speed camera obsession

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

I know what your question was and I'll repeat the answer I just gave; we are being watched already and the people who (IMO) will watch us to an even greater degree in future are the same as those who are watching us now. They obviously think we're worth taking an interest in as otherwise they presumably wouldn't have bothered with all those static cameras, camera vans, etc.....

Speed cameras take pictures of speeding cars, usually two pictures a set distance or time apart. This allows the speed to be deduced and the offending vehicle to be identified. That's really not the same as 'being watched' but I daresay you already know that, it just doesn't suit your agenda.

[BertBert]

singlecoil said:

Speed cameras take pictures of speeding cars, usually two pictures a set distance or time apart. This allows the speed to be deduced and the offending vehicle to be identified. That's really not the same as 'being watched' but I daresay you already know that, it just doesn't suit your agenda.

Actually though if you look at what smart motorways are designed to do, they monitor a lot more than just two pics of speeding cars. The intention is to be able to monitor each car and manage the flow (and perhaps other less palatable things such as any road traffic infringement).

That feels quite a lot closer to 'watching' to me.

Bert

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

I know what your question was and I'll repeat the answer I just gave; we are being watched already and the people who (IMO) will watch us to an even greater degree in future are the same as those who are watching us now. They obviously think we're worth taking an interest in as otherwise they presumably wouldn't have bothered with all those static cameras, camera vans, etc.....

Speed cameras take pictures of speeding cars, usually two pictures a set distance or time apart. This allows the speed to be deduced and the offending vehicle to be identified. That's really not the same as 'being watched' but I daresay you already know that, it just doesn't suit your agenda.

In fairness I'd forgotten how pedantic you can be but watch means to look at or observe and isn't that part of what something like a mobile camera van operator does? In any event if you go back to my original post - and WJNB's before it - I think the context of how the word watched was used was pretty clear and it certainly should have been from subsequent posts.

I'm sure you knew exactly what was meant but now we've got that straight are you going to answer the question posed of you (i.e. do you agree that the level of watching/monitoring/surveillance is likely to continue to increase in the coming years?). That was the point made by WJNB - and with which I agreed - so now we've finished splitting hairs do you actually have an opinion to offer on what was being discussed?

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

...do you actually have an opinion to offer on what was being discussed?

Absolutely. My opinion is that the topic is ridiculous and the attempts to support are equally ridiculous. Examples include Human rights, Big Brother, Watching, Tax, Draconian etc

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

...do you actually have an opinion to offer on what was being discussed?

Absolutely. My opinion is that the topic is ridiculous and the attempts to support are equally ridiculous. Examples include Human rights, Big Brother, Watching, Tax, Draconian etc

You are of course entitled to your opinion on the general topic of the thread but you chose to jump-in on the specific issue of whether or not there is likely to be an increase in the watching (monitoring/surveillance if you prefer!) of the motoring public due to the further use of technology. It was being suggested that that would be the case but rather than addressing that one way or the other you instead decided to take the discussion off on a tangent by questioning who would be doing the watching (the answer to which is self evident as it happens already).

So basically your contribution has been to try to construct a clever question around a choice of words but you couldn't even get that right as by any normal definition of the word the motoring public are indeed being watched; top work (not).

[Crackie]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

...do you actually have an opinion to offer on what was being discussed?

Absolutely. My opinion is that the topic is ridiculous

Everyone is entitled to their opinion...…..however odd that may be.

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

You are of course entitled to your opinion on the general topic of the thread but you chose to jump-in on the specific issue of whether or not there is likely to be an increase in the watching (monitoring/surveillance if you prefer!) of the motoring public due to the further use of technology. It was being suggested that that would be the case but rather than addressing that one way or the other you instead decided to take the discussion off on a tangent by questioning who would be doing the watching (the answer to which is self evident as it happens already).

So basically your contribution has been to try to construct a clever question around a choice of words but you couldn't even get that right as by any normal definition of the word the motoring public are indeed being watched; top work (not).

You are evidently not a man to be argued with.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

You are of course entitled to your opinion on the general topic of the thread but you chose to jump-in on the specific issue of whether or not there is likely to be an increase in the watching (monitoring/surveillance if you prefer!) of the motoring public due to the further use of technology. It was being suggested that that would be the case but rather than addressing that one way or the other you instead decided to take the discussion off on a tangent by questioning who would be doing the watching (the answer to which is self evident as it happens already).

So basically your contribution has been to try to construct a clever question around a choice of words but you couldn't even get that right as by any normal definition of the word the motoring public are indeed being watched; top work (not).

You are evidently not a man to be argued with.

On the contrary, posts from others on this forum - Vonhosen for example - have on occasion made me stop and think and accept a different perspective. However, for that to happen the other person needs to put forward a sensible, reasoned, argument in order to be taken seriously; just trying to be clever and pedantic by questioning someone's choice of words - and not even getting that right - doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

You are of course entitled to your opinion on the general topic of the thread but you chose to jump-in on the specific issue of whether or not there is likely to be an increase in the watching (monitoring/surveillance if you prefer!) of the motoring public due to the further use of technology. It was being suggested that that would be the case but rather than addressing that one way or the other you instead decided to take the discussion off on a tangent by questioning who would be doing the watching (the answer to which is self evident as it happens already).

So basically your contribution has been to try to construct a clever question around a choice of words but you couldn't even get that right as by any normal definition of the word the motoring public are indeed being watched; top work (not).

You are evidently not a man to be argued with.

On the contrary, posts from others on this forum - Vonhosen for example - have on occasion made me stop and think and accept a different perspective. However, for that to happen the other person needs to put forward a sensible, reasoned, argument in order to be taken seriously; just trying to be clever and pedantic by questioning someone's choice of words - and not even getting that right - doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

It's not my fault if your choice of words is sloppy, but rest assured I'm not taking you to task for that. The problem here is your choice of words led me to believe you hold an attitude and that attitude was what I was questioning.

