Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Technology

UK Police Expand License Plate Camera Systems 462

Posted by michael from the glimpse-of-the-future dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to this article at the BBC British Police forces are widening their use of automatic License Plate recognition. One of the police officers involved says 'we can effectively deny criminals the use of the roads.' For those who don't know central London already has a network of number plate recognising camera systems to support the Congestion Charge system."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Police Expand License Plate Camera Systems More

UK Police Expand License Plate Camera Systems

Comments Filter:

  • Ok... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SkyLeach ( 188871 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:14PM (#6079505) Homepage
    So if a badguy shoots someone and takes their car how does this system keep the badguy from using the roads?

    Or what if they steel the license plate from valid drivers while they sleep?

    This sytem is only for keeping track of law abiding (or at least those that attempt to be law abiding on some level) people.

    • Re:Ok... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jonsey ( 593310 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:17PM (#6079530) Journal
      So do all restrictions on ownership.

      If the government takes all the guns away, only the bad guys will have guns.

      If someone wishes to avoid this system, they can, same with nearly all tracing systems. C'est la vie. IANFIF.

      • Re:Ok... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by sean23007 ( 143364 )
        That is not the correct analogy, though it certainly is a popular one. He said that monitoring the roads in this fashion does not catch criminals, nor does it prevent them from using the road. What if the car is stolen? What if the license plates are stolen? This monitoring system would have largely no effect in these situations. Its only usefulness is in keeping track of law abiding citizens, and as such it is not useful.

        • Re:Ok... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by misterpies ( 632880 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:43PM (#6079810)
          If somebody steals your car, and you report it stolen quickly, then with cameras there's a much better chance of finding it before the number plates are switched (if your average 2-bit car thief bothers). If your numberplate is stolen, then report it stolen and the police will quickly be able to find the thief.

          There are good arguments against using cameras to track cars, but the fact that criminals can get around them isn't one. There are hundreds of thousands of law-breakers out there who have managed to outwit the police. You can't use that as an argument against having police.

        • Re:Ok... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Cyberdyne ( 104305 ) * on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:43PM (#6079817) Journal
          That is not the correct analogy, though it certainly is a popular one. He said that monitoring the roads in this fashion does not catch criminals, nor does it prevent them from using the road. What if the car is stolen? What if the license plates are stolen? This monitoring system would have largely no effect in these situations. Its only usefulness is in keeping track of law abiding citizens, and as such it is not useful.

          Actually, it could be useful for tracking stolen cars. (Give them your number, they tell the computer to alert them if it's spotted.) Likewise the getaway car from a crime. Of course, it's useless as soon as the criminals has a chance to swap the plates (as is already being done to avoid the GBP 5 [c. $8] per day 'congestion charge'), but useful in the first minutes after a robbery... (Of course, a Lo-Jack system is much better for the stolen car scenario, but not in the bank robbery.)

          Overall, I don't like it. Too instrusive (WTF - they want to track everybody, everywhere they go?!) for too little gain (very little you can't achieve with OnStar or LoJack), and too much risk of abuse (cops tracking the SO's car, harassing people they don't like).

          The trouble is, it is useful - for all the wrong things. Lots of potential abuses, very little legitimate use!

          • Which, I would say, makes it useless. (In the sense of its small number of legitimate uses.)

        • Re:Ok... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by WhiplashII ( 542766 )
          Um. NO!!!

          As soon as I report my plates / car as stolen, it is instantly located through this system, probably before my car is even trashed!
        • I think you're overestimating the intelligence of a small-time criminal. As anyone who watches "Cops" knows, there are a LOT of criminals who just keep driving around with their own plates with warrants out for them who only happen to be caught for not using a turn signal (which should be a crime punishable by jailtime IMHO, but anyway...)

          While the system may not have as large an effect on stolen cars (except when they're reported stolen quickly, then it's just like LoJac), it still can get the idiots.

    • Re:Ok... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      erm, no. This will still prevent most known criminals, or ones that have been identified on the fly from escaping detection and tracking. In the cases you described the police should be notified that the car/plate has been stolen and so the system works (maybe slowly). I don't disagree that they can still track innocent people and George Orwell, et. al. are rolling in their graves (or beds if they're still alive). However, like so many tools, it has both an intended good use and a possible misuse. Same

    • Re:Ok... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BeBoxer ( 14448 )
      So if a badguy shoots someone and takes their car how does this system keep the badguy from using the roads?

