English towns equipping crossing guards with cameras

England is already drowning in CCTV cameras, so it looks like Big Brother is starting to get creative in finding ways to deploy more: local councils are now outfitting crossing guards with camera-equipped stop signs. Yeah, crossing guards. With cameras in their stop signs. The cameras in the £890 ($1765) poles are fairly conspicuous, and the hope is that it'll curb aggressive driving around crossing zones, which resulted in 1,400 incidents last year. There's no word on how anyone plans to measure the effectiveness of the program, but we're certain the crossing guards who get passed over for the poles and end up with the hat-mounted cameras also being deployed will have a few choice words about things.

[Joey @ May 1st 2008 8:11AM]

I saw this on gizmodo a few days ago. You gotta show the big picture to really get the "ridiculous factor" out there, like they did. Nice try, though.

[Simon Jordan @ May 1st 2008 8:12AM]

Yipeeee more cameras.

I think now would be a good time to see who can get on one first for running over a lollipop lady. How many points was it?

Oh and they could always fit stealth speed cameras, and whilst at it why not include the average speed camera linked via a mobile phone to the government network, then if you are going to fast they can flash up all your details a-la the Italian government.

[Flashpoint @ May 1st 2008 8:12AM]

Put TV Cameras everywhere.

We'll never be able to stop the crimes before they happen - or punish people who use suicide attacks or mow down a crowd of people and then commit suicide... but maybe....just maybe....

...we'll be able to use the video footage to feed the hunger for new madness on Youtube.

[Alex @ May 5th 2008 12:56PM]

Of course we'll be able to stop crimes before they happen. Haven't you ever seen Minority Report?

[Marc @ May 1st 2008 8:16AM]

it's a good idea for the safety of school children

[Richard Downey @ May 1st 2008 8:17AM]

"Yeah, crossing guards". They're called lollipop ladies (due to the shape of the sign they carry). The operate around busy roads outside and on the way to local schools and only when children are going to and from school. Adults are able to cross the roads by themselves. In fact they can do it wherever they like without being arrested for what you Americans would call "jay-walking".

[maty @ May 1st 2008 9:20AM]

Aye, in Stafford one's a bloke... would he be called a "lollipop lady" too, or a lollipop bloke? I've never established which...

[technophobe @ May 1st 2008 9:48AM]

It's fairly obvious its lollypop man not lollypop bloke

[slarity @ May 1st 2008 8:20AM]

$1700, wow someone isnt getting their money's worth here...

[Raheem @ May 1st 2008 8:21AM]

Seriously, what is going on in this country!? Cameras have such a negligible effect, let's all get out and vote Boris today and hope he makes a change (in London at least)!

[Demas @ May 1st 2008 9:09AM]

If people say "cameras have negligible effect" enough times then it still won't be true. At sites where cameras have been installed, there has been, on average, a 50 per cent reduction in the numbers of people killed or seriously injured, which equates to 1,500 lives in London alone over a 5 year period.

So cameras have a SIGNIFICANT effect on people who break the law. But they do have a "neglible effect" on people who don't break the law.

While everybody would like their own privacy respected, we wouldn't need cameras if there weren't so many people out there who had no respect for the rights of others.

[Paul Barrett @ May 1st 2008 9:11AM]

Let's hope this is sarcasm about Boris. I couldn't take him less seriously if he had massive red shoes and started juggling.

[Wwhat @ May 1st 2008 10:10AM]

Hey damas, it's the government studies that showed cameras have no effect, not your dreamt up figures but actual real data.
But whatever.

[Demas @ May 1st 2008 10:18AM]

Funny, because the government was my source:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/4689.aspx

What's your source?

[error2k2 @ May 1st 2008 12:37PM]

Wwhat, you couldn't be more ignorant about how CCTV not only help reduce crime, but get convictions after arrest.

My father is a policeman in central London, MOST of the times he gets called to an area is because central control spots a problem happening from cameras. There are many times police are on the spot before anyone even had the chance to dial 999.

