<< So what about randomly placed cameras on civilians vehicles… >>

Interesting thought rehctub.

<< Once the word gets out, all of a sudden anyone can be recording what's goimg on >>

YES! I like the way you are thinking.

THIS is the key to the very significant improvement in road safety!

Once everyone realises that everyone else around them can take action and have it fully followed up by the police, then we’ll all be much safer out there on the roads.

It is extremely easy to implement this sort of thing. I’m not sure about speed cameras mounted on private vehicles, but anyone can capture evidence of rank driving pretty easily with a camcorder, mobile phone or still camera.

For example, if you’ve got someone chronically tailgating you when you are sitting on the speed limit, it is a simple matter for the passenger to record it out the back of the vehicle, flash over to the speedometer, pan around to show that the vehicle that they are in is doing a reasonable speed compared to other vehicles, capture a speed limit sign if possible, capture the driver of the tailgating vehicle through the windscreen and capture the number plate of that vehicle, then take it to the cops.

Now, only a very small portion of the population would need to do this in order for it to become a very effective tool in the fight to improve road safety.

This should be advertised widely. Moving footage of this sort should be shown on the evening news and current affairs programs now and then, and a series of still shots from it should appear in our newspapers, in order to get the message across that the public has been EMPOWERED to do their bit to assist in improving road safety!

Why this hasn’t happened, and why we appear to have moved strongly in the opposite direction, with the effective disempowerment of the general public to assist in reducing the road toll, is just completely beyond me to understand.

Ludwig, the cam Cordero idea will never work as these devices can be argued against in a court of law.

Remember, any traffic infringement notice is simply an alleged offense, open to being challenged.

It is for this reason (I suspect) that police are reluctant to use such material.

That's why I suggest any such device must be tamper proof.

You could have several on your vehicle, front, rear, side, all linked to a central computer, however, if you wish to monitor the recipients speed, you all of a sudden place them at risk of self incrimination, something that would chase many donors away.

Rechtub, I strongly disagree. Something does not have to be tamper-proof in order to be a valuable tool.

There was an article in the paper in Cairns this week about a couple of girls photographing a man on the beach who was acting suspiciously. I am sure the police were only too happy to have that bit of hard data to help them with their inquiries.

The same sort of thing definitely applies with neighbourhood watch and with all manner of other types of complaints.

Yes, these days any sort of digital date could possibly be tampered with. So the police need to mention this in their publicity of the facilitation of community policing and let us all know that spurious, vexacious or otherwise falsified complaints are very serious offences.

I understand what you say Ludwig, but there is a huge difference between a man acting suspiciously on the beach, and a motorist eledgedly speeding.

Burnouts etc, I have no problem with these being recorded and would expect the recording to be sufficient evidence, but burnouts don't usually cause accidents on our highways.

But then again, who do the police charge for the BO.

Of cause they could charge the owner, but then, that may not effect the right person, therefore negating the charge in the first place.

You see speed cameras, radar guns and mobile detectors all have to be calibrated and logged prior to the days work, this simply can't be done with civi cameras.

It is for this reason that personal recordings of speeding drivers can't be used as secure evidence in a court of law, as any good lawyer would have the case thrown out, citing unreliable evidence and any judge would have little choice other than to agree.

I am not suggesting I agree with the law, but it's simply the facts.

<< It is for this reason that personal recordings of speeding drivers can't be used as secure evidence in a court of law >>

But rehctub, they CAN be submitted as evidence in a court of law.

Anyway, the police would view the recordings and talk to the alleged perpetrator about it and almost always secure an admission. It would seldom go to court. Or at least, the recorded evidence would seldom be challenged in court.

When a perpetrator sees the recording, which he/she would view with the police present, he/she would know straight away if it is accurate or doctored, and whether they have a legitimate claim of innocence.

If there is a falsehood within such a recording, the perpetrator will presumably know what it is, and the police can then concentrate on sorting it out specifically.

But hey, the vast majority of the time there would be no problem with the evidence as provided, and as I say; if this sort of thing was encouraged across the country, it could have a huge effect on reducing the accident rate and improving road safety.

The possible corruption of recorded evidence can exist in any area of law.

I keep making the comparison between road safety and neighbourhood watch. Well, bodgy recordings could be made in order to incriminate people under the guise of neighbourhood watch just as easily as for rank driving. But the community and the police accept neighbourhood watch as a very good thing.

So why not use the same concept when it comes to road safety?