Safe Speed Forums

I made an earlier thread a few weeks (maybe months) ago, but have been too busy to come back here.
In it I talked about fitting cameras to your car, which would turn on when you started your journey, and film everything that happened, and would use solid state memory (no moving parts). The cost of solid state memory drops year upon year, and you can expect an 8Gb camera like this to cost under £50 in about a year or two. Such a camera would record for several hours, and the lens would be the size of a thumnail, and would also contain the memory, and a USB port. Each time you went driving, you would just press a button on the camera to start it recording, and it would record over the previous journey. (If anything untoward had happened on that journey, you would just take the camera to your PC and download the video).
Imagine you are being tailgated by an aggressive driver, who is risking your life (not to mention his own). You can drive on safe in the knowledge that you can walk into your local police station with the camera, after you get to your destination, and make a complaint, which they would find hard to ignore. After all, you have incontrovertible evidence, the number plate, the car, the offender's face, all clearly stored on video, at high resolution (1.3m pixels would be more than enough, far higher than a normal TV picture's resolution).
Or imagine somebody overtakes you dangerously, and almost kills somebody coming the other way. Imagine that this idiot does this fifty times that day, and five drivers have video of him doing it, and they all go to the police and complain. All it will take is a quick visit from the police, with the five different video clips, to change the driver's habits forever: i.e. "We have enough evidence here to send you to prison, or ban you for several years - one more complaint about you and you're nicked."

Dangerous drivers commit their offences because they think they can get away with them - and they're currently right. They CAN get away with them. The only thing they can't get away with is speeding.

The last time I posted this idea, I had a few objections: the video could be 'doctored'. Nobody explained how. Unless you have a million pound CGI workstation, you couldn't create anything remotely realistic, and even WITH a CGI workstation, it would still look unrealistic, as do all moving CGI images you see in today's films (picture Gollum jumping down from a rock in the Lord of the Rings- the inertia and gravity models they use are wrong, rendering his movements unnatural, and obviously computer generated.)
The other objection was that it would be an invasion of privacy, or that you would be arrested for filming a Post Office.
In short, some people are terrified of this happening. Well - tough. It IS going to happen - technology will see to that. Tiny cameras like I have described will be ten a penny soon enough, and can only go down in price, and up in resolution and memory.
I can just picture all the 'safe' drivers here quaking in their boots as they get all paranoid about people seeing them committing driving offences.

Isn't it funny how it doesn't bother me in the slightest: could it be because I don't speed, don't drive badly, and don't risk other people's lives when driving?

I vaguely remember this being discussed before....send me any video you like and I will alter it without it being obvious at all (and no, my workstation isn't worth £1M, it was £5K to build originally, but is now worth around half that 6 months down the line).

As for a camera of a pissy 1.3MP resolution being higher than TV quality, you are joking right?

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

If a friend had such a system a few days ago, I suspect that he'd be in the clear instead of possibly facing a charge of driving without due care and attention or even dangerous driving.

The scenario: He was driving at less than the speed limit on a major road approaching a staggered crossroads. At this crossroads, traffic wishing to follow the minor road must turn left, follow the major road for a short distance, then enter a filter lane to turn right. As he approached the crossroads, a car pulled out in front of him. He slowed down to allow the car enough space to accelerate away. He was almost on top of the crossroads when a second car pulled out. To avoid colliding with this second car that emerged from the minor road, he swerved onto the hatches protecting the right turn. At that precise moment, the first car that had pulled out entered the filter lane without indicating. My friend collided with the rear of the first car, writing off both vehicles. The second car (AFAICT, the prime culprit) drove off without stopping and before anyone else involved could record his registration.

Because he ran into the rear of the other vehicle the BiB and insurance companies appear to be laying the blame on my friend. The first "puller outer" didn't see the second car pulling out, so there are no witnesses who can corroborate my friend's side of the story. If he had a video system, it would have provided the corroboration.

