BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Speed should be the individual's responsibility

The government shouldn't waste their time interfering in what should be an individual's responsibility. We all know that going too fast is dangerous and that if we cause an accident while driving we will be severely punished for it. Everyone is taught this while they learn to drive. Surely if you are mature enough to drive a vehicle then you are mature enough to weigh this up for yourself and follow the rules of the road. Speed cameras just catch people out who accidentally go a tiny amount over the limit, not causing any harm to themselves or others.
Speed cameras are a dangerous distraction to motorists

Motorists don’t just look down at their speedometer once to check their speed when a speed camera is nearby. A survey by Safe Speed revealed that 75% of drivers checked their speed at least 3 times over an 8 second period as they drive past a camera. This means that 40% of a driver’s time is spent looking down at the speedometer and not at the road. Assuming the camera has been sited due to a history of accidents, it has the opposite of the intended effect if less time is spent observing potential hazards and other cars. Travelling at 30mph, looking down at the speedometer for just 1 second means the vehicle has travelled 13 metres (42ft) without the driver concentrating properly on the road. (This includes half a second to glance down and half a second for your eyes to focus and re-focus). That is a total of 39 metres travelled if you check your speedo three times http://www.speedcameras.org In favour of road safety, not revenue
Speed cameras only detect 5% of all road accidents

Department for Transport figures show that exceeding the speed limit is a contributing factor in just 5% of all serious or fatal traffic accidents. This fact puts the whole argument of speed cameras into proportion because a vastly disproportionate amount of resources and publicity go into speed cameras when the truth is 95% of accidents are caused by factors other than exceeding the speed limit. Speed cameras cannot detect driving too fast for the road conditions, drunk drivers, not paying attention, misjudging distances, failing to indicate, etc. http://www.speedcameras.org In favour of road safety, not revenue
Cameras increased fatalities creating a “fatality gap” as decades of declining fatalities flattened out

There is no evidence and no logical reason to suggest a correlation between the advent of speed cameras and the declining rate of road casualty reduction. Research has consistently shown that speed cameras have a major impact in reducing casualties. Despite the positive impact of speed cameras on road casualty figures, however, the steep decline in road fatalities achieved in the 1980s has not been matched by the more gradual drop in fatalities in recent years. Sharp reductions in the number of road deaths were achieved between 1983 and 1993, and have been largely associated with the 1983 law making front seatbelt wearing mandatory, better car design and major reductions in drink driving fatalities. Factors likely to be responsible for the slowing rate of reduction between 1993 and 2003 include continued increases in traffic (up from 583 billion passenger kilometres 1993 to 634 billion passenger kilometres in 20025); sharp increases in motorcycle casualties (up from 427 in 1993 to 609 in 2002); a levelling-off of drink drive fatality numbers (up from 520 in 1993 to 560 in 2002; a decline in seatbelt-wearing and the increased use of mobile phones while driving. The factors contributing to the slowing rate of fatality reduction are currently under review as part of analysis of progress towards targets for 2010 casualty reduction set out in the road safety strategy. http://www.pacts.org.uk
Better car and medical technology has saved lives, not cameras

Improved car and medical technologies have undoubtedly contributed to the reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on our roads. However, these have not acted in isolation; the UK has improved its road safety record as a result of a wealth of measures including engineering, education and enforcement. The introduction of cameras has played a part through lowering the average speed on our roads. In 1997 70% of vehicles exceeded the 30mph limit; by 2007 this had fallen to beneath a half. http://www.pacts.org.uk
Driving behaviour has not changed since cameras were introduced

Cameras have slowed motorists down and road safety has benefited. The cameras have sent out a message that it’s not OK to speed. Prosecution of speeding drivers caught by camera appeared to have the strongest deterrent effect, although the primary purpose of cameras is to encourage lower speeds without prosecution. Furthermore, speed cameras and speed limits are intended to reduce differential speeds on our roads. This can be a major factor in accidents in addition to excessive speed. The proliferation of speed cameras is an important means by which to raise drivers' awareness of the dangers of speed and of inadvertent speeding, ultimately more than this and other forms of speed limit enforcement will be required in order to modify drivers' views on speed. Attention needs to be given to factors associated with overconfidence in being in control and with the broader social climate in which our car culture is embedded. http://www.pacts.org.uk
Cameras are money making, not life saving