      Um, because a stolen car can be located much, much faster than possible thru any other means? Would you steal cars if you knew the police could locate and track you within minutes of the car being reported stolen?

      My $0.02 will always be worth more than your ?0.02, so :P

      Live mid-market rates as of 2003.05.30 19:24:11 GMT.
      0.02 ? = 0.0235500 USD

    • Re:Ok... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 )

      So if a badguy shoots someone and takes their car how does this system keep the badguy from using the roads?

      Well, once the car is reported missing I'm sure it will be recognized by the computers. But until then, it doesn't.

      Or what if they steel the license plate from valid drivers while they sleep?

      Again, won't help until the license plate is reported stolen.

      This also won't stop terrorists from flying airplanes into buildings. And it won't stop date rape. And it won't keep people from cheating on

    • Knee-Jerk Comment Two Minutes After Story Posted (Score:5, Insightful)

      by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:42PM (#6079799)
      Ummm.. the story was posted at 3:12 and your comment went up at 3:14. That's pretty fast -- read the BBC piece, consider your thoughts, and submit a comment all in two minutes. (Well... the "consider your thoughts" portion didn't take much time, apparently.)

      There are lots of ways to be a criminal driving around in a car with a perfectly good license tag without shooting someone and taking their car.

      For starters: not paying your taxes, not registering your car, driving without a license, skipping bail, violating parole, a zillion different kinds of taffic violations, not paying child support, auto theft, child abuse, etc., etc.

      In fact, just about any crime in which the perpetrator can be linked to a particular car, which is everyone who drives.

      There's no difference between a flesh-and-blood cop running a check on your license plate and this automated system. It just maximizes the capability.
      • Do you live in the UK? In case not, I'll inform you that there is an extensive network of speed cameras in this country, widely considered to be ludircous profit making machines for the police on many roads. However, they don't just fine you for speeding, the put 3 points on your licence. This means that, for being caught going 5mph over the limit, twice, you could get *BANNED* from driving. Still think it's reasonable for the police to be able to track anyone who 'isn't 100% legal'?

        The police in this

    • Re:Ok... (Score:4, Funny)

      by Narcissus ( 310552 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @07:18PM (#6081801) Homepage
      That reminds me of a story of some enterprising youths somewhere here in Australia (so I'm sure it's an urban legend, but it's a funny story none the less).

      A carload of guys see a cop with a speed camera sitting on the side of the road (well he's not, he's sitting in the car with the camera in front of it). They pull over and start asking him all of these questions about it. He's impressed that they're so interested: he gets out of the car, shows them how it all works, all the bells and whistles. After a while they thank him, and drive off.

      During the rest of his stint there, the camera takes another 20 or 30 photos, but when they're all developed, it's the number plate of the police car who was controlling the camera. It wasn't until they asked the officer that they decided that while he was showing the camera off, one of the boys had gone to the back of the police car, took the number plate then stuck it on the back of their car before speeding past the camera for the rest of the afternoon.

  • Excellent (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    These methods are great for those of us concerned about law enforcement. they allow an already understaffed agency to monitor for potentially illegitimate traffic at little to no personal risk to themselves.

  • Right Vs Privilidge (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Buzz_Litebeer ( 539463 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:18PM (#6079542) Journal
    I think this is a good idea, if they feel that it is truly necessarry to use it. Imagine being able to use this to identify stolen vehicles, minutes after they are reported stolen, just put in the recognition to look for a car and there you go.

    There are some issues about location tracking of your citizens, but as it is being used it is for tracking who is using the roadway during high congestion periods. As long as it is not used for private data mining (IE trying to figure out where you tend to shop and such) then I am all for it. If there is a counter argument, I am not seeing exactly "where" the abuses could be applied on this one to any extent. As long as the thing wasnt being used as an auto traffic cop for running through red lights and such, since we know from some experience here in the U.S. that that can cause some seriuos issues via mis-identifying breaking the law, and turning right at a red.

    As long as it is used for congestion identification, and possibly tracking of stolen vehicles/people who have committed a crime and the police which to facilitate their capture. I cannot see a bad side to this.

    Since driving is a privilidge given by the state, being able to track who is driving is also a responsiblity of the state if they wish to implement it.

