French City To Use CCTV For Parking Fines 297
horza writes "The city of Nice, France is rolling out 626 CCTV cameras throughout town, giving it one of the highest levels of surveillance in the world (1.8 cameras per 1000 inhabitants). The usual rhetoric was given — that they will be used solely for reducing violent crime — but the city will now begin sending out parking tickets solely based on the CCTV video evidence."
Not so Nice (Score:4, Funny)
Not so Nice after all...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not so Nice after all...
I hear they're thinking of renaming the city Merde.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Vous savez, je sais que cette mouton merde n'existe pas. Je sais que lorsque je l'ai mis dans ma bouche, la Matrice dit mon cerveau qu'il est juteux et délicieux. Après neuf ans, savez-vous ce que je me suis rendu compte? L'ignorance est une bénédiction. Mais le plus drôle, c'est que je ne suis même pas dans la Matrice! Il a été la réalité! J'ai vraiment mangèrent du mouton merde!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My French is a little rusty and I'm lazy so I threw it into Babel Fish because I knew I'd get a laugh. I wasn't disappointed:
"You know, I know that this sheep shit n' do not exist. I know that when I l' put in my mouth, the Matrix says my brain qu' it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, do you know what I realised? L' ignorance is a blessing. But funniest, c' how I am not even in the Matrix! It was reality! J' really have ate sheep shit!"
Re:Not so Nice (Score:4, Funny)
I prefer the google translated version:
"You know, I know this is no sheep shit. I know that when I put in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, do you know what I realized? Ignorance is bliss. But the funny thing is that I'm not even in the Matrix! It was true! I really ate sheep shit!"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You may say that the system will only be used to control criminals, and you have nothing to hide.
What you are forgetting is that the system can also be ABUSED or laws can be changed.
When the system is in place, the next crazy dictator will be able to use it for to find and control jews, arabs, christians, geeks. Whatever they hate.
Always keep in mind that even Hitler was chosen in a public election.
It WILL happend again. We need to build society with safeguards so we can survive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot like red light cameras-- Im sure there are legitimate concerns with them, but Im also sure the vast majority of people complaining about them just want to be able to drive how they want with impunity.
Re:Not so Nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not so Nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's extrapolate:
Why can't we put a camera in your house? I mean, you're not breaking the law, so why should you care? Obviously you don't want cameras in your house because you just want to break laws.
Re:Not so Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
A camera in a house turns it from private space into public space where common morality demands different behaviour. CCTV in public spaces has significantly less impact.
Re:Not so Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod up (Score:4, Insightful)
Well said.
That, however, is worse than cameras (which does not diminish how bad cameras are). It's well known (from the examples of WWII Germany and so on) that states which encourage citizens to report each other become very nasty places to be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
excuse of preventing illegal parking.
Are you high? This has nothing to do with "illegal parking". It's called "revenue enhancement". (they could care less if you park illegally, they want to squeeze more money out of you with tickets)
Parking meters and parking tickets are a combination of managing available parking and making the city money. Sometimes more of one, sometimes more of the other. When you go to a lot that's ALWAYS almost empty, and ALWAYS have to feed the meter, try talking to the meter mai
Re:Not so Nice (Score:4, Funny)
This is exactly why I hate pair programming.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, you're meant to leave 15 metres of space at all junctions. I saw some incredibly bad parking the other day where I wasn't sure at first if the driver was waiting halfway through the junction, about to pull out, turns out the car was just parked there driverless, with many other cars parked in front of it over the double yellow lines. It's even worse than the roundabout lane discipline people have.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Exactly. You can't wear a burqa in public, but in your own home? Absolutely.
Fines will be sent out as soon as they identify the culprits.
Re:Not so Nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's extrapolate: Why can't we put a camera in your house? I mean, you're not breaking the law, so why should you care? Obviously you don't want cameras in your house because you just want to break laws.
Let's extrapolate further then. Why can't we put a cop in your house? I mean, if you're not breaking any law, so why should you care? Therefore, if you don't want any cops in your home, cops should not be allowed on the street.
But seriously, almost everyone agrees you need some level of police presence, or at least police need to be able travel freely about, but almost no one thinks they should be able to just willy nilly go into anyone's residence. Private space is private, public space is public. I believe there are both practical and civil liberty problems related to constant public surveillance, but I don't think that it follows that just because an activity is permitted in public spaces it should be allowed in private spaces, or vice versa.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Next up...