Just try starting trouble in Piccadilly

[Simon Jordan @ May 1st 2008 8:22AM]

Oh just had a thought. Perhaps what the British government should do one of the following.

1. start a person tracking facility (£20 per person, £50 for stalkers)
2. provide pictures to google for their street view (1 pence for each picture)
3. provide a location based service (annual subscription of £100, to enable switch off if you are having an affair £50 a time)
4. catch criminals instead of just watching them (£0 money earned but they could auction any goods)
5. get revenue by selling the video to all those "funny video" tv programmes (£200 per shown video)
6. turn our nation into a dictatorship (opps sorry it is already)
7. charge a tax for everytime we appear on camera. (£10 per camera appearance)

This would help to reduce the multi billion national debt.

[The New Guy @ May 1st 2008 8:29AM]

I'd hate to live in England right about now...

I bet they even record you when ur taking a piss in those street toilets!!

[Simon Jordan @ May 1st 2008 8:47AM]

I'd hate to live in the UK now...

damn I am living in the UK...

[Demas @ May 1st 2008 8:54AM]

As opposed to America where people seem to prefer to watch in person...

[phanbouy @ May 1st 2008 1:22PM]

speak for yourself, Demas. I send a representative to watch.

(...btw, wtf are you talking about?)

[Blaktornado @ May 1st 2008 2:02PM]

:P

There's a difference between invading privacy and catching people doing things illegal ;D

[Dolemite @ May 1st 2008 8:36AM]

WTF is up with these fuking limeys? Everytime there is a story on the Big-Brotherization (sic) of society, the limeys are somehow involved. Somebody get these people something to do apart from exploiting others and building nightmarish societies.

I fear that somewhere in California or New York, there is a politican who thinks this is an idea worth pursuing and spending money on.

[techFTW @ May 1st 2008 11:30AM]

"Nightmarish societies" "Big-Brotherisation"

Erm... no...

How the hell has the media managed to make something as simple as a camera turn into some evil tool.

[phanbouy @ May 1st 2008 2:08PM]

yeah, engadget? why all the anti-camera bias!!!! my cousin's a camera. sheesh

[treetrunk @ May 1st 2008 3:00PM]

Right. Because if there's anything which screams "big brother", it's cameras to catch aggressive drivers at children's crossings.

[Dolemite @ May 2nd 2008 2:05AM]

This is not a question of one camera. Britain is blanketed in cameras. This is the kind of stuff that would make the ChiComs or North Koreans feel ashamed. Seriously, this is the kind of thing the stasis wish they had.

If this had something to do with the United States or any state security agency, you would be screaming Gestapo! Gestapo!

[tony @ May 1st 2008 8:51AM]

i like the idea, personally. i remember when i was a wee-man, the lollipop lady or man always helped you across the street, made sure you didn't die or anything. it seems pretty crap to think of them getting run over and getting aggro from motorists and the like... i was reading about it in the times earlier on, and some of the stuff that happens out there is pretty shocking. i figure if the cameras make it easier to give the rage filled motorists the £1000 fine, 3 points on their license or imprisonment they deserve, then go for it.

[Wwhat @ May 1st 2008 10:16AM]

In my experience the people who care least for pedestrians and cyclists are mom's with the kids, bringing them to school or picking them up, and I'm guessing that's why the crossing guards get confronted a lot with it.
They aren't enraged either, they just drive a decent amount over the speedlimit stopping for nothing as cold as nails, because they assume they are so special or something.

[shanoboy @ May 1st 2008 9:04AM]

I don't think it matters if these camera programs work or not. They simply have a fetish with being able to watch anyone any time.

I'm surprised cameras aren't mounted in Britain's public restrooms in airports and train stations to help prevent terrorism.

[Wwhat @ May 1st 2008 10:20AM]

Why do you think restrooms have no cameras? You'd have to goto britain and do a thorough search before making such rash statements I'd say.

[Zorin @ May 1st 2008 9:08AM]

$1765? When will governments finally stop allowing themselves to be reamed?