    • Re:Right Vs Privilidge (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Driving is neither a right nor a privilege; it's an _activity_ that citizens engage in that is monitored by the government which citizens have created to provide order to the larger body. The government doesn't exist without us my friend, so I would amend to say if the will of the people is to have their movement tracked, so be it.

      Personally, I doubt this is the case.
      • Yes it is an activity. But if you are going to drive on public roads, then it is a priviledge. You do not need insurance, or a permit to drive on private property, know yourself out, but do not go onto a public road.

        you are correct, the gov't does not exist without us. But we have been wanted to be watched, there have been police forces for ages, but now that someone is doing it smarter, people start complainin and worryin.

        Hey thats your right here in the USA, to complain, but driving.... thats a privi
      • Driving is neither a right nor a privilege;
        Driving IS a privilege.
    • this system could be abused by "cloners" as the article said, people making "fake" license plates then going down town to drive while someone else is charged the fee.

      Oh well, yet another problem with automatic systems ;-(

      What they should do is keep a small 10 second clip of the vehicle for court, and make it easy to come in and file a claim against the device, if the snapshot or vehicle shows THEIR vehicle, then they have to pay a court fee.

      Otherwise the tax is waved, and the car in the screenshot is fla

    • Re:Right Vs Privilidge (Score:4, Interesting)

      by misterpies ( 632880 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:36PM (#6079722)

      As long as the thing wasnt being used as an auto traffic cop for running through red lights and such, since we know from some experience here in the U.S. that that can cause some seriuos issues via mis-identifying breaking the law, and turning right at a red.

      actually, Britain has hundreds of cameras used to catch motorists who speed or run red lights. Of course in the UK you're not allowed to turn at a red light anyway, but there are still misidentification problems -- mostly when people sell on their cars and the new owner doesn't register the purchase.

      Interestingly in the UK there's almost no concern about the cameras imposing on civil liberties (or making mistakes). On the other hand, there was a massive backlash from motorists who regarded it as unfair that they should be penalised for speeding or running the lights...I can't say they have my sympathy. More people are killed in road accidents than any other non-disease cause of death.

      • actually, Britain has hundreds of cameras used to catch motorists who speed or run red lights.

        It's strange, but I've driven through much of the UK on a couple of trips a few years back and I don't think I can recall seeing any stop lights. Intersections almost always seemed to be managed using traffic circles or other arrangements where one path had to yield right-of-way without any active signal controls.

        I came away thinking that the whole setup was pretty clever. (Even though it was stressful trying t

    • Since when have we ever seen a system that isn't exploited in some way? "As long.." is a great justification for things like handing over your privacy, the problem is that it is hardly ever long enough to justify it in the first place. Next you'll have terrorists and criminals hacking the system to identify couriers or evade the police, then the system will get beefed up and more aggressive...I just don't see how it is worth it. Ever.

    • Re:Right Vs Privilidge (Score:5, Insightful)

      by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:41PM (#6079792) Journal

      As long as it is used for congestion identification, and possibly tracking of stolen vehicles/people who have committed a crime and the police which to facilitate their capture. I cannot see a bad side to this.

      Well, the main bad side is that it will be used for more than just the purposes you've laid out. You can put whatever laws or standards you want, but this system will be abused.

      The other bad side is that the set of "people who have committed a crime" is equal to the set of all people. Even if you buy the argument that minor crimes tend to be given minor punishments, there is still the ability for abuse in the future. Remember, the whole point of modern government is to keep the people in the government from infringing upon those not in the government. This is done by distributing the power, mainly through voting and economics. But information is power too, and when you give that power to a certain group of people (in this case cops) corruption is inevitable. To put it more succinctly, information is power, and power corrupts.

    • They could take it a step further and photograph your face as you're entering the vehicle, and then use some face matching algorithm to decide if you're authorized to use your car.

      That doesn't sound so great. :)

    • Re:Right Vs Privilidge (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dotslash ( 12419 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @04:05PM (#6080512) Homepage
      In other news:

      People of Jewish ancestry up to two generations removed must now wear a yellow star on their armband and have it visible at all times. Police assured us that honest jews have nothing to fear as the system will no be used to discriminate against them.

      Now imagine if today they wanted to do the same. All they now need is a new database which can correlate jews to license plates and they can effectively follow anyone and efficiently exterminate them.

      s/jews/communists/g
      s/jews/hackers/g
      s/jews/an yonetheywanttotrack/g

      If you give someone the power to very efficiently track anyone in the country they might not abuise it now. But as soon as an abusive government comes into power you are in a wordl of trouble.