Speed cameras are remarkably cost-effective. In a two-year pilot study of cameras in six counties, there were 280 fewer people killed or seriously injured at camera sites than would otherwise be expected. This means that the total cost saving of casualties at camera sites over two years was around £58m. This figure is several times higher than both the amount spent on camera enforcement (£21 million) and the amount raised in fixed penalty income (£27 million). When the reduction in casualties across the pilot area (4% reduction in KSI) is taken into account, it is estimated that the total benefit to society over two years is approximately £112 million. A previous Home Office Police Research Group cost benefit analysis of speed cameras found that cameras generate a return of five times the investment after one year and 25 times the amount after five years. http://www.pacts.org.uk
Speed Camera tolk my Licence

Because i was only a few km over the speed limit, I drive at least 10 hours a day as it my job Thanks to speed cameras i have to lose my job I belive it an in just as i am a better driver than a lot of them out there been driving for 20 years now never had an accident For the average person who just drives to work and do shopping they wont lose there licence but for people who drive all day and late at night its more likely for them to get court speeding
Speed cameras only detect 5% of all road accidents

Speed cameras are placed in locations where there is a significant accident record. Introduction usually leads to lower vehicle speeds and a better accident record. Speed cameras also act as a deterrent to dangerous driving and have successfully contributed to lowering average vehicle speeds on the UK roads hence lowering the accident risk. Road Casualties Great Britain 2006, found that injudicious action, which includes going too fast for conditions, following too close and exceeding the speed limit, accounts for 34% of fatal cameras highlighting that problems still exist with speed management. The 5% figure should be treated with caution as on average the police recorded two factors for each crash. With regards to speed limits, the DfT has always emphasised that they are legal guide that should be adhered to but that driver judgement should also be utilised as well. Speed cameras successfully lower vehicle speeds and have drawn attention to the need to drive at appropriate speeds within the designated speed limit. Camera policing of speed limits can only be introduced after all else has failed. In some cases, on roads identified by projects such as the European Road Assessment Programme (EuroRAP) there is evidence that the collisions are not speed related and therefore new cameras would not be installed and other measures used. Cameras are only installed at sites where at least 20% of drivers exceed the speed limit and there have been four deaths or serious injuries on a given 1km stretch of road within three years. Research (Stradling et al, 2003) has also shown that drivers stopped by police for speeding or who had been flashed by a speed camera had double the incidence of recent crash involvement suggesting that speed cameras have been successful in targeting dangerous drivers. http://www.pacts.org.uk
The government should not bow to public pressure

The reason that most people would like to get rid of speed cameras is because speeding fines are an irritating inconvenience that they would like not to have to worry about. They find justifying arguments, but at the end of the day their motivation is financial, a dislike of the fines, and the feeling that the government has 'robbed' them as punishment for what they see as a very small infringement. Public opinion does not really care about the lives at stake, just convenience. The government cannot back out of a scheme designed to protect its citizens just because they complain.
Authorities support speed cameras because it’s politically correct

After years of brainwashing from government and police adverts, leaflets, and pressure, most authorities embrace speed cameras and take it as fact that they are correct, without scratching the surface to find out the facts for themselves. However, a few councillors have broken rank and spoken out. Recently a councillor from Swindon said they are considering removing all of their cameras and several years ago a councillor from North Somerset said “We’ve created a Frankenstein’s monster... the cameras are simply an income generator, it’s a massive job creation scheme.” http://www.speedcameras.org In favour of road safety, not revenue
Cameras increased fatalities creating a “fatality gap” as decades of declining fatalities flattened out

