Speed camera database breaks the law?

[ken1414]

An interesting discussion but have you ever considered whether your website is really squeaky clean?

However you look at it you are helping others break the law.

I find it really funny that you then complain when others steal from you!

As your subscribers are so keen to prosecute those who steal from you maybe the police should try a test case against those who report camera locations. Previous cases have shown that it is illegal to warn others of a police camera ahead. It is only a small step to extend the argument to criminalising those who report such data to sites like this.

After all this site isn't free. It is no longer simply a free exchange of information via forums etc. You run it at a profit and potentially break the law in doing so. Ten years in prison for each of your subscribers who have reported a location seems reasonable.

[Darren]

I'm sorry but on what basis do you make these wholly false claims?

You do realise that the Road Safety Bill explicitly permits the use of GPS based speed camera warning devices? That is, the Government has explicitly stated that a device that uses GPS co-ordinates to warn of speed cameras is both legal and encouraged and by consequence, the gathering of such data is legal.

The same bill outlaws active detection i.e. radar and laser which we all accept is fair and reasonable.

No law is being broken and any suggestion that we are is entirely incorrect. Armchair lawyers are fine so long as they are sure of their facts first!
_________________
Darren Griffin

[karlak]

[Darren]

[DennisN]

[ken1414]

no never been banned thks. boring argument over whether they are safety cameras etc. if you need a device to tell when the road is unsafe you are clearly not a safe driver. you are directly interfering with the police doing their job. perhaps if you knew someone who had a five year old killed by a speeding driver you might see the other side of the story. by the way they had an active speed camera detector in their car. Presumably seeded up as they went around the corner as they had just passed a know mobile camera site. probably find the camera data came from your site.

[Darren]

I note you choose not to respond to my reply, you asserted that our database was unlawful as is the use of such a database. Such an assertion is wholly untrue.

No-one would condone the death of any person as a result of a drivers inattention, speed or whatever contributor factor but your claim that a database such as this is illegal in the UK is false full stop.

[ken1414]

interesting reading of the bill.

a simple review of the case law would show your defence to be challengable. you simply have to look at the case of the guy prosecuted for slowing traffic at the entrance to a sunday market every week but prosecuted when a speed camera was there as his actions are illegal then.

if the govenment wants gps detectors it should publish an open list of sites and not rely on user reports which are prone to error. if the government really supported you it would do so. in reality it is impossible to stop you so they have to tolerate you.

the technology exists to map all speed limits on all roads and warn drivers when they exceed them. that is the correct use of gps.

i wonder how good your protection really is. tempted to subscribe just to break it. why? because i can. no different to money grabbing lawyers who will defend scum like this site. you can't get postings off usenet so once released cats out of the bag.

[Darren]

Not even worth a response, your argument is baseless and one sided. The Bill explicitly permits the use of such detectors and as such it would be impossible to prosecute anyone for possessing or using one.

Our system alerts to a Location only, in the case of Mobile cameras it has no knowledge of whether a site is active or not. The person you refer to was prosecuted because he was warning of an active speed-trap hence the legislation outlawing active detection.

You clearly have a hidden agenda but are happy to hide behind an anonymous posting.

If you dislike the availability of such databases then you are free to do so, threats to break our protection simply prove that you fail to understand many things here, the law, our systems, how Usenet operates etc etc.

If you have suffered a loss as a result then you have my sympathies, looking to blame someone or something is understandable but attacking our speed camera database is not the solution.

Better driver training, proper sentences for drivers who kill or maim, questioning the need for cars that can do 150mph, enforcement of insurance etc etc, all need improvement.
_________________
Darren Griffin

[Jimbo73]

Ken, as you dont have a need for such a device, why are you here?

If you did use one, you would know that most devices only warn of a camera if travelling over the speed limit.

Even the best and safest drivers occasionally and unintentionally break the limit. The warning is there as a reminder, not as an evasion method. (Many mobile sites will catch you before you are warned anyway, particularly those on motorways).

[Mick_1959]

Ken

The speed / safety camera database and its use on satnavs is an aid to driving, and no one can condone the death of any person through inattentive or reckless drivers.

My neghbours daughter was killed by a driver, who was proven to be driving 10mph below the legal limit, but conditions were such that he aquaplaned, and with lethal consequences, so my sympathy goes out to you and those parents of that child.

Each and everyone of us who drives, when we get behind the wheel, are driving a potential leathal weapon, and so are responsible to drive in a manner that is safe and courteous, and to so doing I will use any method that will assit me in that aim.