I saw a report a few months ago that American insurance companies give discounts if you have such a video system. Those systems automatically save the last few seconds in the event of an impact or if you press a "save" button. It works over there to settle contradicting accounts of an incident - so I hope it would perform the same function over here.

_________________
Will

Your post was sounding sensible until the last few lines. I'd love to have evidence of idiotic driving, tailgating, suicidal inconsiderate overtaking manouvres, and yes excessive speed for the conditions.

But tell me Mosis, what is it with your obsession with sticking rigidily within the exact limits? I do not condone driving at stupid speeds in a dangerous manner, but can you tell me what is so magically safe about the number on the sign? And what is so horribly dangerous about going a few mph above it? What about all the ridiculously low limits where it is obviously safe to go a fair few miles above the limit? And what about the NSL Single Carriageways where topping 30mph would be lethal? If every single road in the country was dropped to a 20mph limit, would you still comply? Please answer these questions as I am very curious to hear you back up your stance.

_________________
Why can't we just use Common Sense?

Ah yes. If you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. That's what the state says when it ups surveillance. I couldn't agree with it less. Increased surveillance means more innocent people being accused through misunderstanding and data errors. It means that real criminals avoid surveillance by any means necessary. In the use of technology you recommend I dare say that many truly dangerous drivers would hide behind false registrations. It's happening already due to cameras.

But I'd love such a camera in my car. I doubt that I'd ever use it to report another motorist. I might just use it on occasion to report a nutter. The right way to use such technology is to refine your own driving by a full and careful review of any mistakes you make or incidents that you get involved in. You could use it to learn how to do better next time.

I wouldn't expect the courts to accept the evidence of one video recording and one witness, and rightly so. There will always be opportunities for tampering, and such opportunities certainly aren't limited to CGI. A similar vehicle with a copied registration could easily be filmed (say) driving through a red light at speed. In your world the original owner of the registration could face a heavy penalty. Fortunately in the real world I don't think that will happen.

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

No, he is right. TV is less than 0.5MP.

For an example of how surveillance can go wrong you only need consider the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent man who was shot dead by police who had misinterpreted their own surveillance.


While I wouldn't expect the courts to accept such evidence for the prosection, I would expect such evidence to shed enough doubt on conflicting prosecution evidence to secure an aquittal. To me, this is the strength of car cams - a sort of CYA.

_________________
Will

Video could easily be doctored. You can cut, paste and alter number plates and colours of other vehicles. It would take lots of time but with reasonable equipment it can be done. Modern pcs can easily handle real time 3d games. The rally games are high resolution and some of them you can barely tell it is CGI. This is all modelled in real time so it can be done.

There are also issues with perspective to as to what looks like a dangerous overtake with a gnat's to spare from 100 yards behind is possibly a normal amount of gap when you are the overtaking car. There is also an interesting perception effect that time passes at different rates depending on what you're doing anyway. To someone used to overtaking and concentrating it may all happen in what seems like several seconds rather than just the one that followers feel. This is not considered. Anyone that said 'it all happened so fast' was inattentive.

The more people are videoing the more likely some poor unlucky sod is going to end up in jail or banned because they made one mistake or had an off day. There is nothing wrong with putting a continually bad driver in prison, there is everything wrong putting a normally good driver who makes one mistake with unfortunate consequences. No one drives perfectly all the time and this obsession with having all perfect drivers rather than having ones that are good enough to avoid the odd stupid mistake is what is making everyone het up on the roads. Adding to people's anxiety levels while they're driving isn't going to help.

Blimey, I'd forgotten about mosis!

This guy's a hoot!

At least he/she can spell...

I remember posting something about doctoring digital video on another site. Several posters came back with the response that it was easy to detect.

I've no idea if they are right, but it set me thinking, and I wonder if there are things like compression artefacts and colour space that are different for different DV captures and give away edited footage?

Rubbish. Can you show me any footage of your own that you've altered? A before and after video, at 1024 x 768 resolution?



No, but you obviously know little about resolution.
Standard UK TV has 625 scan lines...
The horizontal resolution is nowhere near 1024 pixels (or their equivalent).