Cameras are cheap; this setup couldn't possibly cost more than $100 to make. Yet government bends over and accepts the insanely high price anyway.

I guess this is what happens when non-tech-savvy politicians get into contracts. They don't realize how cheap cameras are these days. Heck, my new Digital Rebel XSi (top end consumer SLR!) was half that price.

[Paul Barrett @ May 1st 2008 9:16AM]

I don't know what's more shameful - spending nearly a grand a time on these cameras, or having to step in to protect people who are helping kids to cross the road from morons who absolutely cannot have a ten second delay in their journey.

[maty @ May 1st 2008 9:21AM]

We should just vote Boris because he's awesome. He's the only politician I'd call "bumbling" in a positive manner.

[Wwhat @ May 1st 2008 10:24AM]

I'll say one thing for boris, I bet he WOULD have noticed, either from himself or by making the people do some research, that that is way overpriced.
On the other hand, he is a conservative so if he had shares in that company he would not mind ;)

[retro77 @ May 1st 2008 9:34AM]

All I want is frickin sharks with cameras attached to their heads! Is that too much to ask for?

[technophobe @ May 1st 2008 9:50AM]

The UK is certainly not perfect but its probably one of the best countries in the world to live in, I certainly have no plans to move, what coutries are better?

[Wwhat @ May 1st 2008 10:19AM]

Wow, just wow, must be damn nice to be so out of touch and easily satisfied.
Not that I can name any specific country that's so great, most all seem to be awful when you focus on them, so the best might be the one that allows you not to focus, and cameras every 10 yards makes that a bit hard for many people.

[Demas @ May 1st 2008 10:28AM]

Wwhat, since you earlier raised the issue of facts rather than your dreamt up ideas about the world, how many countries have you actually *lived* in to suggest technophobe is out of touch and easily satisfied? And I'm not talking about places you've been on holiday.

C'mon, facts please. One fact: there aren't cameras every 10 yards in Britain. Have you ever even been there?

[Wwhat @ May 1st 2008 1:32PM]

Ask google...

[majortom1981 @ May 1st 2008 12:15PM]

This is a good thing. I don't know about the uk but here on long island crossing guards and kids crossing with them are always getting hit by people who dont stop. Maybe this will be a way of catching those people and having video proof so you know who they are when they drive off.

[techFTW @ May 1st 2008 11:21AM]

Well from what i can tell from reading stories like this one, other countries of the world think we get watched all the time like it's some weird horror film or something lol. No, not the case.

Yeah the UK has a lot more camera's but what harm does this have an innocent people. Erm... none. I can't say that when i walk to Tesco's i get some strange paranoia because there are CCTV camera's down the street.

I can't believe the utter rubbish that people are saying lol. Yeah there are LOADS of studies to say weather it had an effect on crime rates some say yes some say no. Personally i couldn't give a eff if im recorded on camera, im not doing anything wrong i have nothing to hide.

Another thing that's rattling my cage from these comments is the whole "i wouldn't want to live in the UK right now..." idiocy xD I can't say there are many places that are as safe as the UK lol. The worst we have to deal with is silly chav's xD

These camera's are worthy if you ask me, the publicity they are receiving lets people know that if they drive like complete tossers they will get a big hefty fine and points on thier licence (well thats what i presume will happen lol)

Thinking about it, the shopping area's of my town have CCTV, some shop's, there's a few speed camera's, and well that's it. I can't see how this is like "big brother" but hey.

[fj1200 @ May 1st 2008 11:39AM]

Drink some more of that government Kool Aid..... You and the sheep like you are why England is such a police state, I moved out 12 years ago, because the crime was getting crazy, I had my car broken into 3 times in the last year I was living there. Since I have been in the US, I have significantly less concern about my safety, and if anyone ever tries to break into my house, I have the right to get out my gun, and make damn sure the asshole won't do it again to anyone else.

