When Tech Goes Too Far

[sirmonkey1985]

Funny thing about seat belts - they are an essential safety device, that we're all taught we should have to wear to the point they punish us with fines for not doing so. YET, our school buses don't have them. A recent study was even done in my area where the school system thought about seat belts on school buses, then determined the cost would be too high (somehow they think it'd cost $35k per bus to add them).

Now, if they are really so important that we should all wear them all the time or be punished (and now they want traffic cameras to see us not wearing them) how is it that they can determine they are too expensive for an entire bus full of kids to wear them? Even stronger than that the school system actually tried to defend NOT having seat belts by bringing out results of studies that say seat belts can cause internal, neck, and back injuries as reasons to not have them on school buses.

The same government tells you your kids are fine without seat belts on buses (and then talks about safety studies showing seat belts are unsafe), and then tells you if they want you to pay up if your kid doesn't have a seat belt in your vehicle (and then points to studies saying the benefits far outweigh any risks of seat belts).

actually its not the cost thats the problem with buses. its that its been found to be more dangerous wearing a seat belt in this school buses then not. 1 major reason being that if the bus was to roll over and you were hanging up side down. thats a good 2 ft drop from the seat to the roof of the bus. also getting some one out of that seat belt while upside down is a bitch and half because the weight of the person keeps you from being able to disconnect it. while i agree its safer. it also causes problems that could make it far more unsafe.


as for the camera, who cares its going to be in the UK anyways. UK should be use to having no privacy on the roads. UK has always been about profit anyways, catching a criminal doesn't give them money.. but catching joe smith driving 5 km/h over the speed limit does.

 

[panhead]

The USA used to be a free country

There shouldn't be a seat belt law. You should be free to be an idiot and not wear a seat belt. My insurance doesn't cover occupants in vehicle accidents that are not wearing seat belts. It is called choice and consequences.

Red light camera tickets are not standing up in court because you have the right to face you accuser and cameras can't go to court

http://thenewspaper.com/news/28/2854.asp

 

[GushpinBob]

I think it is a great idea, as long as it is implemented properly.

Any measure to keep people from harming themselves or others is most welcome in my book.

Oh, dear...

Seeing that he resides in a state that A) re-elects a loser ex-govenor, B) re-elects a loser senator that hasn't done anything constructive C) is eleventy billion trillion googol dollars in debt and D) fails to pass Prop 19, his reasoning definitely makes sense.

 

[Coreyk78]

Approximately 15% of motorists are uninsured (one out of seven), according to my research at multiple sites. THIS is the core problem that needs to be addressed. Articles also say that states don't have a reliable unified autmated system to track registration/insurance/license information.

1. So...the core colution would be a system that would accurately track this info on a timely basis.

Not a perfect solution, if you consider the number of people without licenses and/or driving unregistered vehicles, but it WOULD cut down on problems with the real issue: many accidents are unavoidable, so everybody driving needs a license and adequate coverage, as the first step.

A record of a car and a license, but no record of insurance gets you a visit, and then a boot on your car until it's cleared up.

2. Next, as licenses expire, public safety contacts these people to find out if they've moved or have stopped driving...especially IF there's still a car registered in their name. No contact with reasonable proof gets a visit from an official and a boot on the car until it's cleared up.

3. Same with expiration of tags w/ no record of sales/salvage/transfer/move. Need to follow up with contact. Otherwise...you guessed it...a visit and a boot on your car.


Basically, the only way to address real safety issues is to physically keep the people who don't meet the mandatory requirements for driving OFF the road BEFORE something happens.

No, just no, to all of this.

First reason being this has a really bad big-brother vibe to it.
Second reason being that I own 3 cars, 2 of which are only driven in the summer so they are not always insured/registered. And thats just a start of many reasons that could be brought up as to why this would never work.

 

[AceGoober]

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to worry about people who choose to speed, drive without a license (suspended or otherwise), fail to wear a seat belt, etc, etc. etc.

Sadly, this is not a perfect world and never will be. There will always be those who choose to speed, drink & drive, and do stupid things on the road that could put themselves and others in danger.

You all may not need a "nanny", but there are those out there who need to be brought back to reality before their recklessness causes pain to them or someone else.

With the above said, I'm not on-board with the machine checking to see if taxes were paid. I believe the machine should be used to keep people safe, not as a tax collector.

You're all about the nanny state then I take it?

Oh, dear...