What TV are you talking about?
1.3M pixels is more than high enough resolution - far higher than you see on 99.9% of current CCTV systems.
Please join us in the 21st century.

Exactly.
Speeders won't be too happy to have a system that records everything that happens until an accident (i.e. all of their speeding BEFORE the accident) if the police are liable to turn up and demand the camera before any other evidence can be removed from it by the (bad) driver. But non-speeding, law abiding drivers will be only too happy to use such a camera.
I can get about 10 mobile phone users in about half an hour with such a camera - all in hiqh quality video, undeniable, incontrovertible evidence.

My 'obsession' comes from having no desire to go over the speed limit. I have never been driving down a road with a 30mph limit and thought to myself "I wish I was going at 40mph", but then, I leave on time, and don't spend my time worrying about getting somewhere within a certain time limit, and don't think my saving a few minutes is more than important than somebody else's LIFE.

Yes, I can tell you what's so "magically safe" about the number on the sign - reaction time and stopping distance.
WHO gets to decide that some people are safe enough to speed? You?
An 18 year old boy racer with an attitude problem? A 90 year old who can barely see the road in front of him? Why do we have speed limits, and why are they different on different roads? Have you never asked yourself that question?

Most importantly, WHY do you want to go above the posted speed limit?
Why do you find this necessary at all?

I've never come across one. But your use of the word "ridiculously low" tells me everything I need to know about you- you are an impatient, aggressive person. Am I getting warm?
Put on a heart rate monitor the next time you go for a drive, and watch how your heart rate goes over 100 for most of the journey. You have a problem. I don't.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what these are. Can you elaborate?

Of course I would - I'd have no problem doing that at all, but you would, because, as I said, you're an impatient, aggressive, selfish person. Which is how I describe all speeders.



Just done it. When I get my cameras fitted to my car and they are constantly recording, do you think I'm going to go around breaking the law? If some fool crashes into me, or causes me to crash, I'm going to be happy to take the entire video to the police and let them view all of it. Unlike all of the speeders here, I have nothing to hide about my driving.

This is so unconvincing it's laughable.
Can you explain how 'misunderstanding and data errors' can occur with my video cameras? "Innocent people"? Oh how my heart bleeds for them. I suppose you would be one of these poor victims, right?

Care to elaborate?
How can a 'real criminal' (as if you're not one) avoid my cameras filming them? Wear a balaclava every time they go out driving, and have false number plates, and a stolen car?
You're clutching at straws. "Don't look at my bad driving, look over there!"
Soon you won't be able to get away with your crimes, as there will be so many people like me filming you and your ilk, and sending the video to the police via the internet, when we get home. What are you going to do when you get home, after spending two hours speeding non-stop, and the police knock on your door and say they've had 20 videos sent to them with your car clearly displayed? Start crying?

Yes, I'm sure 'many' would - and they should be stopped by the police and imprisoned. Or maybe we should all stop 'harrassing' these poor 'victims' who keep risking other people's lives, otherwise they might try to avoid detection and conviction!
I would still have their faces clearly on camera, and I bet a pound to a penny that they are all known to the police, so they would still be caught. Are they going to buy a new car every day too, to avoid that showing up clearly on the video?
'Clutching at straws' springs to mind.

Tell me, why don't you just stop speeding? You would save yourself so much grief. No need to spend your life trying to defend something you know is wrong. No need to spend your time trying to pick spurious holes in other people's arguments.

I would report anybody I saw breaking the law, which includes speeders (you), tailgaters (you) (sorry - I forgot, you speed but don't end up tailgating people) (and you speed because you are such a great driver, not because you are in a desparate hurry all the time- obviously when you drive up the back of somebody at 40 in a 30 zone, you give them lots of room, right?), dangerous overtakers, light jumpers, middle lane hoggers, mobile phone users, etc.etc. As many as I could do, I would report. Why do you see this as a bad thing? Didn't anybody die on our roads this year?