Automatic traffic fines for driving 1mph over the limit.
Automatic tickets for failing to have your headlights on after twilight.
Automatic tickets for changing lanes without signaling, even tho you are the only car on the road at 3am.
Automatic tickets the second your grass gets over 6" tall.
Automatic tickets the instant your tail light or headlight goes out.
Automatic tickets for loitering.
Automatic tickets for jaywalking.
The existing laws were predicated on human levels of enforcement. With automa
Re: (Score:2)
You shouldn't have any expectation of any sort of privacy if you are driving your car on a public road, you do something illegal and you are caught.
Re:Not so Nice (Score:5, Funny)
Oh the irony.
Revenue Collection (Score:2, Interesting)
The solution to the problem lies with a past state of a red-light camera in Sa
Re: (Score:2)
The people in the UK have other methods:
- http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1863.asp [thenewspaper.com]
- http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2c.htm [speedcam.co.uk]
Re:Revenue Collection (Score:5, Informative)
I'm part of a the NTBPT (No to Bike Parking Tax) demo group in London which protests at having to pay parking fees in Central London. The UK law stipulates that councils are not allowed to simply charge for parking as a revenue stream, there has to be some benefit to the local population/businesses such as relieveing congestion, and as bikes don't cause congestion we're currently fighting Westminster Counsil in the European Courts of the legality of the charges. http://www.notobikeparkingtax.com/ [notobikeparkingtax.com]
Westminster Council also employs CCTV cars that roam the streets of London spying on the populace & catching any "traffic violations", but we've caught on to that and now we follow the CCTV cars and we film them & alert motorists about them and occasionally post evidence of them committing their own traffic violations to Youtube :-)
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23883049-bikers-blow-cover-of-cctv-cars-snooping-on-drivers.do [thisislondon.co.uk]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHOazGC7alk [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QNfeL71ojg [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cztfKB8SGCI [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsZb9jIfGv0 [youtube.com]
If you don't like what your elected memebers are doing then 1] try and vote them out, 2] organise, protest & demonstrate 3] take direct action to hinder their effectiveness (all legal and above board direct action mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The UK law stipulates that councils are not allowed to simply charge for parking as a revenue stream, there has to be some benefit to the local population/businesses such as relieveing congestion, and as bikes don't cause congestion we're currently fighting Westminster Counsil in the European Courts of the legality of the charges.
I am curious, how does a bike not cause any congestion? Granted they take up far less space than a car but they still take up space on the road so if there are enough bike riders going down the same road then you can still have congestion. Or were you referring to when they are parked? Not that this makes any difference because a parked bike takes up about 20 percent of the physical space of a car so it could still cause congestion if inconsiderately parked. So bikes CAN cause congestion just nowhere near
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No offense to cyclists (I cycle too, but offroad), however I think, if anything, bikes on roads tend to cause MORE congestion than cars. Bicycles are very slow, and I'm always trying to be extra cautious around them, which means that I'm driving slower, and the people in front or behind me seem to act similarly as they pass. Motorbikes aren't so slow, but they tend to be really cocky and think they're invincible. In fact, they're largely surviving because more careful car drivers are going out of their w
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
An available pool of fresh organs for transplantation
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's unlikely they produce as much or more CO2 than a small car in city driving. The bikes you think produce more CO2 than a car only do so when being driven hard, which you cannot do in central London. In start-stop traffic, owing to not having to start and stop as frequently (bikes can filter between lanes) and owing to having about 1/5th of the mass of a small car, they are way more economical. Not to mention they used about a fifth of the resources to build in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Random police "DUI" checkpoints [californiawatch.org] are impounding far more sober than drunk drivers, not even making a dent in drunk driving statistics.
I had always thought that at random DUI checkpoints, the police were not allowed to investigate anything else, and not even supposed to see your license (unless, of course, you were wasted).
