Safe Speed Forums

What has this got to do with what I'm talking about? Could you at least try to explain without merely inferring something that isn't possible? How can my filming you speeding be subject to 'misunderstanding' and 'data errors', and how can it result in 'dire, unwarranted and unjust consequences'? You drama queen...



No, but what a pathetic attempt! My heart does bleed for Jean Charles de Menezes and his family, but what has any of this desparate 'bait and switch' got to do with what I've been talking about?
You ARE going to be caught breaking the law, and you ARE going to be visited by the police when you do, as there will be loads of video evidence from multiple people, every week, until you are stopped. How do you suggest this is wrong?
The number of 'accidents' will go down massively as a result of the widespread use of car cams. Just you wait and see.

That's exactly what they said about city centre CCTV and crime. Has crime gone down? Nope.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Number of video lines in PAL is 575 (PAL DVDs are recorded at 575 by 720 – 0.4MP).

I have a lot of HDTV footage (ahem don’t ask how I get them, I also have a 3m HD projector ) both 720p and 1080i (some of the former at 60fps); the widescreen format would be perfect for this application (images of the sky/road would be a waste of bandwidth) whilst capturing great detail. Add some pulsed IR LEDs and you get ANPR (but that won’t happen for a different reason ). Add a polarising filter and you could see the driver inside (during the day).
A technical quality issue would be if the camera records true RGB per pixel (broadcast quality) or interpolates each component between each pixel (typical digital cameras).

Towards the end of the other thread here, a solution was put forward which went some way of allaying concerns over privacy (as well as the amount of data storage needed). For me, the loss of 10 lives a day utterly outweighs these privacy concerns.

One critical point: it would be very difficult for any video camera to demonstrate an another car’s speed, unless the camera car had a an approved, regularly calibrated speedo, wired up to the recorder in a tamper proof manner (that won’t happen) and the camera car was also speeding, there’s no (easy) way another vehicles speed can be determined with reliable accuracy; hence I’m not afraid of this form of enforcement.

There are lots of places near where I live where your shot would show a restricted view ahead but the overtaker could see for over half a mile! For example, there is one left-hand bend where the view from the left side of the road is obscured by vegetation and the driver can see for little more than a hundred yards. However, that hundred yards is enough to pull out and to return to the left should you spot an oncoming vehicle. From the extreme right of the road, you can see past the vegetation and, if nothing is coming, overtake in perfect safety. Yet, from the point of view of the person being overtaken it is a dangerous manoeuvre. Although you would assume it was "clear as a bell, all obvious, and irrefutable", you'd be wrong.

Another place near me gets converted to a one-way system during the holiday season weekends. If you "forget to record" the initial one-way signs, it is possible to think that "some nutter" is overtaking you on blind bends. If you go back and look at the scene a day or two later, you'd be convinced that the other driver was a "dickhead" - but you'd be wrong. Even worse, at the end of the one-way system, you could record video evidence of a "nutter driving right at oncoming traffic" even though that driver was perfectly safe and the "evidence" is an illusion created by the temporary system.

More cases of video evidence being misinterpreted?

_________________
Will

In serious cases a time-between-landmarks approach would work. I cannot imagine the trouble being taken unless the footage included a serious crash. I don't know what approach would be taken to verify frame rate, but several approaches are possible. A digital data queue would make it MUCH harder to reach the required confidence level.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

To be fair, there are simple steps an offender to be can take to reduce the likelihood of being caught by CCTV (bloody hoodies); with the correct enforcement this won't apply to drivers - ANPR. Of course VRMs can be faked/nicked but I believe the great majority of drivers don't do this (unless reliance on automated speed enforcement gets even worse).

BTW, I believe cameras must not, in any way, replace real trained trafpol.

Are you talking about crime generally, or crime in the City Centres with CCTV? I think you'll find that CCTV made a huge difference to the centres it was installed in.

I'm pretty sure that beneficial effects are confined to a very small area. There was a fairly major report published last year which said: "no overall benefit". I did read it, but I didn't keep a reference.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Sure. One problem with cameras is they give the message that 'rules compliance' is top of the road safety tree.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Including the London shooting, I have given you at least four examples where video evidence can be misinterpreted and thus falsely lay blame on an innocent party.

Let's get a couple of definitions clear here:

• Data are just values - for example, the bits that make up a file. Data have no intrinsic meaning.
• Information has meaning and is that which is derived from data when interpreted (usually by a human).
• To obtain information from data requires "translation"

It is in the translation of data to information that misinterpretation can (and does) occur.