Why not? You're absolutely wrong - the courts WILL accept one video recording, especially when it's as good quality as you will see over the coming years. The quality can only go up and up - we are talking about an astonishing 5m pixel camcorders being available for under £50 in five years' time, with two or three hours of solid state recording. That resolution will be far better than anything you've ever seen (except for a film at the cinema). What more could the court possibly need to accept it as proof? There is no better evidence.


This is patently untrue. Why do you and your speeding friends keep bringing it up? Because you can't stop yourselves from speeding, and you're terrified you might have to stick to the speed limit! How hilarious!

Do you understand anything about computers, or digital video? How would you 'tamper' with 1,000 frames at 1.3m pixel resolution, to make a fraudulent video? Care to show any examples of this? Even modern CGI systems used in million pound films don't produce realistic images. (Although I have to say that Channel 4's new moving logos are incredibly realistic - but come on - if I go to the police every day with ten different 10 second incidencts, with 250 frames each, and I don't have a million pounds and a 50 man team, how am I supposed to be 'tampering' with all these videos to make a fraudulent accusation?)
Besides, for each speeder, there will no doubt be four or five people who filmed him being an idiot that day- are they all going to be sitting at home 'tampering' with the evidence?

Please show me any evidence of how this 'tampering' would be possible. The resolution will be so good that you will be able to clearly see the driver's (miserable) face - how do you intend on altering all of this data?



Rubbish. A similar vehicle with a copied registration? Who would go to such lengths, and why would they expect to get away with it?
Since there are so many bad drivers on our roads, the average camera would probably catch four or five offences every hour. Multiply this by half a million people who have them in their cars and actually care enough to want to get the bad drivers off the road: you then have a high probability that driver 'A' will be videod committing offences several times a day. Are all of these videos going to be accused of being fraudulent?

I'm so glad to say - you're time is up. You won't be able to get away with what you do for much longer.

And you still haven't explained why you find it necessary to go above the speed limit. I've never once wanted to do this. Why do you want to do it all the time? Could it be that there's something wrong with you, by any chance?

I certainly can.
The next job that comes in will have a 30 second clip pulled & i'll post the link here.


So you'd like it at near HDTV quality then?

VHS is only 352x288, and DV is 768x576....so take your pick from one of those


I'm already in the world of HDTV Mosis, perhaps it's you that needs to join me.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Ad hominem is banned under forum rules. If you want to stay here, please learn to treat people with appropriate respect and deal with the arguments without insulting individuals.

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

You really are frightened by this, aren't you!
What a ridiculous comparison! How has Jean Charles de Menezes' death got anything to do with video footage of speeding drivers?
How do you suggest somebody "misinterprets" video of you speeding?



Well, I WOULD expect the courts to accept such evidence. What better evidence can you suggest? What better evidence exists? If I film somebody murdering somebody outside my house in broad daylight (say I have a camera mounted on my house for security purposes, and it's 1.3m pixels), would the court not accept this evidence as all they need?
You are still thinking of grainy, low quality CCTV footage which we see on TV all the time - 1.3m pixels is nothing like this - as I said - it's four times the resolution of TV pictures, and as each year goes by, you'll have higher and higher resolution video cameras available, for next to nothing.

Don't tell me the courts won't accept their output as evidence too.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/23/london.tube/index.html should help show how misunderstanding and data errors can result in dire, unwarranted, and unjust consequences. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1706021,00.html gives an account of the authorities' take on the matter. Hopefully, you won't be so ironic (or should that be sarcastic) as "your heart bleeds" for Jean Charles de Menezes and his family....

... nuff said?

_________________
Will

No, it can't be done, not realistically, not with a pin sharp 1.3m pixel image. I know you can cut and paste a number plate on a STILL image, but with video you would have to do this with moving footage, hundreds or thousands of frames, all with the number plate at different sizes. Then you'd have to get a clear 3D model of your chosen 'victim's' head to produce a fake picture of their head, to go in every single frame, etc.etc.
It's just not possible, and nobody is going to do this to secure a conviction for speeding against somebody. But I can see you're all quaking in your boots here - desperately thinking up ways you can 'get off' when somebody shops you to the police, since you all have no intention of giving up speeding. I wonder why?

