The "S**t Driving Caught On Cam" Thread (Vol 6)

The "S**t Driving Caught On Cam" Thread (Vol 6)

Author
Discussion

Roger Irrelevant

2,950 posts

114 months

Saturday 9th March
quotequote all
havoc said:
I think a lot of the antipathy comes from feeling like a fellow citizen is out there trying to catch you out / grass you up - it all feels very 1984 / Nazi Germany. And I don't want to live in that sort of society, as it's not a society - it becomes a collection of suspicious and distrustful individuals.
Oh come on. You do realise that the vast, vast majority of crimes of all types are and always have been detected and prosecuted because a 'fellow citizen' witnesses them and provides evidence? While I can well imagine that Mikey is an annoying pain in the arse generally, getting fined for using your phone while driving is a pure stupidity tax. Anyway, should I ever witness somebody damaging your car or catch it on video I must remember to not tell the police. Wouldn't want to grass.

havoc

30,130 posts

236 months

Saturday 9th March
quotequote all
Roger Irrelevant said:
Oh come on. You do realise that the vast, vast majority of crimes of all types are and always have been detected and prosecuted because a 'fellow citizen' witnesses them and provides evidence? While I can well imagine that Mikey is an annoying pain in the arse generally, getting fined for using your phone while driving is a pure stupidity tax. Anyway, should I ever witness somebody damaging your car or catch it on video I must remember to not tell the police. Wouldn't want to grass.
Talk about false equivalence.

All the crimes you're talking about have a clear victim. Someone who is 'hurt' (physically, psychologically, financially etc.). In that instance it's effectively the opposite - it's being a good citizen to your fellow members of society, it's helping ensure that society* runs properly.

...whereas the victimless crimes that seem to be multiplying at the moment, someone who enforces/witnesses on those is being a good citizen to the state. Fundamentally different, from a moral point of view.


* Very distinct from the apparatus of state.

r3g

3,256 posts

25 months

Saturday 9th March
quotequote all
Roger Irrelevant said:
Anyway, should I ever witness somebody damaging your car or catch it on video I must remember to not tell the police. Wouldn't want to grass.
And what exactly are you expecting the police to do with this evidence? If you're expecting them to actually go and investigate it and arrest/charge someone, I've got some bad news for you because none of that will happen. At best you may get a CRN from them for your insurance co., at worst they will simply ignore you.

Roger Irrelevant

2,950 posts

114 months

Saturday 9th March
quotequote all
havoc said:
Roger Irrelevant said:
Oh come on. You do realise that the vast, vast majority of crimes of all types are and always have been detected and prosecuted because a 'fellow citizen' witnesses them and provides evidence? While I can well imagine that Mikey is an annoying pain in the arse generally, getting fined for using your phone while driving is a pure stupidity tax. Anyway, should I ever witness somebody damaging your car or catch it on video I must remember to not tell the police. Wouldn't want to grass.
Talk about false equivalence.

All the crimes you're talking about have a clear victim. Someone who is 'hurt' (physically, psychologically, financially etc.). In that instance it's effectively the opposite - it's being a good citizen to your fellow members of society, it's helping ensure that society* runs properly.

...whereas the victimless crimes that seem to be multiplying at the moment, someone who enforces/witnesses on those is being a good citizen to the state. Fundamentally different, from a moral point of view.


* Very distinct from the apparatus of state.
Isn't it society that's decided that using your mobile while driving is verboten though? Lots of people get harmed by people using their mobile while driving, so anything that helps stop people doing it is helping society as far as I can see. What if I drank five pints and drove past the local primary school at 60mph at home time but didn't harm anybody? Nobody's been hurt this time so it's a victimless crime right, and anybody that saw me and reported me to the police is a grass. I'm being silly of course, it's clear that I should be dobbed in for my behaviour as though I (and more importantly those around me) might have got away with it this time, next time might be different.

Society's decided that drink driving is bad, so nobody (except drink drivers) talks of reporting people for it in terms of 'grassing' any more. When you say that I should report somebody damaging your car because it's good for 'society' you must mean that it might help to stop harm coming to other people. Which is the same reason why reporting people for mobile phone use while driving, even if they didn't hurt anybody in that particular case, is just fine with me. Unless you didn't really mean that me reporting somebody damaging your car is good for 'society', you just meant it's good for you.

havoc

30,130 posts

236 months

Saturday 9th March
quotequote all
Everything you say is logical, and I actually broadly agree with you. Despite my arguments above I can't stand those who drive around with a phone in their hand either.

BUT:-
- It should still be the police doing this, not walts like Mikey.
- Whilst Mikey probably IS doing (some sort of) service to society as a whole, what he's definitely doing is definitely a service to the state, and in the process increasing division in society through increasing distrust of your fellow man.
- From here it's a slippery slope to the state encouraging you to 'grass' on your fellow citizens for other infractions (minor or otherwise, technical or otherwise) - Operation Snap being a good example (which thankfully is being used with discretion by the police AT THE MOMENT). There are all sorts of reasons why that's not a good idea for the long-term health of a society.

trails

3,756 posts

150 months

Saturday 9th March
quotequote all
havoc said:
Can't argue with any of that.