Re: (Score:2)
You may be asked, but does that mean you are required to comply? This seems to me to be a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The courts do not just let them get away with it. The supreme court ruled in a case concerning DUI checkpoints in Indiana that they are legal as long as the public has both sufficient notice and a reasonable route around them. They can't wait until the last minute and publish the info in some obscure newspaper that probably won't be distributed until after the check points and they can't close the roads around it down to force traffic through it. They has also outlaws drug checkpoints too.
The DHS gets away
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Shifting focus from public safety to revenue collection.
As a cyclist, father, neighbour of wheelchairs users and part time pedestrian I can attest to the problems caused by poor parking (and speeding, red light jumping etc.). If CCTV can help reduce this then I am *all for it*.
(If, however, it is only used to catch someone who overstays their meter by a few minutes then it is not so useful.)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe this would be more the case. In Belgium parking-ticket revenue is per city in the millions. Even sometimes where it's unclear where you have to pay or not: cities invest alot in placing meters and have people check it (they are now run by private organisations instead of police.)
Seeing that parking for a day in a city like Brussels would cost you 15 euro (or 20usd) this is a nice cas
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a cyclist, father, neighbour of wheelchairs users and part time pedestrian I can attest to the problems caused by poor parking (and speeding, red light jumping etc.).
Hell, you don't need to be any of those. Going for a walk (with or without missus, the girfriend, or the dog) should provide ample evidence that most all drivers behave like complete assholes[1].
Not sure that CCTV cameras would help. To the extent they could, however, the focus would be on the most egregious and obviously illegal behaviour
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a cyclist, pedestrian, runner, and car user, I can attest to the problems caused by pedestrians not bothering to look at traffic and blithely stepping into the road, and a host of cyclist who will happily cut up drivers, cycle from one pavement to the other causing cars to have to emergency stop, jump red lights and a host of other things. I've even had cyclists swerve between cars, not looking, and collide with me on my own bike! Oh, and a couple of the guys I dive with and regularly hang out with are
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is true. Nevertheless, motorists take up a disproportionate fraction of space and inconvenience, relative to other sorts of downtown transport. 2 cars, usually with 2 people in them, take up as much space as a bus, which averages a lot more than 2 passengers. And you can have -many- people walk or bike on a lot smaller space than that used by the same people in individual cars.
Also, cars make a lot of noise and local pollution, significantly more than biking or walking.
Re:Revenue Collection (Score:4, Insightful)
I used to dislike red-light cameras because they are used as revenue machines for the city, etc. Then I realized, wow, if they weren't using them as revenue machines, then I would have to pay higher taxes. So hey, I don't mind having my taxes subsidized by those people who are too stupid to figure out how to navigate a red light. If that's you, sorry about that, and thanks. And I think there must be a lot of people who feel like me, otherwise there would be no red-light cameras.
Now if they are catching people when they aren't actually breaking laws, that's another story. I'm against that. But that's not what you're complaining about.
Re:Revenue Collection (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a recent scandal here in Spain because the picture that comes with the fine showed the car passing in yellow, not red. Nobody was found responsible and nothing happened.
There's also been known cases of shortened yellow lights in the US that give the victims no time to stop before getting caught in camera.
Speed cameras are easier to use as bait, though, because as soon as the revenue goes down the "authorities" just set a lower speed limit, even far below the safe limit.
Re:Revenue Collection (Score:5, Informative)
You are suffering from the failed logic that government actually acts rational.
In fact, the revenue streams won't decrease your tax burden, instead they just give raises to employees, elected officials, find a way to work bonuses or more/better benefits into the public sector, and end up spending more. Government is funny that way, they think once the money is in their hands, they have to spend it. Of course that's true to an extent, most jurisdictions (at least in the US) can only keep a certain percentage of revenue collected until a certain point is reached, the excess has to be spent or returned to the tax payer.
This is what has sparked most of the major budget problems we are seeing right now. You can't un-raise employees, so when the economy tanks and revenue drops, it's deficit hell or unpopular cuts in programs, or somehow raising taxes. None of which politicians want to do because it makes it hard to get reelected. Most governments went from "we need this to run" to how much can I spend. The later marks a shift in the deterioration of government and brings about favoritism, cronyism and the general environment of waste that seems embedded in the ineffective government we see today on most levels.
No, red light camera are not subsidizing your taxes, they are enabling government expansion.
Re:Revenue Collection (Score:5, Insightful)
You are suffering from the failed logic that government actually acts rational.