You see, the thing is that cameras don't watch people or anything else, only people or animals can watch others. Cameras simply convert focused light rays into images that are then recorded or sent to screens where watching can take place. For instance, the person monitoring a bank of CCTV screens might well be watching a person walking through a town square. Because of what you wrote, that is what I thought you meant, so naturally I asked who you thought was doing this watching and pointed out that, as people are not very interesting, they probably wouldn't be.

[gothatway]

singlecoil said:

only people or animals can watch others.

Ummm, welcome to this century. How much human intervention do you suppose happens with ANPR and average speed cameras ? Then fast forward a few years (or a couple of AI generations).

[singlecoil]

gothatway said:

singlecoil said:

only people or animals can watch others.

Ummm, welcome to this century. How much human intervention do you suppose happens with ANPR and average speed cameras ? Then fast forward a few years (or a couple of AI generations).

The definition of watching hasn't changed, despite your and JNW1's efforts to the contrary. Cameras do not watch people, only people and animals can do that. They sometimes use cameras to help them do it.

Being watched means someone has taken an interest in you, not that you've driven into the field of view of an automated camera system.

[gothatway]

singlecoil said:

gothatway said:

singlecoil said:

only people or animals can watch others.

Ummm, welcome to this century. How much human intervention do you suppose happens with ANPR and average speed cameras ? Then fast forward a few years (or a couple of AI generations).

The definition of watching hasn't changed, despite your and JNW1's efforts to the contrary. Cameras do not watch people, only people and animals can do that. They sometimes use cameras to help them do it.

Being watched means someone has taken an interest in you, not that you've driven into the field of view of an automated camera system.

Dear God ! I thought I was a pedant ! FYI, the OED doesn't support your narrow interpretation.

[singlecoil]

gothatway said:

singlecoil said:

gothatway said:

singlecoil said:

only people or animals can watch others.

Ummm, welcome to this century. How much human intervention do you suppose happens with ANPR and average speed cameras ? Then fast forward a few years (or a couple of AI generations).

The definition of watching hasn't changed, despite your and JNW1's efforts to the contrary. Cameras do not watch people, only people and animals can do that. They sometimes use cameras to help them do it.

Being watched means someone has taken an interest in you, not that you've driven into the field of view of an automated camera system.

Dear God ! I thought I was a pedant ! FYI, the OED doesn't support your narrow interpretation.

Actually, it does. And this isn't about pedantry, it's about tin foil hats.

[BertBert]

singlecoil said:

Actually, it does. And this isn't about pedantry, it's about tin foil hats.

Perhaps a different word helps. For example monitoring. But if we take a leap of faith and include automation in the definition, there is going to be more and more automated monitoring of cars as we go forward. Perhaps your can agree to that? I'm certainly interested in an argument that says that monitoring is going to reverse recent trends and decrease rather than increase.
Bert

[BertBert]

singlecoil said:

Actually, it does. And this isn't about pedantry, it's about tin foil hats.

Perhaps a different word helps. For example monitoring. But if we take a leap of faith and include automation in the definition, there is going to be more and more automated monitoring of cars as we go forward. Perhaps your can agree to that? I'm certainly interested in an argument that says that monitoring is going to reverse recent trends and decrease rather than increase.
Bert

[0000]

I'm pretty sure gargoyles have been watching over people longer even than this subforum's resident troll.

[Crackie]

singlecoil said:

it's about tin foil hats.

Are you suggesting that it is you that has the balanced & pragmatic view?

[singlecoil]

BertBert said:

singlecoil said:

Actually, it does. And this isn't about pedantry, it's about tin foil hats.

Perhaps a different word helps. For example monitoring. But if we take a leap of faith and include automation in the definition, there is going to be more and more automated monitoring of cars as we go forward. Perhaps your can agree to that? I'm certainly interested in an argument that says that monitoring is going to reverse recent trends and decrease rather than increase.
Bert

No government is going to spend more than it absolutely needs to on equipment and systems for any purpose, not just road transport. Speed enforcement is not self-financing and even if it was it's a piss poor business model as the more people who are caught and have to pay in the less will be in future.

But even if there was a camera on every corner, and the government or its agencies could track the movement of every car (and driver) all the time, why would they want to? What the fk are they going to do with that colossal amount of data?

[Crackie]

I don't understand why you post on speed related threads when you clearly understand so little about the subject.

singlecoil said:

Speed enforcement is not self-financing

It certainly is self funding where I live and many other police authorities in the UK...…...here is some evidence of that. https://www.northyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/news/julia-m...

https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-service...

singlecoil said:

and even if it was it's a piss poor business model as the more people who are caught and have to pay in the less will be in future.

That is just gibberish. What do you mean?

singlecoil said:

But even if there was a camera on every corner, and the government or its agencies could track the movement of every car (and driver) all the time, why would they want to?

The UK and other EU countries are have road safety improvement targets set by the EU; the EU has been critical of the UK during recent years because we haven't met the target. Here is some evidence to https://fleetworld.co.uk/uk-falling-behind-on-road...

singlecoil said:

What the fk are they going to do with that colossal amount of data?

You've gone full strawman and leapt from a discussion about the proliferation of cameras to "agencies could track the movement of every car (and driver) all the time" I don't think anyone has suggested there will a need to retain all the data for all the traffic, only for traffic which had infringed the law. The amount of data would still be huge but certainly manageable. Your mobile phone is likely to already be capable of monitoring many of the speed infringements you make.

Edited by Crackie on Friday 28th September 09:28

[0000]

Actually, it's not a colossal amount of data. It wouldn't even be big data.