By Tim Ferguson, 23 November 2006 14:55
NEWS
Brits think CCTV is OK - as long as it's not used to catch them speeding behind the wheel.
Eighty-eight per cent of Brits support the use of CCTV cameras to tackle street crime and 82 per cent approve of the tech for tracking stolen cars, a new survey shows.
But despite the fact transport monitoring tech, such as speed cameras and automatic number plate recognition, has become part of daily life, apparently not everyone approves of all its uses.
Just over half of those surveyed support the use of camera tech to catch car-tax evaders or to detect speeding offences.
Google's eye on the world
Check out our favourite images from Google Earth - click here.
On certain issues women favour CCTV more than men. For instance, 82 per cent of women say CCTV should be used to catch drunk drivers compared to 74 per cent of men.
There is now one CCTV camera to every 14 people in the UK, with people being caught on camera five times per day on average.
The survey, commissioned by cableco NTL:Telewest and carried out by YouGov, polled more than 2,000 individuals
Comments
There are 27 comments. Join the discussion
1. Jim Cole
Drivers kill more people than murderers in the UK.
In 80% of all accidents involving a fatality or serious personal injuries excessive speed is the major contributory factor.
Speed cameras every 100 metres please.
2. Dan F
Ooh, that's funny - we think it's a great idea providing it's being used to track people who commit the crimes that we don't commit - anything we actually do illegally should be exempt. Wake up to the CCTV state, people. We are being watched EVERYWHERE and the Sun-reading, labour-voting, celebrity-loving, reality-TV-addicted, junk-food-riddled mass population of idiots voted it in!
3. anonymous
Jim
How about Lorry drivers driving with consideration and care - rather than just pulling out in front of other drivers and not giving a flying * about other drivers, YES i witnesed this this morning, good job the car had good brakes!!!!!
This would certainly cut down deaths whilst driving!!!!!!
Speed kills but drivers cause the accidents!
4. Simon
Jim Cole's comments epitomise the problem - he's yet another idiot who associates speed cameras with preventing excessive speed. Speed cameras do not have, and never have had, anything to do with appropriate speed or detecting excessive speed. THAT is why they are so ridiculed by any THINKING person.
If strict adherence to speed limits had anything to do with safety, then we could just set the cruise control at the speed limit and relax - I think anyone knows that it doesn't work like that !
Authorities and the government love them because they are cheap, can be carefully sited to maximise revenue, and of course if anyone critices them they can roll out the "pulease, think about the childrun" approach to diverting the discussion away from rational debate and keep it on the sort of emotional crap that got us them in the first place.
The overuse of speed cameras is making a mokery of the whole system to the extent that fewer and fewer people have any respect for the law any more - because in this case it is not worthy of respect.
The results already being felt are that drivers are no longer taught (or practice) the art of THINKING and taking responsibility for their actions, they are rapidly moving into a mode of "avoid technical infringments and sod the rest". Don't believe me ? Just look at the sort of repqorting we get of accidents - it's rare for speed (or it's relation to the posted limit) to NOT be mentioned even when it's irrelevant.
So the very act of trying to 'improve safety' is having the exact opposite effect for the simple reason that the people running the system are looking only at the bottom line - totally ignoring the human element. It's been proven time and time again that if you design a system and ignore the human factors, it will fail. This failed experiment is costing the country a fortune, and will continue to do so for many years - a fortune both in purely financial terms, and in teh human suffering and misery caused by the consequent lowering of driving standards.
5. anonymous
There is no evidence anywhere that so-called 'safety cameras' have contributed to safety, or prevented accidents.
In some media they are referred to as 'revenue camerase' and that is exactly what they are. The premise that some drivers always drive beyond the limits imposed when cars followed red-flag wavers is correct, and so the opportunity to make some money out of them arose.
Furthermore, I think the reader supporting lorry drivers has a cheek. Study almost any accident on a motorway, and a lorry will involved somewhere.
They drive 25mm from our tails, overtake each other with speed differentials measured in furlongs-per-fortnight (usually going uphill) and pull in after overtaking whilst half their trailer is still alongside.
And that's just the ones who haven't been driving for 14 hours, chasing a bonus...
6. MusicFan
There is a steep road near where i live, with a bridge at the top, which stops you from seeing the end of the road at the bottom.
Every sunday, most of the day, there is an plain white, unmarked van at the bottom of the hill with a hole in the back window!
It is very easy to wander over 30mph down this hill, you have to keep breaking to stay on 30mph.