    • I am not seeing exactly "where" the abuses could be applied on this one to any extent

      Suppose you decide to go downtown and get a few drinks. You get very drunk and go into a gay bar, where you act like a fool.

      "But that's okay," you think. "None of the people there knew me. I'll just forget it ever happened and vow never to go drinking again in that part of town."

      However--Big Brother's cameras caught your license plate number. How much would it be worth to you to not have your friends/co-workers/ne

  • Nothing a little mud wont help (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kevin_conaway ( 585204 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:19PM (#6079548) Homepage
    I bet you could foil this pretty easy by splashing some mud on your bumper (to look more 'real' :) and over a few crucial digits on your plate.

    • Re:Nothing a little mud wont help (Score:4, Informative)

      by The Only Druid ( 587299 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:30PM (#6079670)
      I don't know about the UK, but in the USA its illegal to have your plate obscured for any reason, and is a ticketable offense. Moreover, its mandatory that a police officer run your plates/license whenever they ticket you, so if you get pulled over for having obscured your plate then you're just as screwed as if they knew it was you from the beginning.
    • You might think so, but you'd have to cover a lot of those digits, as they probably also get information about the size, shape and color of the vehicle. Coupled with a few digits of the license and you can ID the car. If the car doesn't come up (too much mud) then I'm certian a human studying the picture can narrow the search down to a few cars and still deliver the ticket to the correct one.

      -Adam

  • Not a big deal (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jratcliffe ( 208809 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:19PM (#6079553)
    If you're driving on a public road, you have to assume that individuals or the government might be (gasp!) reading your license plate. This is functionally no different from having a cop sitting by the side of the road, taking notes, just more efficient.

    • Re:Not a big deal (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Teun ( 17872 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @03:02PM (#6079958)
      But when it is recorded every few miles, this information is stored for years and who knows who can access it for what ever reason.
      Then we do have a problem.
      Remember that Britain has no Bill of Rights or anything else to prevent abuse.

  • Overstated (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tomakaan ( 673394 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:20PM (#6079561)
    'we can effectively deny criminals the use of the roads.'

    I fail to see how they can say that. Public law enforcement will never be able to deny crime in any way as long as the people continue not to fear the punishment.

    All this does is go one step further to tightening the hold that the law has on the abiding citizens.

    • Re:Overstated (Score:3, Insightful)

      by E-prospero ( 30242 )
      Public law enforcement will never be able to deny crime in any way as long as the people continue not to fear the punishment.

      At no point in recorded history has "fear of punishment" proven an effective mechanism for encouraging public order.

      For example - During the late 1700's in England, relatively minor property offences (stealing a loaf of bread, for instance) were met with strict punishment - execution, or transportation to Australia. Yet strangely, people kept stealing bread.

      Why was that? Are peopl
      • Woah.. I just re-read that post thinking that if you replace criminals by terrorists, you get an interresting take on the current US foreign policy..

  • Monitoring all of us 24/7 will naturally make law enforcement so much easyer. Life in Oceania 2003.

    Why should any law-abiding citizen object to a two-way TV monitor in their living rooms to help inform them on the war against terrorism.

  • A good start. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <pig.hogger@gmail ... m minus caffeine> on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:21PM (#6079569) Journal
    It's a good start, but it's overkill for too little.

    Road safety would be significantly enhanced if cars were fitted with event recorders that would be queried by police at regular intervals, the idea is to automatically ticket illegal behaviour like speeding or avoiding to stop at stop signs. Such a system could obviously be used to track vehicle whereabouts. One could also imagine having to swipe one driver's licence through the onboard computer to positively identify drivers.

    • Road safety would be significantly enhanced if cars were fitted with event recorders that would be queried by police at regular intervals

      There is already such thing [slashdot.org]

    • Please tell me you're kidding here. Why stop with a system that automatically records your "bad behavior" and reports it? Why not take the next logical step and integrate controls that PREVENT the bad behavior in the first place?

      Oh, wait, having the car prevent "bad behavior" would interfear with some municipality's revenue stream.

      If they're going to go to that length, why not take the next few steps and go with the fully automated vehicles of Minority Report?

      Go a couple more steps, and have the car au

  • Sigh (Score:5, Funny)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:21PM (#6079573) Homepage Journal
    It's getting to be where everyone's going to have to be on motorized bicycles and wearing a full hood and cloak in order to avoid automated recognition. I can just see it now, a world of jawas on two wheels.

