Smrt na avtocesti: videonadzor ne pripomore k večji varnosti

Ah ne bluzi. Človek je čisto navadna žival, taka malo bolj krvoločna. Ko izgine nadzor, je tudi humanosti konec.

Kamere ne morejo preprečiti nesreč so pa lahko koristne v preučevanju vzrokov, in če je potrebno odpravi razmer, ki so to nesrečo povzročile, da se prepreči še en tak dogodek.

ker očitno nimaš dosti pojma o protipedofilskih preiskavah.

Bi rad primere dokazano lažnih obtožb? Seznam ljudi, ki so bili po krivem obsojeni?

Ja. Brez nadzora (ki ga mora imeti vsaka normalna družba) bi se poklali med sabo.

It is highly situational, and as will be shown, does have some crime prevention capacity in the right situations. Although CCTV has many functions, the primary preventative utility is to trigger a perceptual mechanism in a potential offender. It seeks to change offender perception so the offender believes if he commits a crime, he will be caught. ... For this crime prevention process to succeed, two elements must exist:

1. The offender must be aware of the cameras' presence.
2. The offender must believe the cameras present enough risk of capture to negate the rewards of the intended crime.

In theory, CCTV should provide the capable guardianship necessary to prevent a crime, but this concept requires that offenders demonstrate rationality in their behavior. There is certainly the suggestion, and some qualitative evidence, that potential offenders who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs may not care or remember that they may be under surveillance9. This may be a factor in the reason CCTV appears to be more effective in combating property crime than disorder and violent offenses.

The cameras may be able to assist in the detection and arrest of offenders. ... Although there may be some initial crime reduction due to the installation and publicity of a new system, offenders may soon learn what types of incidents elicit a police response and the speed of that response. The availability of local resources is therefore a factor in the success of this mechanism.

Undoubtedly CCTV evidence is convincing, though CCTV's ability to reduce overall crime levels through detection (rather than prevention) is less convincing and arguably a less effective way of impacting crime. For this mechanism to be effective, the implementer must believe arrests are the best way to solve a crime problem. There is some evidence from Australia that increasing arrests can have a short-term benefit, but the benefit fades in the long term without a more preventative policy.

there is some evidence that drug markets can continue operation in the presence of CCTV by changing their operating practices.

In some cases, the sheer lack of crime inhibits any robust evaluation. For example, the state of Illinois is reported to have spent $4 million installing cameras at all interstate rest areas. The cameras are monitored by state police. However both the Illinois Department of Transportation and the state police admit that serious crime at rest areas is extremely rare, with the latter identifying about 50 total crimes per year at all rest areas in the state26. With such low crime rates, it may be impossible to demonstrate any crime reduction benefit for the millions spent.

Recently, Gill and Spriggs 31 evaluated 13 UK CCTV systems, finding that six demonstrated a relatively substantial reduction in crime in the surveilled area when compared to the designated control area. Of these six, only two showed a statistically significant reduction relative to the control zone. In seven areas there was an increase in crime, though the increase could not be attributed to CCTV.

* CCTV appears to work best in small, well-defined areas (such as public car parks)
...
* There is an investigative benefit to CCTV once an offense has been committed

To move beyond a strictly statistical interpretation, it is possible to say there was some evidence of crime reduction in most of the systems reported in the appendices. In other words, CCTV will almost certainly not make things worse

It has been suggested that ever-increasing surveillance can make the local environment a less pleasant place to live. Of course, it may also reduce fear of crime and increase public participation in public space. This may be an acceptable benefit from the ongoing costs of a CCTV scheme.

The evaluations described in the appendices suggest that CCTV is not a panacea that works in all circumstances. In a number of cases, CCTV has not reduced crime. In others, it has. The context is therefore important. There may be other solutions that are cheaper, more flexible, and quicker to implement than CCTV.

In kakšen strokovnjak si ti, Marko? V tej temi pravzaprav nisi napisal enega konstruktivnega prispevka.