If in 1993 the trend in the fall of fatal accidents had continued then in 2003 there would have been between 2000 and 2500 fatalities. The sad fact was that the decline in fatalities slowed right down leaving 3400 people dead in 2003. This is what is known at the “fatality gap”. Should the decline in fatalities remained the same then 6000 more people would still be alive today, and that’s just in those 10 years. http://www.speedcameras.org In favour of road safety, not revenue
Better car and medical technology has saved lives, not cameras

For the last 10 years the safety technology used in cars has improved leaps and bounds, with ABS now standard on virtually all vehicles, vastly improving control and stopping distances. Everyone now wears seatbelts and have at least two airbags with many modern vehicles having four in the front and two in the rear. Better designed structures help protect passengers and improved bodywork reduce the damage done to pedestrians on impact. Paramedics with better equipment are more capable of saving lives than 10 years ago and hospitals have new procedures and treatments. Car manufacturers and medical and technical professionals deserve the credit for saving lives, not speed cameras. http://www.speedcameras.org In favour of road safety, not revenue
The 'desert' theory of punishment argues that the retribution taken by society against an offender s...

The 'desert' theory of punishment argues that the retribution taken by society against an offender should be proportional to the harm he has caused the victim. For example, a person who kills is more culpable than a person who robs or hurts. As the harm caused by children is no more than that caused by adults in a similar offence, they should not be entitled to special treatment. The assumption that children are not as morally culpable as adults is false, and countries like England recognise the age of criminal responsibility as 12 years.
Punishing children more leniently than adults undermines the deterrent value of punishment. In 1998 ...

Punishing children more leniently than adults undermines the deterrent value of punishment. In 1998 in the US, 29% of all high school boys own guns. The message being sent out would be that if children committed crime that would be all right. In the state of Virginia in a 1996 survey for example, 41% of youth have at various times either been in a gang or associated with gang activities. Of this, 69% said they joint because friends were involved and 60% joined for ‘excitement’. This clearly shows that youth do not take crime seriously because of the belief that they will be leniently treated.
Rehabilitation (counselling and psychiatric treatment) is a soft option that will make children beli...

Rehabilitation (counselling and psychiatric treatment) is a soft option that will make children believe that they are spending short periods of time in a holiday camp. In the US, more than half the boys who were put under counselling orders after offences rather then under detention ended up re-offending during the period they were undergoing counselling. It is better if whatever rehabilitation programme is planned takes place in some sort of detention facility. They can still be separated from hardened adult criminals, but that does not mean they should not be detained for similar periods of time.
The 'desert' theory of punishment argues that the retribution taken by society against an offender s...

Subjective culpability should play as important a part in punishment as the harm principle. That is why murder is punished more severely than negligent manslaughter, even though both cause the same harm. Children are not capable of making the same moral judgements as adults. That is why children are no allowed to vote, drive or watch certain movies. It is in recognition of the inability of children to form moral judgments that makes them have less subjective culpability and therefore worthy of lighter punishment.
Punishing children more leniently than adults undermines the deterrent value of punishment. In 1998 ...

The deterrence theory assumes that all crime is committed by a rational evaluation. If indeed 8 or 10 year old children are capable of making rational calculations, then the prospect of spending several years in reform school should be no less a deterrent then spending the time in jail. It is still a curtailment of their liberty and if they are rational, they would not want their liberty curtailed. The real problem is that most crime are committed by people who do not make such rational calculations before hand.
Rehabilitation (counselling and psychiatric treatment) is a soft option that will make children beli...

