Slashdot Mirror


Cameras in UK for Toll Enforcement

cosyne writes "Saw this story on BBC News about charging people £5 per day to drive in central London. The interesting part: they plan to use surveillance cameras to snap liscence plates and compare to a database of people who paid. That's the same as stopping terrorism, right?" We mentioned this issue in an earlier story. It's an interesting challenge: the UK authorities have a problem (too much traffic in London) which is not susceptible to the usual solution (too many ways into London, can't put tolls on all of them) and so they're looking for new solutions - except most of the possible solutions are privacy-invasive in one way or another.

4 of 572 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What we need by G-funk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, what we really need is two lcds, each one covering half the plate, and they cycle which is on and which is off a few hundred times a second. With some careful timing, cops wouldn't notice, but cameras couldn't get more than half the plate at once... no plate, no ticket ;-)

    --
    Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  2. More info about the area covered, technology, etc. by Observer · · Score: 3, Interesting
    See the Transport for London website, in particular the Congestion Charging page.

    Points:

    • Area within innermost ring road.
    • Cameras within zone as well as on entries/ exits.
    • Reckoned to give 90% capture rate within the zone. (Hmmmm)
  3. License-cameras on taxis? by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How about mounting license cameras on taxi cabs? They run all day, and would cover ground that normal, mounted cameras wouldn't.

    If you consider an alternate use, this technology could be ground-breaking in beating crime. Say you have these cameras mounted on taxi cabs and police cars. They would get a list of licence plates for stolen cars, and would continually monitor all license plates that are seen. The list would be maintained on whenever someone would file a stolen car report. I really don't see how that would violate my privacy - no alarm would go off unless I had reported my car as stolen, and I would be very interested in having it intercepted before it was shipped to Eastern Europe and sold for bargain price to the local mob connection.

    On the other hand, the London proposal is worse. You are assumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent (listed as a paying driver). Still, consider the alternatives. More traffic means more deaths and more sickness. The big question is then "is it worth it?". Well, is it?

    --

    Stop the brainwash

  4. Re:Whats the point of being anti-car? by Spudley · · Score: 4, Interesting

    London really wasn't designed with traffic in mind.... in fact, I'm not sure that London was designed at all. Here's a story for you: In the 1660's, after the Great Fire of London, the authorities tried to use the ensuing chaos as a way to rebuild London with wider streets. But landowners refused to let them do it - no-one was prepared to give an inch of their property, (despite the fact that the fire was only possible because the buildings were too close together), and the result is that we're left with a road system that was inadequate five hundred years ago, let alone with today traffic. You really don't know what traffic chaos is until you've seen London on a bad day. (Boston is a country field by comparison)
    I accept that some people need to use cars, and I also accept that the public transport system is awful in some places, but the bottom line is that something has to be done, because the whole system is grinding to a halt.
    I don't have any problem with this charge, and frankly, if they don't use cameras, there really isn't any other viable way to do it - can you imagine everyone in London stopping at a toll booth??
    There are some major problems with the scheme, but I don't think the method do doing it is one of them.

    --
    (Spudley Strikes Again!)