  • Nothing to fear (Score:5, Insightful)

    by interiot ( 50685 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:22PM (#6079581) Homepage
    • "Law-abiding motorists should have nothing to fear"
    Yeah. So they thought about this long enough to realize there'd be at least a small public backlash, but didn't do much thinking beyond that.

    If we're going to go down this road, fine, but as papers on the Transparent Society suggest, this should be much more open.

    • Everyone, not just police officers, should be able to use it to track people. Charge whatever fees are required to support it, but you should be able to track anyone.
    • Everyone should have access to the transaction logs and should be able to see who's tracking who.

    Everyone benefits... the police and "law-abiding motorists" get their criminals, McCarthys get to entertain their delusions, politicos get to have their watergates, and the public and press get a little entertainment over the whole thing.

    • Yup. Allow groups to watch the watchers. Run stats on who is being watched, where things are being watched. I guess I don't mind the government doing something like this as long as it is 'open' - which will never happen with who we have in the White House and as Att. General. I mean, if the government won't let us know who they are looking at at libraries...

    • Re:Nothing to fear (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rick.C ( 626083 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:28PM (#6079654)
      "Law-abiding motorists should have nothing to fear"

      Also from the article, "One in 12 stops during the trial of the scheme produced an arrest and Mr Ainsworth described the results as 'surprisingly good'."

      Well, I'd bet that the other 92-percent of the people who were stopped were none too pleased.

  • 1984 (Score:3, Funny)

    by Zen Mastuh ( 456254 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:22PM (#6079583)

    Apparently some people believe 1984 was a training manual.

    • 1984 wasn't about tracking where people drive, it was about mind control/controlling the public.

      Now, Minority Report... that sounds more familiar (automatic retina scans on every door, add, elevator, car, etc).
    • Has anybody actually read the novel 1984? The Socialist paradise of former England didn't even have vehicles availible for the private use of its citizens.

  • "Big Brother" is sometimes okay (Score:5, Interesting)

    by qewl ( 671495 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:23PM (#6079599)
    Many will say this is a true invasion to privacy and what is next is complete control over the traffic system. I must disagree. While I am opposed to stoplights taking pictures of light breakers and machine radar enforced areas (the ones where they send you a ticket in the mail), this is a positive direction towards making roads safer and more efficient.

    Where I live, there is an incredibly busy road. The city was going to have a man monitor the roads and sit in a booth with cameras to determine which lights they should change when (for better traffic control). Some stupid liberal jumped on the issue and said "Absolutely not, it's an invasion of privacy, and Big Brother is entering our lives." And he convinced about half of the voters(the stupid ones) who were initially for it completely against the idea. The world is getting bigger, we have to try new things so our systems don't get out of control. With all the political disagreement and lack of logic the people in our politcal system have, we move in almost no direction.

    -Greg
  • Just what London needs...
  • "Law-abiding motorists should have nothing to fear and will be pleased to see untaxed, uninsured and unregistered being caught in the act." I don't care so much about them being "caught in the act". Here's my wish. I would be most pleased if my insurance rates were to go down *IF* this system helps remove said drivers from driving.

  • Uk is where i live (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Loosewire ( 628916 ) * on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:25PM (#6079622) Homepage Journal
    Not for long, the anti privacy legislation here is starting to get extremely excessive, time to look for a new country (preferably cold and with good net connection ;-)

  • not to worry (Score:2, Funny)

    by andy1307 ( 656570 ) *
    The system is implemented in .NET. Shouldn't be too difficult to change the administrator password.
  • When it's a crime to drive on the roads, only criminals will drive?

  • Sweet! It'll be just like GTA! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Wesley Everest ( 446824 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:34PM (#6079709)
    Once they know what car you're driving you have to ditch it and jack another! It'll be soooo cool! All they need to do is set up some ramps so you can dive out at top speed and launch your car at buildings and cop cars.
  • The next step will to have paint sprayers hidden at key motorway entrances and exits to mark cars whose plates aren't readable.

  • Ubiquitous Law Enforcement (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Stiletto ( 12066 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:36PM (#6079725)

    This is GREAT!

    Imagine if a system were installed nationwide, which detected every crime committed the second it was comitted, and sent a ticket/issued a warrent to the criminal. Practically overnight all the stupid laws that make 95% of us criminals would have to be abolished or the system would collapse under its own weight.