[adrian @ May 1st 2008 11:59AM]

@techFTW

I am not opposed to CCTV in general and in strategic areas where they really are needed, Maybe this is one area I may agree with you on, But the British goverment is abusing the concept of CCTV by placing them everywhere and using terror as an excuse to justify it.

You say you don't mind them everywhere, that's fine, it your choice, But not everyone want's to be watched, And it's not because their are up to no good, It's just their right, A right that should be respected and excercised in a so call free country, A country in where the very same ministers in power like to lecture other countries like Iran and North Korea about their citizens rights.

By putting all these cameras everywhere and watching everyone shows there's a high level of mistrust between the British goverment and it's cizitens. You don't even know what they are doing with the recorded infomation, as no one in goverment accountable for there actions, Despite their so call privacy laws.Can you protest or fight it?, not with these terror laws in place. It's covert repression of the worse sort.

By the way, crime is getting worst since surveillance based Labour came to power.

[treetrunk @ May 1st 2008 3:05PM]

@adrian:

Since when do we have the right not to be watched? If you're in public you do not expect privacy, by definition. It's not like they're putting cameras in people's homes.

[badkarma @ May 1st 2008 12:43PM]

it never ceases to amaze me how many people are against cameras used to prevent or provide evidence for crimes.
it is our job to make sure that the people with access to these tools are using them for their intended purpose.

i love my privacy. but i also do everything i can to do the right thing. so i have no problem being filmed when i screw up - i am adult enough to accept responsibility for my actions.

[Wwhat @ May 1st 2008 1:41PM]

Words fail me..

[Wwhat @ May 1st 2008 1:42PM]

Ok I have a few words: If you are so adult why do you need a nanny?

[phanbouy @ May 1st 2008 2:07PM]

yeah, seriously. i mean, i totally engage in non-indecent sexual acts that are in no ways perverted. so yeah, i have nothing against 24/7 surveillance of my bedroom and bathroom and shower and ...

[Grindboy @ May 1st 2008 1:04PM]

1. Its lollypop people not crossing guards
2. We have cities in Britain, we don't all live in little thatched cottages in little towns
3. Were so brainwashed that we don't notice the cameras. I'm sure if you came over you'd go *que really poor American accent* "wow that's a lot of cameras" they've crept up on us so we don't notice!

[Demas @ May 1st 2008 2:11PM]

I think that there is a balance between being so brainwashed that we don't notice the cameras, and being so brainwashed to think they are everywhere. They aren't. Yes, if you use public transport, go near public buildings, or walk through town centres where there are pubs, clubs etc, then there are plenty of cameras. There are even flashing warning signs *saying* there are cameras. This is not "covert repression" as someone said. It is neither covert (it's not like anyone is trying to hide them), and sorry but if you feel repressed by surveillance in public places then I've got to ask what it is you want to do that you feel the need to repress.

And if we actually had sufficient police back on the streets to do the equivalent job of all those cameras, what would people say? We live in a police state! You can't win.

Don't forget, cameras are used by people *doing their job*. It is nobody's job to sit watching the world go by like they were in a cafe. Some security guards may think that's their job, and companies waste plenty of money employing them, but some parts of the media portray CCTV as some kind of peep show. This is plainly obvious from some of the comments posted here. Get real! Monitoring CCTV is about spotting criminal activity, and don't imagine those doing the job really care, or have the time to care, about random members of the public who are just going about their life. I've had access to confidential records about members of the public before and (a) the idea that it would be exciting to go looking up stuff about your mates lasts less than 5 minutes into the job, and (b) access is tracked so it would be flagged by the system. Same goes for all that CCTV.

And in any case, if people are so offended at being watched, maybe cafes should be banned -- all those people just sat their (horror) *looking* at people! Maybe we need a new crime of "looking at someone else". Force people to only look at the pavement as they walk down the street. Fear of cameras is a symptom of a society that is conditioned by the media (and/or government, but the media are responsible for carrying the message) to fear other people, and that fear becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of irrational mistrust.

People need to chill out, respect others, and obey the law. If everyone did that, then the government and businesses wouldn't spend the money installing cameras!