I think a lot of the antipathy comes from feeling like a fellow citizen is out there trying to catch you out / grass you up - it all feels very 1984 / Nazi Germany. And I don't want to live in that sort of society, as it's not a society - it becomes a collection of suspicious and distrustful individuals.

The problem is that we SHOULD have more coppers out there as a deterrent - people actually getting caught and done for it would pretty quickly make it far less common, the same as happened with drink driving. Instead we get petty little wannabe's like Mikey, who have no intrinsic authority yet conduct themselves in a manner almost designed to wind others up.
The Nazi/Orwellian comparison feels overly dramatic for me...Mikey and his ilk don't really affect my state of mind in the slightest. Larger numbers of, and more visible Old Bill would be a far better solution. Where is that money tree when you need it smile

r3g

3,256 posts

25 months

Saturday 9th March
quotequote all
trails said:
The Nazi/Orwellian comparison feels overly dramatic for me...Mikey and his ilk don't really affect my state of mind in the slightest. Larger numbers of, and more visible Old Bill would be a far better solution. Where is that money tree when you need it smile
Presumably if Mikey is happy to live his life as a vigilante, grassing up motorists to the police without any authority to do so, then he also won't have a problem with other vigilante members of the public stoving his face in for harrassment and generally being a complete knob. What's good for the goose...

trails

3,756 posts

150 months

Saturday 9th March
quotequote all
r3g said:
trails said:
The Nazi/Orwellian comparison feels overly dramatic for me...Mikey and his ilk don't really affect my state of mind in the slightest. Larger numbers of, and more visible Old Bill would be a far better solution. Where is that money tree when you need it smile
Presumably if Mikey is happy to live his life as a vigilante, grassing up motorists to the police without any authority to do so, then he also won't have a problem with other vigilante members of the public stoving his face in for harrassment and generally being a complete knob. What's good for the goose...
I'm sorry r3g, but when I read posts like that I just think it's someone being a bit of a wally on the Internet; it just reads like something an angsty teen would write, only to look at with embarrassment a few years later.

r3g

3,256 posts

25 months

Saturday 9th March
quotequote all
trails said:
I'm sorry r3g, but when I read posts like that I just think it's someone being a bit of a wally on the Internet; it just reads like something an angsty teen would write, only to look at with embarrassment a few years later.
No embarrassment whatsoever and I don't even know why you'd possibly think they'd be any. It's quite simple : if you want to enforce the laws, go join the police. If not, keep your nose out and get on with your own life. I've said it countless times before - the UK has become a nation of scummy snitches and informants, desperate for recognition and attention in their dull and dreary lives they lead. As the guys have said up thread, it doesn't end well as this behaviour simply breeds distrust in your fellow human beings and the fabric of society falls apart as a consequence.

It's only a matter of time until he confronts someone who doesn't care for the law. His Go Pro will be ripped off his fat head, SD card disposed of, and camera rammed down this throat after his teeth have been rearranged. And the number of people who would have any sympathy would be zero.

Edited by r3g on Saturday 9th March 16:12

Vipers

32,909 posts

229 months

Saturday 9th March
quotequote all
Seems to me some comments on here about Micky are just basically angry motorists.

Fermit

13,045 posts

101 months

Saturday 9th March
quotequote all
Vipers said:
Seems to me some comments on here about Micky are just basically angry motorists.
And what other emotions are people going to have, being riled up by a twerp like Mikey? And to the poster mentioning about 'would going 60 past a school be OK' etc. No, it wouldn't, because that is not a decent thing to do, and stands an unreasonable chance of someone being killed.

A more comparable example would be someone being nabbed for going 31 in a 30. It's not really in the spirit of the law. In the same way no mates Mikey is behaving, going around antagonising people for using their phones in stationary traffic is not really in the spirit of the law.

trails

3,756 posts

150 months

Saturday 9th March
quotequote all
Fermit said:
And what other emotions are people going to have, being riled up by a twerp like Mikey? And to the poster mentioning about 'would going 60 past a school be OK' etc. No, it wouldn't, because that is not a decent thing to do, and stands an unreasonable chance of someone being killed.

A more comparable example would be someone being nabbed for going 31 in a 30. It's not really in the spirit of the law. In the same way no mates Mikey is behaving, going around antagonising people for using their phones in stationary traffic is not really in the spirit of the law.
Come on man, 'not in the spirt of the law'...lordy, there is no hope rofl

Gareth79

7,707 posts

247 months

Saturday 9th March
quotequote all
romft123 said:
Gareth79 said:
Durzel said:
There's not enough Police on the road and that's why people do it, same as with everything else.

if/when they actually get cameras to do this with AI that'll be the next thing complained about.. "if it's caught by a human then it's a fair cop".