In fact, the revenue streams won't decrease your tax burden, instead they just give raises to employees, elected officials, find a way to work bonuses or more/better benefits into the public sector, and end up spending more.
You need to take off your teabagger hat. I work in the public sector, and I tell you that the last thing an elected official will do is give public employees a raise. We advertised for a traffic engineer; even in this horrendous job market it took 3 months to get 4 qualified applicants. Public sector pay is, for the most part, crap. I get about 75 cents on the dollar compared to private sector work. Most public service employees I know have some sort of side income - rentals, side business, etc - that increase their take home pay.
Government is funny that way, they think once the money is in their hands, they have to spend it.
You're right there, but the money is spent on pet projects, pie in the sky dreams, and stuff like that. They spend the money on what gets them re-elected, what YOU demand they provide YOU. They don't spend a dime on their own employees unless they have to. Any politician that would champion raises to staff, either as pay increases or better benefits, would not be re-elected next time around.
Once the economy improves, there will be a huge exodus of qualified public sector employees into the private sector, to the detriment of public service. Heck, I'm on my way out.
What happens is that once all the good people leave for better paying jobs, leaving mostly the lazy, indolent, and stupid, and a handful of people truly dedicated to service to the public. Then the politicians notice, run around in a panic, give everyone raises, thus rewarding the unqualified for their inability to find a better job.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That sounds nice in theory. However what really happens, is incompetent, bloated bureaucracies get used to all this new money and find new and innovative ways to piss it all away. It's a very slippery slope and pretty soon, even the most god-fearing, law-abiding citizens are getting gouged for the most victimless of offences.
Governments usually end up addicted to fines revenue like heroin.
Re: (Score:2)
One more problem: if not enough laws are being broken to guarantee a constant flow of fines, more harsh laws will be made.
Lower the speed limits. Shorten the yellow signal. Designate more no-parking zones.
It's a paradox: if means to lower crime rate bring you profit for every crime detected, you'll use any means available to increase the crime rate.
Re: (Score:2)
This is definitely not the case in the UK: the council in Swindon recently decided to get rid of speed cameras as a cost-cutting measure.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
However, Swindon still operates mobile speed cameras, because those fines go to local government and not central government.
Norwich is doing the same now that th
Re: (Score:2)
the treasurer's trip with some hookers and some blackjack in Nepal,
You're telling me that French people go to Nepal for hookers and gambling? That's....
I recall Jon Krakauer describing the hookers in "Into Thin Air", and it sounded as if Tijuana would be a better place to find a date.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
and you could stop assuming that everyone who has a problem with this runs red lights.
Re: (Score:2)
So what's the problem? The big bad government can watch you in your car? Well don't drive on public roads then if you're that paranoid.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed in spirit - but you can only go so far with that logic. Enforce ALL vehicle rules, completely enough, and no one can afford to drive.
You'd get home, and you'd find a letter in your mail, rather thick. You open it, and there's a rather remarkable list:
"4 way stop at 3rd and A. St. - rolling stop, $200" (you went ahead, when the oncoming car waved you ahead, and you didn't want to delay them with a lengthy stop)
"BP Oil, 3rd and B. St - Illegal toxic substance disposal, second violation, $350" (The gas
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed completely - but not only for driving and traffic. Imagine the list of offenses that people could get fined / arrested for in general.
The main problem is that we have many (many!) laws. Most people don't know all the laws. And to abide every law at every moment, people have to turn into frickin' robots... People who say they never break any law are liars. Everybody does, if only by accident.
A fine is meant as a "lesson", so that you don't do it again. And sometimes, it is not necessary to learn the l
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could stop running red lights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or you could stop running red lights.
Citation needed?
Any excuse serves a tyrant. (Score:2)
Even so... (Score:3, Interesting)
... I'd rather live in a city with CCTV cameras than a city with poorly-trained armed police ready to start shooting at any moment, privately-run prisons that require a constant stream of new inmates to keep the workshops running and the profits up, and drug and alcohol laws that even the Taliban think are a tad excessive.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a false duality to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You speak as if these are mutually exclusive.