    Imagine if everyone would get a ticket each time they exceeded the speed limit. Limits would have to be raised to reasonable levels nationwide, or people would riot in the streets.

    Perhaps a little bit of big brotherism is what we need to abolish unreasonable laws.
    • No. More likely they'll raise your taxes to hire some more cronies (read: judges) to hear cases. Or they'll remove the right for you to appeal the decision. Or even have a trial. In the US, most traffic violations are civil offenses, so your 'rights' are severely curtailed. No idea about the UK.
    • Heh. I think it's true. A lot of stupid crap is on the books. I kind of hope something similar will happen with the freaking patent system.
    • Imagine if everyone would get a ticket each time they exceeded the speed limit. Limits would have to be raised to reasonable levels nationwide, or people would riot in the streets.

      For which they'd be ticketed ...

  • Road Tax (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bobm17ch ( 643515 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @02:43PM (#6079809)


    It's just another tool for increasing revenue for the police forces around the country.

    They day will come when every motoring offence on any major road is recorded and dealt with automatically.

    Break the speed limit 4 times in one day? Ker-ching! 4x£50 to your local copshop please.

    It`s yet another example of the ongoing 'automatic-insta-justice' trend.


    And no, I didn`t read the article. :)

    • Re:Road Tax (Score:2, Insightful)

      by sameyeam ( 587571 )
      They day will come when every motoring offence on any major road is recorded and dealt with automatically.

      ...and this is a bad thing? If you drive like an arse on a public road then you deserve to be punished for it.

    • Re:Road Tax (Score:3, Insightful)

      by panaceaa ( 205396 )
      Speeding tickets really are just a "road tax." This could be a great start to an automated system. Something like 2 cents per mile per mile over the speed limit. 20 miles at 10 miles over the speed limit would be $4 each time you did it... which is pretty reasonable but still expensive enough to discourage people from speeding. Maybe a "reckless tax" too, which would triple the tax if you're 15 miles per hour over.

      It's a waste to have cops sit on highways looking for speeders. What they really should

  • Well... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mustrum_ridcully ( 311862 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @03:56PM (#6080423)
    Jeremy Clarkson (UK motoring journalist) once said - Driving a car is a privilege not a right.

    This is a fact often overlooked by too many drivers, in the UK there is a problem with people driving un-MOT'd (MOT is a annual inspection of any car that is more than 3years old), untaxed, and worst of all uninsured (try suing someone who can't pay). As far as these people are concerned driving a car is a God given right. Something really does need to be done to get these people off the roads, but I don't think cameras are the best solution as these people will just do something to evade detection (heck they're breaking the law already so why would they care).

    • Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by praksys ( 246544 )
      Jeremy Clarkson (UK motoring journalist) once said - Driving a car is a privilege not a right.

      He was wrong for a variety of reasons, but was attempting to say something that was right.

      Here is the primary reason why he was wrong:

      Freedom of movement is one of the basic components of the right to liberty. Denying people the right to employ the most common and effective means of moving from one place to another is an infringement on that right, just as dennying people the right to publish or broadcast their

      • Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by maromig ( 217629 )

        Like most rights, the right to freedom of movement can be regulated by the state, and like most rights it can be forfeited if one violates the rights of others, or violates the regulations set by the state.

        Very well written reply. What I'm not sure I agree with fundamentally is the notion that freedom should be restricted by "regulations" carte blanc. If the "regulations" are designed for the purpose of keeping people from violating the rights of others, then I'm all for it. But when I think of the "ri

  • Cops never misuse these, of course! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Friday May 30, 2003 @06:09PM (#6081392)
    Here in the states, we just had a Chief of Police murder his wife! Fact is, law enforcement officials stalk there ex's all the time (I guess the controlling personalities that are prone to choose law enforcement are also prone to stalking behaviour). This means if you are a cop's ex-girlfriend in the UK, he now knows where you are at every minute of the day. Be afraid; be very afraid.
  • I saw the lights go off when I was breaking the speed limit between Reading and Oxford on the A-423.

    I continued to break the law, and see the flashbulbs, for the two weeks I spent in the Home Counties.

    I'll be back after the warrants run. Thanks for all the beer.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Someone's been mean to you! Tell me who it is, so I can punch him tastefully." -- Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse

Close