Just don't do it - simple.
6 points for getting caught driving while holding a phone is pretty much a moron filter at the moment. It's so well publicised that everybody who drives should know to either get a cradle mount, or leave the whatsapp/youtube/hookers/porn until you park up. It makes no difference whether you are caught by a traffic officer in a car, a police officer on a bus, an "AI camera" or Mikey.
6 points for holding a phone.....makes me laugh. Yet you can change channels on the radio, insert a cd or whatever...fine! I had a car t bone me a while ago, on my motorbike. She saw me, pulled across me. No one infront, no one behind. Couldnt wait an extra 5 seconds for me to pass. CPS gave her a £120 fine and 3 points! BUT holding a phone YOUR A CRIMINAL.
I agree that there are other things you can do in the car which are probably as dangerous, but you missed my point that the phone offence is very specific and very easy to avoid. Somebody who chooses to NOT avoid it is a moron. *Especially* if your job is driving your own personal vehicle all day every day.



Fermit

13,045 posts

101 months

Saturday 9th March
quotequote all
trails said:
Come on man, 'not in the spirt of the law'...lordy, there is no hope rofl
Then please, explain why it IS in the spirit of the law?

donkmeister

8,244 posts

101 months

Saturday 9th March
quotequote all
r3g said:
It's only a matter of time until he confronts someone who doesn't care for the law. His Go Pro will be ripped off his fat head, SD card disposed of, and camera rammed down this throat after his teeth have been rearranged. And the number of people who would have any sympathy would be zero.

Edited by r3g on Saturday 9th March 16:12
Well, I remember one of his videos where he bragged to a bemused fellow road user that he had his bronze swimming certificate or something. What he has never done, to my knowledge, is deny the existence of any martial arts ninja skills. For all we know he's a 10th degree black belt and capable of opening a whole keg of whoopass.

Because those are precisely the sort of people who hang out by shouting at traffic with a GoPro strapped to their head. Jackie Chan, Bruce Lee, Mr Miagi, they all did it.

donkmeister

8,244 posts

101 months

Saturday 9th March
quotequote all
Gareth79 said:
romft123 said:
Gareth79 said:
Durzel said:
There's not enough Police on the road and that's why people do it, same as with everything else.

if/when they actually get cameras to do this with AI that'll be the next thing complained about.. "if it's caught by a human then it's a fair cop".

Just don't do it - simple.
6 points for getting caught driving while holding a phone is pretty much a moron filter at the moment. It's so well publicised that everybody who drives should know to either get a cradle mount, or leave the whatsapp/youtube/hookers/porn until you park up. It makes no difference whether you are caught by a traffic officer in a car, a police officer on a bus, an "AI camera" or Mikey.
6 points for holding a phone.....makes me laugh. Yet you can change channels on the radio, insert a cd or whatever...fine! I had a car t bone me a while ago, on my motorbike. She saw me, pulled across me. No one infront, no one behind. Couldnt wait an extra 5 seconds for me to pass. CPS gave her a £120 fine and 3 points! BUT holding a phone YOUR A CRIMINAL.
I agree that there are other things you can do in the car which are probably as dangerous, but you missed my point that the phone offence is very specific and very easy to avoid. Somebody who chooses to NOT avoid it is a moron. *Especially* if your job is driving your own personal vehicle all day every day.
Surely the issue with rom's example is that someone got a pitiful punishment for SMIDSYING someone? I'd certainly support at least a short ban and a big fine for that sort of thing.

Frimley111R

15,697 posts

235 months

Sunday 10th March
quotequote all
CT05 Nose Cone said:
.... So whilst he may be technically correct, so was that kid in school who would run to teacher when they heard you say a rude word, and everyone hated them as well.

Edited by CT05 Nose Cone on Friday 8th March 13:55
Great analogy. He's like all the DCWs who are doing the same thing. 'You're on camera!" is them essentially saying "The police will see this, you can't do anything to me."

Whilst DCW has real benefits it has unfortunately brought out a really bad element of society who use the camera's to create an air of authority over others.

FWIW

3,069 posts

98 months

Sunday 10th March
quotequote all
Fermit said:
And what other emotions are people going to have, being riled up by a twerp like Mikey? And to the poster mentioning about 'would going 60 past a school be OK' etc. No, it wouldn't, because that is not a decent thing to do, and stands an unreasonable chance of someone being killed.

A more comparable example would be someone being nabbed for going 31 in a 30. It's not really in the spirit of the law. In the same way no mates Mikey is behaving, going around antagonising people for using their phones in stationary traffic is not really in the spirit of the law.
Wasn’t CM’s father killed by someone using their phone while driving?

Bonefish Blues

26,902 posts

224 months

Sunday 10th March
quotequote all
FWIW said:
Fermit said:
And what other emotions are people going to have, being riled up by a twerp like Mikey? And to the poster mentioning about 'would going 60 past a school be OK' etc. No, it wouldn't, because that is not a decent thing to do, and stands an unreasonable chance of someone being killed.

A more comparable example would be someone being nabbed for going 31 in a 30. It's not really in the spirit of the law. In the same way no mates Mikey is behaving, going around antagonising people for using their phones in stationary traffic is not really in the spirit of the law.
Wasn’t CM’s father killed by someone using their phone while driving?
No, a drunk driver.

FWIW

3,069 posts

98 months

Sunday 10th March
quotequote all
Bonefish Blues said:
No, a drunk driver.
Ah, OK ta.