London 2006, Meet London 1984

Draape writes "Shoreditch TV is an experiment TV channel beaming live footage from the street into people's homes. According to the Telegraph U.K. television will broadcast from 400 surveillance cameras on the streets, into people's homes. For now they are only showing it to 22,000 homes, but next year they plan on going national with the 'show'. They fly under the flag 'fighting crime from the sofa'."

Re:Transparent society?

[masterpenguin]

The ol David Brin Theory. I'm not going to explain it, I'll just link away

Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

BBC Article

[Hogwash McFly]

Here's a BBC article on the subject [bbc.co.uk] as was in my submission for the exact same story about 5 days ago (grumble grumble).

Re:It's not 1984 if everyone can watch everyone

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

If you know of one pissed up yob who would refrain from fighting just because of a camera up on a mast then please do tell me.

Yup - Ted, from down at the Red Lion.

(surely One isn't enough for you?)

The biggest deterant has been big doormen and LOTS of visible police.

Hmmmmmn, you're right that lots of visible police helped, but frankly big doormen were as much a part of the problem as anything.

I think the police have been helped enormously by CCTV - it backs up their presence with a more realistic threat of conviction.

Re:No obvious correlation

[Anonymous Coward]

60% of all rapes and other crimes in Copenhagen are comitted by immigrants which accounts for 12% of the population. I belive it is a cultural and social(integration) problem, and not a racial problem. And when you ask about finding a way to solve the problem, you are called a racist for mentioning it and any serious debate has run off the track.

Re:Forget 1984, the crims are going to love this o

[Kjella]

Anti-lock brakes. I won't get into this because people here do not agree that increased friction between the road and tires with centrifugal force increases the likelihood of a rollover and fatal accident.

Nope, because anti-lock breaks help improve friction in the direction of the car. It does little if anything to the friction sideways - if you would flip sideways, it'll almost certainly happen no matter what kind of braking system you have. Instead anti-lock brakes greatly improve a) your ability to reduce speed and b) maintain sateering so that you won't hit anything to make you flip, or lack the speed to do so.

What is a good question is if anti-lock brakes, stabilization systems and the like make people drive faster, with less distance to those in front of them and in general with less safety margins. But from a purely technical point of view you're talking nonsense.

Re:Forget 1984, the crims are going to love this o

[bint]

Nice theory, but from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lock_braking_sys tem [wikipedia.org] :

"The purpose of this is twofold: to allow the driver to maintain steering control under heavy braking and, in most situations, to shorten braking distances (by allowing the driver to hit the brake fully without the fear of skidding or loss of control)."

Perhaps not losing control of the car might reduce the risk. Or what do you think?

Had you kept to your original idea with

"ABS brakes are the subject of some widely-cited experiments in support of risk compensation theory, which support the view that drivers adapt to the safety benefit of ABS by driving more aggressively. The two major examples are from Munich and Oslo. In both cases taxi drivers in mixed fleets were found to exhibit greater risk-taking when driving cars equipped with ABS, with the result that collision rates between ABS and non ABS cars were not significantly different."

from the same page I'd agree with you. Not that ABS did not make it worse, though.