Glede raziskave pa se da ugotoviti ali je v redu ali ne predvsem glede na uporabljeno metodologijo.

jst se v tej temi nisem skliceval na razne študije in zastopal razna druga (strokovna) mnenja ipd, temveč sem podal predvsem lastno mnenje.

Ni čisto tako. Predvsem si se delal norca iz drugih udeležencev. Ob strani imaš filter, pa si lahko ogledaš svoje "prispevke".

kar se pa tiče samih raziskav in metodologije pa se mi zdi, da je samo poznavanje le-te veliko veliko premalo. ker če se na neko področje ne spoznaš, za začetek sploh ne moreš vedet če je bil zajem podatkov ustrezen.

Seveda lahko veš. Vse kar rabiš vedeti je, kakšna je populacija, kakšen je bil vzorčni okvir, kako so vzorčili, kako je potekal zajem podatkov, kakšne merske napake so bile. Kako je potekala statistična analiza. No, pa še kaj, ampak že iz tega se da veliko ugotoviti.

BTW: ti si tudi prometni strokovnjak? Ali si strokovnjak na splošno?

kot da bi vlekel paralele med učinkovitostjo algoritma za stiskanje podatkov in učinkom antivirusnih programov...dve popolnoma različne stvari!

se globoko ne stinjam.

BTW: ti si tudi prometni strokovnjak? Ali si strokovnjak na splošno?

na področju prometa sem laik, na področju kemije pa se imam za poznavalca

Če kamera ne prepreči terorističnega napada, zakaj bi preprečila prometno nesrečo?

Je ne prepreči. Lahko pa omili posledice.

dedalus, kamera sama ne bo naredila nič, kamera je pripomoček, ki v kombinaciji z drugimi službami/znaki prepreči ogromno nesreč!

. kovačič, še vedno nisi sposoben odgovoriti na moje vprašanje, in niti se nisi odzval na vabilo, da ti prkežem delovanje takega sistema, ampak ti raje še vedno nakladaš v prazno...zmeraj svojo goni slavček

Racionalnost kamer in nadzora v prometu bo treba v slovenskem prostoru šele dokazati

No... ta je pa bosa.

Nič ni bosa, lepo sem naštel kar nekaj pomembnih primerov. Če trdiš drugače, lahko recimo postrežeš s podatki, koliko smrti so preprečili varnostni pasovi... Ali, ker tega jasno ne boš našel, morda trdiš, da nimajo pozitivnega vpliva na varnost?

sem naštel kar nekaj primerov kako lahko kamere pomagajo v preventivi,pa bom še enega: v predoru se ustavi tovornjak na voznem pasu, oprater preko spremenljivih znakov zmanjša hitrost na 60km/h in preusmeri vozila na vozni pas, s tem preventivno opozori ostale udeležence na nevarnost in zmanjša nevarnost naleta - verižno trčenje v predoru vsi vemo kaj pomeni! Jaz temu rečem preventiva in meni se to zdi zelo dober razlog za nabavo kamer, za razne pyrobeaste bi bilo to brezveze, ker on sploh ne vozi po tunelu:)

Kamere LAHKO zagotavljajo vecjo varnost v povezavi z ustrezno signalizacijo in ustrezno programsko opremo, ki kamere krmili.

Kaksno je stanje danes ne vem. Ce ni tako, kot sem ga opisal, potem treba te kamere popraviti in nadgraditi.

Ce snemajo kar tako promet samo zato, da ga snemajo, potem je seveda jasno, da neke dodatne vrednosti te kamere ne nudijo.

Posnetki kamer so sporni? So, se strinjam. To, da pa trdite, da od takih posnetkov ni nobene koristi je pa visek ignorance. V primeru nesrece se lahko po nesreci ugotavlja kaj se je dogajalo in zakaj je prislo do nesrece.

A trdim kaj drugega?