And I would like to reiterate - it cannot be done. It's impossible. And even MORE impossible at 1.3m pixel resolution. How about at 5m pixel resolution? Have you any idea how many people it would take to produce just a few seconds of FAKE footage at this resolution, with the driver's face taking up, say, 500 x 500 pixels, over, say, 500 frames? Don't be ridiculous.

Show me any fake footage that you have found like this - including from million dollar films. Then find out how long it took, and what was involved.
You are all clutching at straws...

"Some of them you can barely tell it is CGI". You obviously have bad eyesight too...
Show me ONE image from a game, a STILL image too (so it doesn't even have to move realistically) of a car with a driver that looks realistic! Show me ONE image of a person's FACE alone, a STILL image, from a game, that looks like a real face!
What games do you play? Nothing like what you describes even exists.

Clutching at straws...
But nice of you to tell us about YOUR dangerous overtaking - why did you even bring it up? I would be using clear footage of some dickhead overtaking ME when the view ahead was clearly restricted, and/or when oncoming traffic was clearly put in danger because of his actions, all as clear as a bell, all obvious, and irrefutable.


That would be you, I presume. "Off day" indeed. Do you mean - you feel reall ANGRY a lot of the time, and that because you're a selfish, aggressive person, you think it's okay to drive like an idiot, and to hell with everybody else's lives?
I'm far more concerned that some "poor unlucky sod" will be killed by dangerous drivers like YOU. "Made one mistake" indeed. Speeding is never a 'mistake', it's deliberate.

Care to elaborate?
You're starting to get worried, aren't you? It couldn't be because you continuously drive dangerously, could it? Otherwise, why would YOU be worried about a 'normally good driver' (yeah right) making 'one mistake'?
If 500,000 drivers are using their cameras every day, then they will be able to catch a bad driver throughout his journey - he will be caught committing multiple offences by multiple drivers, in multiple locations. Is that going to be good enough evidence for you?


So you're talking about YOURSELF again - "het up" indeed!
Let me see if I can read your mind: you are an aggressive, angry, selfish person, who gets angry at the slightest thing. You are practically ALWAYS having an 'off day', and you (stupidly) think that driving really quickly and aggressively is going to take your pain away... AAHHH...
Try growing up, idiot, and don't go out driving again until you do.
Other people use the roads, and DON'T want to be killed or permanently injured by angry fools like you, who can't sort out their miserable lives.

I only hope you're one of the first people I catch with my cameras...


Once again - AAHHHHH....

Poor little baby.
Why would you have "anxiety"? Because you are a bad, aggressive driver.

It's so simple: stop speeding, learn how to drive properly, be considerate of other road users, and then you'll have nothing to worry about. Why do you find those three things so hard to do?

How would you propose to show that someone was speeding? "Simultaneous" recordings of your own speedo and the view outside the window? Your speedo isn't calibrated - so your video evidence won't hold up in court. Forget speeding - citizens' car cams will never be enough on their own to convict unless there's a huge and unjust change in the law to allow something close to witch-hunting.

Now to dangerous driving: Video evidence can be misleading even if it hasn't been digitally altered. It's amazing what you can "prove" with selective editing. For example, if you saw a male youth carrying a handbag and running full-pelt. Your natural assumption is probably that the youth is a villain. However, if you look at the entire sequence of events it could just be that the owner of the handbag had left it and the youth was running after her to give it back. In my friend's case, if the driver he ran into was equipped with a car cam, that driver could have use selected footage to show my friend running into the back of his vehicle but ommitted his own failure to give way to traffic on the major road and the other driver's even more dangerous driving. For these reasons, I believe that evidence from car cams should be used in defence, but most definitely not as "stand-alone" evidence for the prosecution.

_________________
Will