Yeah, that's the really hilarious part - American cities have just as much CCTV as European cities.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh.
prevention (Score:2, Interesting)
Videoprotection (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Videoprotection (Score:4, Interesting)
seriously have you ever driven in Nice? People are double parked everywhere and at any time. The entire city is constantly jammed because two lanes streets are turned into a narrow one lane street. People just stop their car and leave them in the middle of the street blocking traffic and those parked into the proper parking zones. They even double park in intersections blocking two streets for the price of one.
Cops in Nice are useless or never to be seen and only the gendarmes seem to care about traffic violation, but they can only operate on the highway. I live on the outskirts of Nice and never ever drive into the centre, I'd even drive miles to end up in Italy where things are quieter than going inside Nice on a Saturday afternoon.
What's the other stuff they've done. They've put cameras on traffic lights so that people stop running thru red lights because 50% of all scooters and two-wheelers just run thru red lights like it was only for cars. And guess what: people complain because they've been caught doing it.
Anyone who has learned how to drive in the US, Canada, UK, EIRE, Switzerland, Germany,etc... will have a heart attack driving here.
not the first time... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is not the first time I've heard "this is for your own safety" arguments only to have them turn out as thinly veiled guises of trying to make money at your expense. Details escape me, but not too long ago, somewhere in the US, a town added red light cameras which took a snapshot of your car and sent you the fine for running a red light. In a matter of months, it was so successful that very few, if anybody, ran red lights anymore. You think they'd be happy - after all, they probably DID save lives. So why did they take them down? Because the revenue from tickets (those types anyway) was reduced to a big, fat 0
This also makes you wonder what else is being done "for our safety", when in reality it's just a way to take your money. Surely at least speeding enforcement must be exempt from this. Oh wait... [motorists.org]
Rothbard was right when he said that governments only have destructive ways of making money (of course, he was referring to taxation at the time, but a valid point non the less)
Re: (Score:2)
This also makes you wonder what else is being done "for our safety", when in reality it's just a way to take your money.
It doesn't make me wonder. Everything is being done to take your money.
This is capitalism. Profit is the objective of every single thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The government's deception in order to take money is not capitalism, it's robbery.
That's precisely the point I was disagreeing with.
I don't think there's such a thing as "non money-driven government capitalism".
It has to be said.... (Score:2)
...but that isn't very Nice.
London (Score:5, Informative)
You do not want this ... It is worse than living in East Germany under the Stazi. (or similar to the "great Terror" after the French revolution)
Re:London (Score:4, Insightful)
It is worse than living in East Germany under the Stazi.
Rule of thumb: if parking tickets are a big grievance for you then your life isn't as bad as living in East Germany under the Stasi.
Would that I could moderate this (Score:2)
Re:London (Score:5, Insightful)
Rule of thumb: if parking tickets are a big grievance for you then your life isn't as bad as living in East Germany under the Stasi.
This is obviously true. No one will be executed, tortured, or held in secret prisons in Nice for parking violations. However, the GP's point isn't totally trivial either. Certainly a surveillance apparatus is being implemented that is vastly greater than anything envisioned by the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, and it is being aimed at punishing citizens who generally are trying to live their lives without harming others. Yes, people are breaking laws (usually, though there's plenty of stories of systems implemented in such a way that they catch even law abiders), but we all have occasions where we need to stop in a bus zone for a minute to drop something off, or realize that we left our change in our other pants and can't pay the meter. The notion of having eyes on us at all times, watching for us to make the smallest mistake and pouncing on it, does contribute to a sense of alienation, a feeling that government is working against us, rather than for us. Working for the citizens, rather than against them, is supposed to be the very essence of what separates liberal democracies from totalitarian autocracies. Just because a government demonstrates its hostility through annoyance, rather than brutality, doesn't mean it's not a disturbing attitude.
Re:London (Score:4, Insightful)
but we all have occasions where we need to stop in a bus zone for a minute to drop something off
No, we don't. Unless you live in a village, your "one minute" stop is influencing hundreds of cars, creating a collective loss much greater than "one minute" that you're imposing on the society for egotistic reasons.