Your video is data, your interpretation of that video is information - and that information can easily be in error even if the data is completely accurate. Of course, the data could easily contain errors induced by the capture and recording process. Autofocus and auto-exposure can both create aberration, not to mention slight flaws in the lens or CCD! Although less usual than erroneous information, data errors can occur.

So, again, while video evidence should be enough to cast reasonable doubt where it conflicts with other evidence, it cannot be absolutely relied upon and should not be used alone to obtain a conviction. Information obtained from video evidence alone can be erroneous and, because of this, such a conviction must surely be unsafe.

_________________
Will

That's only because of our ridiculously lenient sentencing policy, and a huge increase in crime because of it, over the past fifty years. If somebody attacked you in the street, and you wanted them caught and convicted, would you rather there was CLEAR (1.3m pixel or greater) CCTV footage of them, or no evidence apart from your own word? What would be the chances of them being caught, with and without the clear CCTV footage? What would be the chance of a conviction, with and without the clear CCTV footage?

I would have thought simply measuring how long two landmarks take to pass the edge of the screen would be sufficient. If the car is filmed for, say, three seconds, speeding, then all that would be needed is for the police to measure the distance between two lampposts, or two trees, etc. and see how long the car took to travel that distance.
If I'm travelling at 40 in a 40 zone, and somebody overtakes me, they are speeding. My speed can be worked out in the same way, and the time taken for the car to overtake me can also be measured, and we can then work out approximately how fast they are going.

I will look at the other thread again re the privacy issue.

Spoken like a true impatient driver.
The view would not be from the left side of the road, the camera would be mounted on the right hand side of the top of the windscreen. If you can't see if the road is clear from that position, you shouldn't be overtaking, but I can see from your description that you find it necessary to overtake all the time... I wonder if it could have anything to do with your constantly breaking the speed limit while everybody else is sticking to it.


These are strawman arguments, and quite pathetic.

No, more cases of you desperately trying to find a way to escape conviction.

Why? What is a digital data queue?
Frames would be recorded in the same way as all video is recorded. You would be able to work out the frame rate (if you doubted it was recorded at a certain rate) by watching the video - we can all instantly recognise when a video has been sped up or slowed down. Nobody is going to be making interpolated frames on their CGI systems...
I do hope you're all worried, as this technology WILL become commonplace, and you WILL be caught every time you go out.

This, and other similar outbursts here and elsewhere are ad hominem. That is one sure-fire way of getting suspended or banned from here. I really hope that doesn't happen. Please try to contain your posts to deal with issues rather than forming (typically entirely misguided) opinions of folk whom you've not met, and folk who are by evidence elsewhere on here some of the most sensitive and "roadworthy" individuals one could have the pleasure to tread the same boards with.

Sensor resolution isn't the be all and end all of camera resolution. My PDA has a 1.3MP camera, yet the photos it produces are, at best, only comparable to standard def TV, and way, WAY, below the quality of hi-def broadcasts (including ones which have been DivX'd to within an inch of their life in order to be sent across the bit of wet string connecting us with the US).

So, are you proposing some revolutionary breakthrough in optical engineering that would allow the lenses on these small cameras to actually make full use of the sensor resolution, or are you just being suckered into the bigger is better hype that surrounds consumer digicams?

Next you'll need to have a similar breakthrough in semiconductor physics, to reduce the amount of sensor noise present in the tiny sensor sites required for small cameras. No point in solving the lens problem if you then mask all that detail with random noise.


I don't know if this is quite what Gixxer was thinking about when he made the above statement, but in one important respect he is absolutely correct - a cheap consumer-grade megapixel video camera will NOT provide TV quality (not even SDTV let alone HDTV) quality footage. If it did, TV studios across the globe would be flocking to their local Maplins, Radio Shack or whatever to strip the shelves of these wondrous devices instead of shelling out hundreds of thousands of pounds (or equivalent in their local currency) to buy professional grade cameras. Sure, in some extreme cases you'll find professional crews using consumer-grade hardware (news/documentary recording in certain parts of the globe where lugging around pro gear would be difficult/risky), but the vast majority of footage you see on TV today is still shot with pro grade gear, and the differences between that and the occasional consumer grade footage is VERY noticeable, even though both types of equipment, on paper, claim to capture the exact same type of material.





Anything? Absolutely. Be interesting to learn how someone could post to a web-based forum without understanding anything about computers... anyone out there dictating their replies to someone else to type?




You assume the face will be visible. No matter how good the overall resolution of the camera gets, there will always be situations where there quite simply isn't a clear/any shot of the drivers face.




It's happening already, and people are getting away with it. Increase the number of cameras being used, and you can be sure that the number of people opting to mask their identity via false/cloned plates will increase.