I received 3points and £60 fine for doing 33mph on a quiet sunday afternoon on this road.
No signs are displayed to warn about the camera.
Not just about money? This saves lives?
Get Real.
7. Mike Alexander
People such as Simon from Cumbria clearly subscribe to the "stealth tax" conspiracy theory, expounding the view that speed cameras are "carefully sited to maximise revenue".
The simple fact is, as any THINKING person would realise, that speed cameras would not generate ANY revenue if people did not break the speed limit.
It's really a very simple concept to grasp; if you don't want your picture taken by a speed camera, then don't break the speed limit. If you feel the need or the urge to break the speed limit, then at least take responsibility for your own actions and accept that you might get caught.
And whilst Simon considers that the proliferation of speed cameras as being the reason why so many have such disregard for the law (seems like somewhat twisted logic), clearly if people were to obey the law and the imposed speed limits then speed cameras wouldn't be necessary.
8. Chris White
Stop whining! Nobody posting here is claiming they aren't breaking the law (yes, speeding is actually against the law) - yet everybody is complaining about the fact they get caught! Or more precisely the reasons why they get caught.
This is incredible. Why does anybody assume they have a right to break the law and not get caught?
You're probably all the same selfish cretins who drive with a mobile phone clamped to your ear. "Oh I'm a great driver, I know what I'm doing!"
Remember very few people ever leave the house planning to have a crash. it has to happen to somebody.
9. MusicFan
CCTV is ok with the british Public?
Any chance of letting us know where they did this market research?
Possibly in the car park outside the houses of parliament?
Government funded research at all?
10. anonymous
Quote "And whilst Simon considers that the proliferation of speed cameras as being the reason why so many have such disregard for the law"
Considering the fact that we supposidly live in a democracy and something like 80% of drivers admit to breaking speed limits (in particular on the motorway) is it not time that the govournment listened to the population and reviewed speed limits. I feel that before anyone jumps in 30 past a school is dangerous and the chances of killing are quite high, but on a motorway what is the difference between 70 and 80.
Yes I think Lorry drivers need to be procecuted and even banned for tailgating!!! Also on an A road with the national speed limit Lorries have a lower limit to cars but you never hear about them getting tickets for traveling at 60 (or 56 if the speed restrictor hasnt been tampered with) from the camera's.
Oops I forgot we dont live in a democracy we live in a dictatorship!
11. anonymous
Does anyone believe that Chris Wright MD from Reading has never in his or her live broken a speed limit ever?
Please vote
12. anonymous
Thinking people? Really?
"...that speed cameras would not generate ANY revenue if people did not break the speed limit..."
That's the point: cameras don't work. If they DID work then they wouldn't make any money. A camera that raises any revenue is failing to reduce speeds. Thus (as any thinking person will see) speed cameras have proven themselves to be a failure at anything other than creating money.
13. Mr I like my Freedom!
Lets just subscribe to Mike Alexanders school of thought for a moment...
"speed cameras would not generate ANY revenue if people did not break the speed limit"
ok....how about....
"no crashes would happen if nobody drove a car"
or how about.....
"no children would get knocked over, if they never left the house"
or......
"no one would become offended, if nobody voiced an opinion"
how about:-
.....nobody would commit crime, if it was impossible to do so.....if we all live behind bars in cells, then there would be no crime....right?
So by your thinking Mike, this would be a good idea yes?
"WE SHOULD ALL GIVE UP OUR RIGHTS FOR FREEDOM" (The clue is in the sentence).
The list could go on....does this sound like a nice world Mike? You can keep it!
The point is not about the "breaking" of the 30mph rule, it is about the purposeful misuse of the rule to make money. Yes it is wrong to break a law, but is it not also wrong to mislead a whole nation "marketing" the need for enforcement to line your own pocket?
14. Chris Wright
Of course I've broken the speed limit - and I've paid speeding tickets. I really have no idea what your point is (and nor do you I suspect.)
Because the point I making is that I'm not here bemoaning the fact the government used speed cameras to catch me. And I probably learned my lesson, because I have the mental capacity to work out 1) it was my fault and 2) I couldn't have been caught if I wasn't breaking the law.
The response from the anonymous poster is typical of so much narrow minded 'thinking' (for want of a better word). Ignore the issue and point the finger at somebody else.
If you break the law you should know you run the risk of getting caught.
Don't then act like a spoiled child and start blaming anybody and everybody else.