The camera alerts keep me informed of what is ahead, and alert me to any changing road priorities on my journey and to make me aware of cameras, which a few thoughtless drivers who will speed, then brake at last minute near to the camera.

Also, majority of the UK police forces list the sites of all safety/speed cameras on thier sites, along with deatils of wher the mobile camera are likely to be in week ahead, so are Police interfering with the Police and preventing them doing their job, and with therefore such data in public domain.
_________________
Mick
Go 1005 in need of resuscitation
GO 950 Dead,
GO 920 Dead

[ken1414]

hmm the occasional mistake or lapse of concentration! I guess that is the defence the driver used who ran a six year old down outside the local village hall. reversed 20 foot and left 8 foot skid marks of that in the gravel! i held her hand whilst she died trapped under the car. car driver didn't have the balls to do so or even say so whilst she lived.

response of the police non existant. childs fault as she walked behind a reversing car! driver has no responsibility despite reversing very fast in a confined space just outside the hall entrance. pathetic.

as regards the legality. it is not illegal to own a GPS but that doesn't make this site legal. the act doesn't state that. for example it is legal to own a computer and access the internet. it is illegal to host and supply kiddie porn. you are confusing ownership of a device and the supply of information

your defence that the other guy was prosecuted and you can't be won't wash. you are fine whilst the camera isn't there. once it is present an offence is committed. of course the CPS have to chose to prosecute the case. unlikely as there are ways and means of stopping such a prosecution in its tracks, as I am sure the owners of this site are well aware.

as regards the police publishing locations it is usually the speed camera partnerships that do this, Usually to try and calm public outrage at the failure of the partnerships to stop reckless drivers whilst targeting the law abiding majority with their fines etc to raise revenue

money buys anything these days it appears. for how long though? the banks are under attack for their abuses and I imagine lawyers will be in the public eye soon. the public are sick and tired of the abuse of power and the next few years will be very interesting.

living near Swindon it is interesting to see the local council are likely to remove funding for speed cameras and use it more effectively. a bold and positive step. sites like this have devalued the effectiveness of speed cameras in catching reckless drivers. you don't tell thieves where undercover security are operating because it would undermine their effectiveness!

you list speed camera sites NOT known dangerous junctions etc. the two aren't the same as legal restrictions on speed cameras prevent them being put at all accident blackspots. you have the option to do this but chose not to. think of where you live. you know the dangerous junctions. the council know the junctions. why aren't they listed on GPS devices?


it really is down to the owners and employees of this site to decide if their actions are reasonable. can you honestly say your actions overall contribute to road safety? or are you just in it for the money?

whilst it may be legal is it morally right? the banks are now finding out what happens when they get it wrong. unfortunately our laws protect them as it is deemed harassment to name and shame those responsible.

[MaFt]

ken1414,

i don't think that a speed camera database is the issue in the very sad case that you described. now, don't take this the wrong way but i honestly feel that you may benefit from some counselling. as far as i'm aware the police services can offer such counselling for those affected by crimes/accidents that have been witnessed?

as for your points about legality of the database / ownership of gps device etc i'm not going to enter into debate about that as, under the circumstances, it would not be a worthwhile discussion.

take care

MaFt

[Mick_1959]

Ken

Would you happen by chance to be on a moral crusade or just about creating a geuine debate.

[BigPerk]

As ken1414 says (at least in Herts) the camera locations are published through the County Council. My understanding is that it is done because of a legal requirement to do so, rather than anything else, but I may be wrong. But in any case it clearly clears his initial fundamental claim concerning the legality or othersise of using camera database information in the UK.

As regards his other points, I suspect there will be no meeting of minds here (any more than between the Creationists and the Evolutionists!), but I can only suppose that very personal (perhaps recent) experiences have brought him to this forum, in which case I am sure he has all our sympathies. The pros and cons of using camera information have already been debated at length on a number of occasions elsewhere in these forums, and I don't think it really changed anybody's mind.

I would hope though that ken1414 can appreciate that we are NOT all raging lunatics on this forum and that we too deserve some courtesy. I'm sure the lunatics such as he describes don't bother with camara information anyway, especially as they'd have to shell out at least £19 for it. Most, if not all, who use this site I would guess are responsible drivers, and none of us surely would have any truck with those who risk other lives by their driving.
_________________
David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)

We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?.
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!