_________________
Chris

What resolution was the video taken at? How long was it? Did the innocent party involved have a one ton piece of metal around him, with a distinctive colour and shape, and a number plate on it?
You are clutching at straws.

So a video recording of you speeding has 'no intrinsic meaning'? Then why are you worried about it?

Yes, and I'm sure a jury of 12 people would be able to recognise your dangerous driving as you overtake car after car after car...

And? So what? Don't you watch TV? Listen to the radio? Read these words?

How often? In what way? What are you trying to suggest?
I know! You might be 'unfairly' accused of a motoring offence if somebody filmed you driving! Now why on earth would YOU, of all people, being the brilliant, safe, law-abiding driver that you are, be so worried about "misinterpretation", I wonder?

Care to show me any examples of this, in relation to traffic offences, at 1.3m pixels or higher resolution?

I thought not.

It doesn't matter how much you try to convince yourself it's not going to happen, every person who's lost a family member to some selfish idiot who killed them with his/her car, is going to start using car cams.

You wish. What sort of 'errors'? Errors that make YOUR face appear in a different driver's car? Errors that make the entire video sequence fake? i.e. trillions and trillions of bits are magically rearranged by these 'errors' to create a 'false picture' of what really happened?
Do you actually know what you're talking about, or are you clutching straws? I just can't imagine.

And?


Why "should (it) not be used alone to obtain a conviction"? Precisely because YOU know YOU would be convicted pretty quickly!

Please explain why it cannot be absolutely relied upon, and give EXAMPLES of MOVING VIDEO that is so subject to these 'errors' you claim, that it shows something other than what actually happened, and at 1.3m pixel or greater resolution...


You wish. 1.3m pixels is more than high enough to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, a crime has taken place. It would be more reliable than almost all other forms of evidence, including the testimony of ten people.

OMG, you're sounding like a brainwashed lemming. This is exactly the sort of dangerous attitude that government policy is instilling in drivers. There is nothing magically safe about it - sometimes a few mph under the speed limit would be incredibly dangerous, but with your attitude it would still be deemed safe! I really really hope you don't drive anywhere near me



Strangely enough I don't feel the need to speed everywhere - in fact I enjoy spening a lot of time on the motorway in L1 doing about 65mph.
Ridiculously low limits can be identified by skilled drivers as simply feeling unnaturally slow for the conditions and hazard density - often these are ones that have been reduced from higher limits for no reason at all, other than to place speed cameras there and make money. I like to make good progress at an appropriate speed, but do not consider any speed posted on a sign either safe or dangerous. It's a skill I've picked up through driving and using my own judgement



National Speed Limit Single Carriageways - 60mph limits. Often this is applied on very bendy narrow country lanes. I know one near me where 20mph is too fast in places, and 40mph can only be reached in a couple of spots along its ~3 mile length. However according to you 60mph is magically safe so therefore it would be OK to drive at such speeds - see my earlier comment about please not driving anywhere near me.



LOL oh you are cracking me up now. You are honestly saying you could do a lengthy journey without ever exceeding 20mph because 'it's the law'. Again I refer you to my earlier comment about being brainwashed.



I will say one good thing about you Mosis - you've made me realise that uneducated dangerous drivers like you are very common. Hence you've tapped my conscience and I've decided to become a paying member of this site. Thanks for your support

_________________
Why can't we just use Common Sense?

Paul already covered this but I’ll repeat. The issue here is ‘seeing how long the car took.......’. It’s not too difficult to slow with the recorded frame rate by just enough without raising other visual clues; hence when played back at the usual rate everything will happen quicker than it actually did (including speeds). That’s infinitely easier than applying convincing CGI.

My 1.3m pixel webcam that cost about £2 to manufacture gives me a very good picture - albeit not perfect - so how much more do you think you need to spend on the lens to get a perfect picture? Will £10 on top of the £2 cover it? Or £20 for the lens?
My 1.3m pixel digital camera gives me excellent pictures and has a small lens the same size as the webcam, but cost £80 about two years ago. It's now worth about £30. As I said, technology will improve and improve, as will lens manufacture, etc.etc. Do you seriously think this WON'T happen?



Good! And I expect them to be stopped by the police and put in prison for a long time, as they are obviously menaces to society, otherwise they wouldn't be going to such lengths. After all, what sort of person would find it necessary to hide their identity when driving? The sort of person who is CONSTANTLY driving dangerously. You'd still have their face on the video! The police would say "Oh, that's so and so - he's been banned for the last year - we'll go round his house and have him now - thanks for the evidence."