15. Radical Meldrew
So Jim, do we re-introduce the man with the red flag on motorways in the interest of safety? I don't think so.
Safety is paramount but revenue collection by subterfuge is another story, get real mate!
Please, do not compare an axe murderer to someone who is driving a few mph over the limit, it cancels out any sensible debate on the subject.
Have you ever thought of becoming a politician?
16. Radical Meldrew
Present camera usage aside, let's look to the past. Road users have always been waylaid at the roadside and had their cash forcibly taken off them. What was deemed a hanging offence then is legal now on the grounds of safety. What strange times we live in !!!
17. anonymous
In the interests of safety in front of schools etc. I have no problem with speed cameras at all.
However as one comment said what is the difference between 70 and 80 on a motorway?
40 years ago (or longer?) when speed limits were put in most cars couldn't manage the 70mph imposed, didn't have ABS, disc brakes, side impact systems or even seatbelts!
Now everything has changed and cars are designed to go faster and to stop better - the bad change comes in the form of drivers who have so little confidence and/or ability and/or brains that they cause accidents without even realising what they are doing wrong!!
Perhaps the ethic should be of education to make people drive more safely (not necessarily slower), pay more attention to their surroundings and leave more room to manouver should there be a problem?
Cameras cannot catch people driving badly or without consideration to others and maybe that is the problem? If we went back to a bigger police presence on the road we would have a more serious attitude to it all - they have a bit more common sense than cameras at least!
As with everything this government touches it must have a technological solution - what's wrong with using actual people and stopping the madness of stastics and KPIs? After all they only massage the figures and spin them when they don't say what they want!!
18. Radical Meldrew
Mike Alexander's opinion only hold up if the whole speed camera thing were played fairly. I find his supersilly comments annoying [No, I am literate, I mean that!]
In mitigation may I please ask:
Q1) Why was it necessary to issue legislation to make the cameras more visible to drivers?
A1) Doh, they were hidden for revenue!
Q2) Why, lately, are there less or smaller signs at points where road limits change?
A2) Makes more space for the cameras!
Q3) Why are there less Police and more revenue collecting partnerships involved with road safety?
A3) Fuels the coppers, err sorry, coffers!
I could go on and on, but on the speed camera debate, I would add:
Intelligent road users are far more desirable than idiots who choose to ignore common sense purely because they are driving under the speed limit.
Thank you for your indulgence - they can be a REALLY BIG problem.
To sum up: Many cameras = many £££ on the roads and less expenditure on the streets.
CCTV is a cheap method of solving problems, not a financial messiah, and has no right to dominate a free society.
Ouch, just fell of me soap box !
19. Craig Mitchell
This whole debate isn't just about speed cameras - the survey was about surveillance in general.
One of the other posters made the point that we shouldnt compare speeders with axe murderers but thats exactly the point - normal citizens are being criminalised sometimes for very minor infringements of the speed limit.
I for one learned my lesson - dont speed where there a speed cameras. And this is why although we are caught on camera five times a day people are still being mugged, knifed, shot, murdered, kidnapped or worse.
The same reasoning that I and other road users apply (watch all that dangerous braking when a camera is spotted) is applied by criminals. In the surveillance society we should have no crime whatsoever but all that happens is that criminals do their crime out of sight of cameras - the only notable exception being friday nights when they are too drunk and stupid to figure out consequences. In which case the false sense of security provided by the cameras compounds the danger even further as the police provision has been dialled back accordingly.
Nobody voted this stuff in. Ive never found anyone in favour of speed cameras, and few in favour of other surveillance (except on friday nights - people get a false sense of security and seem to approve of that surveillance). The streets are just as dangerous as ever, the roads are worse as there are hardly any traffic police and more traffic than ever. And nobody chose this. Democracy - forget it. Somehow while we still have the vote it seems completely divorced from the things that actually affect our lives - we cannot change anything and surprise, surprise nobody bothers voting anymore. Why would they - its a complete waste of time.
20. Craig Mitchell
So, as I was saying. Why not put all this technology to good use - for a fairly low cost we could provide every household with a method of registering their vote online. Probably involving some sort of biometric id card or something. Then we abolish parliament and hold a daily, online, referendum on everything. People are asked to vote every day on every issue affecting their lives.
There is an attitude from those in power that we the people cant be trusted to decide on anything - we are treated like children. And i'm sure most of you reading this will react with horror, thinking Well i would vote responsibly but what about all those people that read the Sun. If you are over 18 in this country you are already responsible for running the country, you just dont have the power to do it. we should no longer allow the elite to treat the rest of us like children - we should be entitled to vote on the things that will affect us.
