce them, therefore they're a good thing.

Maybe he could tell us why then, despite Britain having 20% of the world's CCTV cameras, our crime rate is not significantly lower than other countries and our crime solving rates aren't significantly higher.

So you're saying we have less crime and higher crime solving rates whilst trying to prove that CCTV doesn't contribute to that. I don't think you have a tenable argument here.

It's not. But we're talking several chief constables' public statements vs a private conversation you had with someone who said he knows someone whose third cousin works in the police...or something like that. A reasonable conclusion, which I'm sure we can both agree with, is that police aren't unanimous on this issue.

It quite clearly was an attempt to undermine the credibility of someone you've never even met because I wanted to use his opinion on this forum, as if he was going to publicly speak out on this subject because we talked about it at a barbeque and his not doing that was a reason to doubt his or my word on this... seriously... c'mon, plus you mixed it up with Speed cameras anyway, something he and I didn't talk about in terms of privacy and which you still haven't linked to privacy. So can we not confuse the two please.

This guy is head of one of the UK police force's CIDs and I was speaking to him in person, no third cousins involved... Since he was in favour of CCTV, a reasonable conclusion might be that the police consider it useful and necessary.

[Clinton]

These people in Australia seem to disagree with you, as does this campaign by the UK government

That some town called Speed dreamed up a nice publicity campaign somehow proves ... what?

As for the UK government's campaign - the UK Department for Transport conducted a study titled Road Casualties Great Britain and examined over 145,798 road collisions.

‘Exceeding speed limit’ was attributed to 3 percent of cars involved in accidents

Even the UK government, whose campaign you point to, accepts that in 97% of accidents speed isn't a factor. In that 3% I'll contend that it's highly likely the speed was combined with inattentiveness, distraction, carelessness or undue risk taking. Speed doesn't kill people, stupid people who can't drive properly kill people.

Or, to put it another way, speed doesn't kill, stopping suddenly does You're safe at high speeds as long as you avoid stopping suddenly, ask any pilot.

[Nidec]

The study to refer to shows that the number of fatal and serious accidents in the UK has fallen from over 40,000 in 2000 to 25,000 in 2011, which may support the usefulness of speed cameras in slowing down the average traffic speeds since the same Government has been running the THINK campaign in my earlier link to highlight the fact that high speed collisions are more likely to result in fatalities than low speed collisions.
Please don't try and tell me speed is not a factor in road traffic fatalities, using the childish 'joke' about airplanes is offensive to those of us who have lost loved ones to speeding motorists.

[TheodoreK]

(I will focus on the OP but I have read the rest of the thread)


Is the problem here really the lack of CCTV?

The situations JJ describes in the OP (damaged car, mugged, family member attacked) might or might not be alleviated by installing more CCTVs but I am sure that in the heart of all those problems is not the lack of CCTVs but other causes instead. I will therefore call the effect CCTV has over those problems a circumstantial benefit and one that can be just as easily found via other means.

Think about it, JJ's problem would have been avoided in many other ways besides installing more CCTVs.

Why is not the thread named "I wish there were more public parking spaces" or "I wish there were more constables on patrol" or "I wish there were less stupid drivers around" or even "I wish there were indestructible cars" (or maybe inflatable/collapsible)

All the above things would have helped in JJ's situation but I think the problem fundamentally lies in public education and a mentality of responsible cooperation that should be taught from an early age.


The Greek has a great word that describes what -in my opinion- is needed; "paideia". Paideia is a cross between education, culture and successful child-rearing. I think that more paideia would diminish irresponsible driving, mugging, terrorism and most other kinds of conscious misbehavior a lot more than just installing CCTVs everywhere (or any other method that treats symptoms rather than causes for the matter)

[grynge]

These people in Australia seem to disagree with you, as does this campaign by the UK government

If you read those UK stats it's fatigue and not wearing seatbelts that do the most damage.

But the cameras will cost a lot less to maintain over the next 10 years than it would cost to continue employing 4000 police officers. Also, while 4000 officers may sound like a lot, they can't see as much as the 51,000 cameras will see 24/7, 365 days a year. And the cameras won't spend the bulk of their time filling in paperwork because the Liberals in our society have them frightened of offending all and sundry.

They might not be able to see as much but I have never seen a speed camera arrest a person, help a victim, or stop an incident from happening.

[JJMcClure]

The Greek has a great word that describes what -in my opinion- is needed; "paideia". Paideia is a cross between education, culture and successful child-rearing. I think that more paideia would diminish irresponsible driving, mugging, terrorism and most other kinds of conscious misbehavior a lot more than just installing CCTVs everywhere (or any other method that treats symptoms rather than causes for the matter)

I totally 100% agree, however this is reality and not how we'd all like it to be. So, in the absence of a total readjustment of human nature and behaviour into a utopian ideal, I wish there'd been a CCTV camera on that spot.

Here's a brain twister for you guys. The kind of people who would hit someone's car and drive off, most likely because they had no insurance, certainly because they didn't want to pay for the damage they caused, only exist because of commerce and commerce is greatly aided by privacy. Privacy gives competitive edge, or there'd be no need for corporate espionage. It's greed, particularly corporate that creates poor people, there needs to be rich and poor (consumers) or there can't be rich, that's how our system works. So, by clinging to your privacy, you actually help perpetuate the very culture and society that breeds people like my hit and run friend. Unless you want personal privacy whilst expecting everyone else to give up theirs? Now it's getting complicated, one privacy is ok, another isn't....

Can you not see how by thanking Theo for his utopian wishful thinking you're actually contradicting what you believe in and how you live? You don't want Paideia really, it can only exist or work in a world totally different from the one you want to live in, one without privacy facilitating commerce/greed and creating the kind of poor people who hit and run.

[Clinton]

Please don't try and tell me speed is not a factor in road traffic fatalities, using the childish 'joke' about airplanes is offensive to those of us who have lost loved ones to speeding motorists.

No offence was meant, and I agree that speed could make an accident worse, but we need to look at how we can stop the accident happening in the first place! Far more effective than more speed cameras would be taking steps like

1. Be more circumspect about foreign drivers allowed on our roads. In India I acquired a driving licence without even taking a test - you simply sent your photo off with the fee + bribe and you got a licence back in the post. Yet most foreign drivers are allowed to drive for 12 months on British roads without any further test. Heck, even people who've driven in India for years don't know the first thing about the highway code. I had been riding motorbikes for 10 years in India and I had never seen a roundabout, a give way sign or white lines on the road! I was allowed free and full access to British roads immediately on arrival.

2. Driver abilities: A disproportionate number of young drivers are involved in accidents. Introducing an Australian style Green P probation system would make a big difference as would other sticks and carrots such as reduced road tax for those passing IAM tests. A regular hazard perception, sight test and reaction speed test for older drivers (say 70+) would make a big difference too.

3. Locking up those who intentionally put other road users at risk - those who drive regularly without insurance, for example. People like this don't care about the "28 day ban"!

I could come up with a thousand other suggestions. Yet speed cameras are what make the money so that's what the government is going to keep relying on. It's not speed that kills, it's the bad drivers using inappropriate speed for the road conditions and their control abilities