Highlander Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Just come across this while busy surfing on nightshift - Gatso 2 Basically, the government want ANPR camers every 400 yards on motorways. The data collected will be retained for at least 2 years. It also looks like having a car off the road in a garage without insurance is going to be an offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjfr Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Ok, that's it. I'm moving to Monoco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sponge Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 [ QUOTE ] As it will be a lot easier and cheaper to fine the law-abiding but forgetful than it will be to deal with the hardline serial offenders, we think we can guess which way this one will go. [/ QUOTE ] That just about sums up 'the system' as a whole. Why waste time, effort and money doing anything worth while, like catching the real criminals, when you have easy targets, like the motorist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 I think this could be a good thing too though. It will take off the road all those who aren't insured/taxed etc which we all complain about. Everytime you enter Meadowhall (large shopping centre in Sheffield) your car reg plate is read. Been like that for a few years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patently Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 [ QUOTE ] I think this could be a good thing too though. It will take off the road all those who aren't insured/taxed etc which we all complain about. [/ QUOTE ] Quite right - it will. But, two questions spring to mind; 1. Why is this being put in place under the "Serious Organised Crime and Police Act"? Lack of insurance (etc) is a crime, but "serious"?? "Organised"?? Did parliament intend these powers to be used to chase motorists? And can we ever believe Blair again when he tells us that new powers are ok because they will only be used carefully and properly? 2. To catch an uninsured driver, do you really need a camera every 400 yards? Do you need to check their details every 5 seconds? Or is there an ulterior motive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 To answer your questions as I see it 1. I've read that they are designing the system to help against terrorisim, and to link to CCTV etc. 2. I wondered this too. If the cameras are at a fixed distance apart, they'll likely be used for a whole host of checks, not least, determining your speed and issuing a fine automatically. That part isn't so good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 [ QUOTE ] 2. To catch an uninsured driver, do you really need a camera every 400 yards? Do you need to check their details every 5 seconds? Or is there an ulterior motive? [/ QUOTE ] Yup, speeding revenue, what else? [ QUOTE ] and a trial on the M42 near Birmingham will first be used to enforce variable speed limits, then to 'tackle more serious crime.' [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] But unless the Times has got the spacing wrong, having one every quarter of a mile on motorways quite clearly means they'll be used to enforce speed limits as well, which would effectively make the current generation of Gatsos obsolete. Otherwise, checking a vehicle's tax and insurance status every 15 seconds or thereabouts would seem overkill. [/ QUOTE ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patently Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 [ QUOTE ] 1. I've read that they are designing the system to help against terrorisim, and to link to CCTV etc. [/ QUOTE ] Yes - and good luck to them in fighting that. So why not say so? Why is it being introduced quietly and under cover of an attack on the ultimate bad guy - naughty drivers! And why is the system so obviously overspecified - 400 yards FFS! - and they will keep the records for two years so any plod can look up and see where you've been in that time. I can't decide whether it is part of a plan to rescue the budget by catching every single last speeding offence or the last piece of the jigsaw in creating a police state. Time to get hold of a foreign correspondence address, I think. Remember - those who have nothing to hide, should get out more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sayerbloke Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 I think we all know the only crimes this country takes the "zero-tolerance" approach to is those involving motorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klutch_power Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 FECKIN STALKERS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patently Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 I think we ought to be a bit more sympathetic to Blair. After all, he can't tell Parliament what he really wants to do, as his own backbenchers disagree with his policies. Nor can he tell the public, because they don't agree either, apart from the 20% who voted for him. Unless they were voting to get one of the backbenchers in, of course. Mind you, no-one said it was easy running a democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjfr Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 [ QUOTE ] I've read that they are designing the system to help against terrorisim, and to link to CCTV etc. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, the 'fight against terrorism'. Sure. Speed cameras every 400 yards are reaaly gonna help against a determined terrorist. WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVES THIS GOVERNMENT ANYMORE??!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patently Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 [ QUOTE ] WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVES THIS GOVERNMENT ANYMORE??!! [/ QUOTE ] Anyone??? Hello??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pritesh Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 No one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 [ QUOTE ] Yeah, the 'fight against terrorism'. Sure. Speed cameras every 400 yards are reaaly gonna help against a determined terrorist. [/ QUOTE ] It does also rather presuppose that Mr. Terrorist is going to carefully register the van or whatever in his name and then wait for it to flag up on the system before going about his neferious duties... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durrsaku Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Yeah, the 'fight against terrorism'. Sure. Speed cameras every 400 yards are reaaly gonna help against a determined terrorist. [/ QUOTE ] It does also rather presuppose that Mr. Terrorist is going to carefully register the van or whatever in his name and then wait for it to flag up on the system before going about his neferious duties... [/ QUOTE ] Yes and as a Good Bad Mr. Terrorist will be forced to pay his insurance, road tax and keep to speed limit before he blows up a tube station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 I highly doubt they'll put cameras every 400 yards. Think of the cost, maintenance etc. Probably just journalistic crap again. I guess by advertising a new system, opens it to people getting one up on them. Hardly a position to be in when dealing with security systems. If they intend to use it as a money bank like those twats in little mobile camera vans, then that should be far more advertised. Too early to call though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobes49 Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Saw a program about these, They are designed to fit in a normal "cat eye" on the road and can read the reg of every car going past it! quite scary but there will allways be away around it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shao_khan Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Thing I dotn understand is why every 400yds? Whats wrong with every entrance and exit of the motorway, reduce the investment into hardware? Also last accident I had, Police couldnt trace the driver so surely even a camera every 2 yds wouldnt help trace someone they cant find? I guess at 400ysd (havent read the article, couldnt be bothered it would only wind me up) they will also be chasing tailgaters as well as speeders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfer Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Next step volentary uthenasia, 70 years are up, they come round to put you in the ground, government gone mad, but we stand for it don't we. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sayerbloke Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Also worth reading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 [ QUOTE ] In one trial, on the M42, near Birmingham, they would initially enforce variable speed limits, and then be used to tackle more serious crime. [/ QUOTE ] Bingo. Spy Cameras. The new high tech piggy bank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mixit Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 Time to look into the "revolving" Number Plate.. Just like 007.. me thinks. Time to play the Ba5tard5 at their own game S Makes me soo bloody angry.. The sooner UK Police forces distance themselves from this governments Fascist regimes, the sooner they will win back respect from the British motorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sayerbloke Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 [ QUOTE ] The sooner UK Police forces distance themselves from this governments Fascist regimes, the sooner they will win back respect from the British motorist. [/ QUOTE ] But they aren't facist. The only three things they clamp down on Terrorism [though only recently], non-payment of taxes and motoring offenses. In most other ways they have an unbelievably liberal approach to things. If they had a zero-tolerance approach to crime across the board [a facist-inspired restrictive rights society] it wouldn't be so bad, but instead they are now at the point where you sometimes get a harsher punishment for speeding than you do for crimes like murder. A facist regime [though of course without the religious and ethical persecution] would almost be preferable to this government's relentless "only target crimes we can make a profit from" approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjfr Posted November 16, 2005 Report Share Posted November 16, 2005 I don't think the word 'Fascist' was used in the way a political scientist would use it (as you pointed out above sayerbloke) but I think 'Fascist' was used in the more colloquial sense of over - enforcing rules, of being very harsh (like the 70mph speedlimit thingy on the M4) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now