 

[cyclone3d]

I'd check her seat belt any time

Looks like it is time to get reflective tint that still lets all the light through as well as license plate "protectors" that the cameras can't see through. kinda like how crappy LCD monitors have a very poor viewing angle.

Also, how is this device supposed to work in places where there is no requirement for a front mounted license plate?

 

[Marlfox]

Looks like it is time to get reflective tint that still lets all the light through as well as license plate "protectors" that the cameras can't see through. kinda like how crappy LCD monitors have a very poor viewing angle.

Also, how is this device supposed to work in places where there is no requirement for a front mounted license plate?

There is very likely a camera pointed in both directions (at least one on the backside of the illustration). Reflective tint will hinder your sight severely at night when trying to view out of the window. The tinting on your window shield and windows will have to meet certain guidelines anyways, same with your plate. If anything the camera will see information (inside the car and the plate on the backside) better than an officer would be able to. Mythbusters have already disproven the effectiveness of plates that obscure the information speed cameras capture as well as the idea that you can blur the image of your captured plate by speeding extremely fast.

I get the idea that checking to make sure a car is registered and has insurance is useful, but speeding will always be prevalent as speed limits tend to be ridiculously and needlessly conservative.

 

[griff30]

can someone enhance that and check her headlights?

 

[Makaveli@BETA]

actually its not the cost thats the problem with buses. its that its been found to be more dangerous wearing a seat belt in this school buses then not. 1 major reason being that if the bus was to roll over and you were hanging up side down. thats a good 2 ft drop from the seat to the roof of the bus. also getting some one out of that seat belt while upside down is a bitch and half because the weight of the person keeps you from being able to disconnect it. while i agree its safer. it also causes problems that could make it far more unsafe.


as for the camera, who cares its going to be in the UK anyways. UK should be use to having no privacy on the roads. UK has always been about profit anyways, catching a criminal doesn't give them money.. but catching joe smith driving 5 km/h over the speed limit does.

I understand your point.

However, is getting tossed around in the bus like nuts in can with no seatbelt or thrown out the windows as its rolling better?

I think you have a better chance of survival hanging upside down in the bus no?

 

[Arcygenical]

I dunno. The fact insurance is required would make one think it would be cheaper (see Obama's healthcare plan), but in actuality, it's not. I have a clean driving record, I'm 26 and I've been quoted as much as $4000 per year to insure a '99 Mustang GT. I have insurance, but I can see why some people would go without.

Sorry, but I disagree here. I think car insurance is the biggest form of fraud facing our younger (predominantly male) generation today. I think it's awful that, for example, I'm paying 4500$ a year to ensure a used VW Passat - and I think it's criminal that this insurance is required to drive... And I frequently bitch and moan about it too.

But you know what? If I couldn't afford it, I wouldn't drive. Driving is not a right, it's a privilege... And ruining the financial (let alone physical) situation of another individual due to your inability to pay for insurance - makes you one of the biggest scumbags on the road.

There is no reason to go without insurance. If you can't afford it, don't put my future at risk, and get a job within walking distance.

 

[drakken]

I cali you only need x amount of money in escrow instead of insurance, so many people break down and make sure they have insurance against under insured drivers. I like knowing traffic cams can be tossed out

 

[hkcavalier]

Busting "real" criminals costs money. Lots of it.

Busting speeders/seat-belt-non-wearers/texters/talkers/overtime parkers/etc makes money. Lots of it.

Do we really need to go deeper than this?

 

[clarkkent57]

No, just no, to all of this.

First reason being this has a really bad big-brother vibe to it.
Second reason being that I own 3 cars, 2 of which are only driven in the summer so they are not always insured/registered. And thats just a start of many reasons that could be brought up as to why this would never work.

My best friend has many cars, and he's got a current non-op for each car he doesn't drive. When he wants to drive 'em, he makes 'em legit. He doesn't want to later incur the full cost of registration if he were to let them lapse, so he willfully complies. From his perspective, it's a bargain.

If he wants to drive one, then he gets a temp permit, gets it smogged,if due, and before all that, makes a call to his insurance company to get it back on the policy right then and there.

He's not rich, mind you, just responsible. He got that way after a nightmare of a situation where a truck he bought from me got stolen and burned right after he let the insurance lapse. He also went "non-op" and put his cars in storage after he DIDN'T go this route a long time ago, trying to save a few bucks, and got socked with a lot of "past due" fees/fines for his lapsed registration,

Consequently, it saves him money and headaches. He didn't WANT to do this originally; he just found out that life was easier when he covered himself properly.