Of course, it will behave like mob rule and some insane laws will be passed but if democracy is what we are all about then it should have no limits.
And I dont expect it will make us free, probably the opposite. But at least we will have noone else to blame, we will each be individually responsible for everything - we either voted for it, against it or didnt bother our backsides. Just like today, but we would get to vote for the things we believe in instead of trying to pick a representative to tell us what we want. Because I dont find any party out there that represents, all or even a sizeable percentage of my views (excluding my obviously nutty views on democracy)
21. Alastair Warren
Joe,
Let's not worry about all the criminals that should be inside, you know those convicted murders, rapists and paedophiles wandering the streets eh Joe?
Because let's face it, me doing 100MPH on the M5 in the dead of night is a far greater threat to society than any of the above.
Joe, I have a GATSO outside my house. The road is still a race track. It's by a Zebra crossing. The new dayglo yellow paint scheme mean it's now far easier to see which way the camera is facing making the Zebra even more hazardous to those that use it.
The Dept. of Transport commissioned a report by Dr. Jeremy Boughton of the TRL. It's summarised in the Summer 2005 IAM Magazine 'Advanced Driving'.
The two largest groups of fatalities are young inexperienced drivers and born again motorcyclists.
How about a tougher retest with 3 year periodic retests Joe?
How about all the LHD HGVs on our roads without blindspot mirrors on their nearsides, our offsides Joe?
Didn't the 'Brain Drain' once meant people with sense emigrating? Labour has managed it without mass emigration. Or have all the people with half a brain gone already?
22. galley slave#41
THE CAMERA FLASHES COS YOU BROKE THE LAW. IDIOT!
IT WOULD BE BETTER TO CONCENTRATE ON OTHER USES OF CCTV.
LIKE IN THE WORKPLACE
I'VE EVEN SEEN ONE IN A PUBLIC KAHZI.
YES I KNOW FOR WHAT IT WAS PUT THERE FOR
BUT IT ISN'T EASY TRYING TO PEE WITH BIG BROTHER WATCHING!!!
TA VERY MUCH!!!
23. anonymous
This hysteria-based obsession with technology in the misguided belief that it will make the country a better place is becoming beyond a joke. Cigarette-related diseases kill 100,00 a year and more people are killed each year in accidents at home. CCTV just allows you to watch crimes taking place, it doesn't stop them. Just look at the statistics - we're now one of the most crime-ridden countries in the western world.
24. Andy Bird
I love the first comment about more drivers killing people than murderers, laughing my @ss off.
I think it's safe to say that 60% of people in the uk are drivers, can you imagine if 60% of people were murderers? what a ridiculous comment!
25. Jeremy Wickins
Speed doesn't kill - if it did, we'd all be dead, because the planet we occupy is moving at thousands of miles an hour. All those people who believed that travelling on Stephenson's Rocket at 24mph would be fatal would be right, and so on.
If we are going to be scientifically accurate, *acceleration* kills, not speed. Inappropriate use of speed *can* lead to death or injury, but there is no safe minimum - simply moving is the risk. However, there are greater and lesser risks, and, being utilitarian about things, many more people have no fatal accidents than are involved in them.
Cameras are despised by the majority of the population - democracy therefore demands that they are removed.
26. Malcolm
I was fined and given 3 points for going past a camera at 4mph over the limit. Kent police sent me a leaflet on how to drive, not just avoid the momentary lapse, but how to drive. They also eplained what a dim view they took of me and why they had 'criminalised' my transgression.
Seems to me that to make it all worthwhile I might as well blag my local bank and then I can be called a REAL criminal.
Cameras reducing speeding and saving lives? Do me a favour, they are convenient cash-cows for the so-called 'partnerships' between cash-strapped Coppers and local authorities.
27. Brian Shorten
A thought. A speed camera WILL record your speed over a specific length of road if you are over the speed limit. And maybe that will save a life.
However, the camera WON'T register if you are over the speed limit BEFORE you reach the length of road - and cause an accident by breaking suddenly; it won't register if you keep to the speed limit over the length of road - and accelerate away.
Also, a camera won't register drivers under the influence of drink and/or drugs, no insurance, no tax, no MOT, no license, using a mobile or just a stolen car. For that you need to return to the days of a police car with a thinking human driver - but they cost money, don't they?