The one and only effect I'd enjoy of camera traffic control (being completely against it) is that it would reduce the dozens of "one minute quick stops just to drop something" that make me lose hours per year.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember reading something about the old saying that 'at least the $fascists made the train run on time'. To paraphrase: When the attractive young woman runs onto the train platform in tears because she's a few seconds late and the doors are closing, and it's her first day of work etc. etc. etc. the fascist guard ignores her, blows the whistle and the train leaves on time. The not-so fascist guard will hold the train open a door for her and let her on - an action that may delay trains for everyone for t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"because of his unthinking attitude that we get such draconian restrictions"
This reminds me of the very poor argument for why DRM in software exists. Pirates exist, therefore everyone should suffer, not just the pirate. What happens is that these policies just end up harming the average citizen and not the people they're intended to hurt.
Except in that case nobody bothered to prove the line of events, which is kind of the main point.
i.e.: You can argue the "stops are forbidden" law by stating that "stops have less of an influence in people than the traffic law that concerns them has on the general public; just as many of us argue DRM by stating that "piracy has less of an influence in affected people than DRM on the general public". Were you to use that argument you'd be wrong, though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to the quid pro quod real world, asshole. One of these days, you will have to stop one minute to drop something off.
No, I won't. You can keep telling that to yourself to justify your uncivilized actions but it's just not true. Most people never stop their can in an illegal place just because there are no cameras to fine them.
I wonder if you ignore red lights when you're in a hurry, surpass the speed limit, overcome cars in low visibility two directional lanes, etc. and excuse your actions thinking that I'll someday do the same things.
And you can come with extreme cases like "what if you had to take someone to the hospita
Re:London (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but only if we are bus drivers, fuckwit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think the parking tickets are the problem, but the all seeing eye in the sky that smites you from a distance the moment it thinks you've broken its rules. As soon as people are fully acclimated to this sort of regime, and that may be generations from now, who knows what sort of new laws such a system will be used to enforce -- and people won't even know any better.
Let's make it illegal to walk around the city without smiling! France is the happiest place on earth -- just look at how happy everyone i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jobs Jobs Jobs! (Score:2)
Sounds like a jobs program more than anything else.
Source? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Spirit of the thing... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this will result in fewer tickets (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is brilliant. It's like the Laffer Curve of parking ticket enforcement...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So don't make the odds too high. Having a picture of you parked at a red meter does not obligate them to send you a ticket. They can just ticket a randomly-selected subset of the observed violations (and the bureaucrats can perhaps make a bit of money on the side arranging for you to be in that subset...)
already running in other cities nearby (Score:2, Informative)
Heal the World (Score:2)
With all that's going on in the World today, isn't about time we got back to hating the French?
Re: (Score:2)
Keep pushing it fellas... (Score:3, Informative)
In chicago when they switched to a private company for parking meters, who then jacked the prices up by 5-10 times what they originally were and couldn't be bothered to fix them when they broke, the public was furious. Practically no one would park at the meters anymore and there were rampant accounts of people purposely breaking the meters. What do you think is going to happen here? Now the company will have to pay for upkeep and repairs on the cameras as well as the meters so they'll charge even more. How long before the retaliation?
Another stupid (or disingenuous) idea (Score:4, Informative)
OK, I suppose I should comment on this since I live in that city, and am only two blocks from the building where cops watch those video cameras. Actually, there are pros and cons to this idea (but mainly cons):
In short, this is a truly bad idea, but since no one cares (and since ethnic issues and the accompanying fear-mongering run high at the moment), politicians can happily bamboozle people into thinking they should accept any weird proposal in the name of security. Trying to explain the underlying issues to the average city dweller (which are basically seniors and right-wingers) will just get you a “think-of-the-children”-like answer (the best line I've found is pointing out how the cameras won't do shit to prevent an attacker from hitting them, and that their tax money would have been better spent on more policemen on the beat). I suspect it will be some time before people actually realise the dangers of this global surveillance system, and when they do, it may well be much too late. Just like all those people that go around yelling that the law “protects too much the criminals' rights”—until of course, a relative of them gets beaten at the hands of the police *sigh*
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Mess with the police's equipment and see how long it'll take them to care. Do you want to be thrown into prison for that?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I think that every time a community installs shit like this, each officer becomes worried about job security. After all, the end result is not needing traffic cops, which most of them are.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
so if you ruin one line like the laser in the video, they only have several hundred left to identify you ...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the screenplay for a porno?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)