Nobody likes the high cost of insurance, true, but if we kept people off the road who have irresponsibly failed to comply in the first place, our rates wouldn't go up as fast as they do.

Ever get hit by someone not insured? I did, and my insurance was worth every penny, considering I broke my back in the accident.

One time, I was between jobs, and considering letting my insurance lapse, intending to reinstate it once I was employed again. I thought better of this, and two weeks later, slid on the ice, rear-ending an out-of-state driver who had stopped short for no apparent reason. I was never so happy to have insurance in my life.

In retrospect, it would have been the worst thing to have been in that accident and not be insured...at which point I probably would have wished that someone had kept me from driving.

Keeping people off the road, who shouldn't be driving for ANY legitimate reason, only helps us as a whole. As someone said earlier, driving is a privilege, not a right. It's not about an individual's "convenience".

So...IF:

1. You don't have a license (which proves you know the rules and have demonstrated the ability to drive a car), OR
2. Your vehicle isn't licensed/registered (which helps ID vehicles in hit-and-run situations, and certifies it to be safe enough to be on the road), OR
3. You're not insured (which proves financial responisbility for the risk to life-and-limb you're taking), THEN...

...WTF are you doing on the road? Do we all have to assume your risk after the fact? If a person won't comply with the basics, then wouldn't they be more likely to be irresponsible enought to drink and drive, or engage in otherwise risk-taking behavior which endangers not only themselves but others who DO obey the rules as well?

 

[WBurchnall]

What happens if you come up from behind it where the camera's dont face with a baseball bat and then walk away?

 

[glutto]

school bus safety

School bus drivers get in a world of shit if they run stale green lights. They'll fail their drivers test if they enter an intersection during a yellow. They're also very much aware of how their vehicle handles, and their responsibilities as drivers.

Can any of you say you'd stop for a stale green? I very strongly doubt it. Most of you probably think it's perfectly fine to run reds, probably because you're late for something, you shouldn't have to stop, everyone else is doing it, or some other lame reason.

 

[Gorankar]

What happens if you come up from behind it where the camera's dont face with a baseball bat and then walk away?

A Molotov is easier, does a more complete job, and is much flashier. As a plus some motorists might get out of their cares to roast marshmallows.

 

[Decibel]

What happens if you come up from behind it where the camera's dont face with a baseball bat and then walk away?

Loud noises, bangs and thuds mostly.

 

[WBurchnall]

I'm so going to be tempted to pay neighbourhood vandals $20 bucks to bash these things to peices if they go up near my drive to work or near my house. Really, most kids would be happy to spend 5 minuts playing with a baseball bat for $20.00 and IF they got caught, it'd only be a slap on the wrist.

 

[Mackowitz]

Can any of you say you'd stop for a stale green? I very strongly doubt it. Most of you probably think it's perfectly fine to run reds, probably because you're late for something, you shouldn't have to stop, everyone else is doing it, or some other lame reason.

I rarely stop for the stale green or yellow because if I stop, I will be rear-ended by the car behind me. I can't count how many times I've ran a yellow thinking "Maybe I should have stopped at that one" only to see one and often two more cars go thru the intersection after me. Stopping at intersections is dangerous.

 

[blazemonkey]

This is awesome, now cops can stop wasting their time doing something thats actually productive. Like busting people who grow and smoke plants.

 

[PRIME1]

3 Letters.... E M P

 

[greenfrogman]

i am fine with APNR cams as all they are doing is looking at number plate and checking to see if the car is taxed, MOT and insured (this is what's fitted to the bigger police cars and on motorways and on some supermarkets)

but not devices like this they are purely cash makers

 

[trudude]

Gee whiz what do you know a police state is acting like a police state. That is a shocker.

 

[Valthar]

Apparently, post count is king around here. Lets offer up a "christmas" giveaway, but limit the ability to reply to only those who have a good post count. Don't worry about those that have been here for years, but don't feel the need to chime in on everything under the sun... You need not apply.

 

[TheGer]

"Out here, there has been an INCREASE in accidents at most intersections where red light camera's where installed. Mainly due to people slamming on thier brakes as soon as the light turns yellow."

Same here in Winnipeg, Canada. Not one red light cam showed a decrease in accidents, but almost 90% showed and increase. Poster above who says different is reading false or misleading information me thinks.

This is not a Nanny state, it's a Police State.