The only long term solution to juvenile crime is reform of the child. Children are more susceptible to reform and the rates of recalcitrance for child offenders under counselling in the US is significantly lower than that of adult offenders. Even if some end up re-offending, it does mean that just under half of those who had been given the chance to return to normal life took up that chance and did not re-offend. Putting them in a prison, and even worst with adult offenders is likely to increase the chance of recalcitrance because they will be in the same environment as other offenders who will be a negative influence on them.
More evidence in courts of law would help to fight terrorism and organized crime

The plan would increase the available pool of information that can be used in courts of law. In the times of actual threat of terrorism, intelligence agencies gather much information. With the introduction of the Patriot Act in the US after 9/11, increased scope of action for Australian intelligence after bombings in Bali, strengthened intelligence in Spain after terror acts in Madrid, and other cases, intelligence agencies have information that can and should be used as evidence. We believe that it is clear that more sources of information that is relevant to the cases can only lead to more correct decisions in the court. More evidence can help both the prosecuting side and the defendant, thus the likelihood that the court will arrive to correct decision would increase. Let us elaborate more on correct conclusions. For example, drug lords are very hard to prosecute, because without information obtained by intercepting communication channels, using bugs to record sound, and infiltrating people into organization the cases can hardly be solved. Moreover, if we do not allow intelligence information to be used in courts, we might end up in situations where criminals caught right before committing a felony can be accused of little more than illegal possession of weapons. Terrorist organization, plotting a new 9/11, could not be prosecuted since the evidence is not admissible in the courts of law. We see that intelligence information is generally helpful in many cases. There are plenty of instances where intelligence evidence was of some help for convicting criminals. For instance, convicting the people who wanted to blow up commercial airliners several weeks ago[[http://www.planetdata.net/sites/intelligence/news.php?story=25819]]. Intelligence information is of help in many cases, both widely known (Godfathers of New York mafia) and other cases[[http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/05/08/revealed-mi5-helped-to-trap-scotland-s-sickest-paedophile-gang-86908-21341335/]] [[http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/CIA-helped-India-Pak-share-26-11-intelligence-Report/424128/]]. This is not only a collection of random stories. Responsible authorities usually conclude that more admissible evidence would increase the likelihood of conviction for the criminals. For instance, Canadian government's report on electronic surveillance reaches these conclusions[[http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/abt/dpr/le/elecsur_06-eng.aspx]]. The correct outcome is when people who threaten the stability and peace of the society get adequate punishment. It is just common sense to use information which is already gathered by intelligence agency.
Our plan

We acknowledge that legal environment is complex and extremely diverse among different countries. Nevertheless, we believe that the underlying principles of our proposal are unambiguous and can be put in a precise and clear plan. We say that all evidence gathered by intelligence agencies is admissible in the courts of law. However, there are several things which our stance does not imply. First, although any form of evidence is admissible, it does not mean that the courts have any obligations to use evidence just because it is there. Obviously the court has discretion not to use the evidence when it finds the use of it damaging to the public interest. So, our plan is fully compatible with public interest immunity principle. Second, it certainly does not mean that we actually allow all forms of collecting intelligence. To be more precise, our plan does not implicitly promote torturing people. Methods which are legal to obtain evidence are to be decided by the legislation of a certain country. However, our plan directly implies that once we have evidence, we do not care about the method of how it was collected. It could have been talking to people, eavesdropping or intercept evidence – it is admissible in courts of law in all of these cases. To make it more clear: under the status quo some methods of gathering intelligence are allowed after authorization of a relevant authority, while their use in courts of law is not (for instance, most intercept evidence in the UK). Our plan leaves the methods for intelligence gathering untouched and dependent on the legislation of a certain country, but makes it admissible in courts in every case. We set up the debate in modern liberal democracies where the purpose of intelligence services is to collect information for the purposes of national security.
Our plan does not create additional incentives to gather information using illegal means

Our plan might raise a question of whether the intelligence agencies will have more incentives to gather the information using illegal means once all evidence is admissible in courts of law. We believe that any perverse incentives created by the plan are negligible, and here’s why. Under our plan the collection using illegal means remains prohibited in the first place. If intelligence agencies gathered evidence using illegal means and presented it at the court, obviously we would use the evidence due to its relevance. At the same time, the intelligence agency would be liable for breaking the law and would have to bear the consequences of their action according to the legislation. It is essential to realize that intelligence agencies should be very reluctant to admit that they had been gathering intelligence using illegal means. First, it is a direct damage to them due to becoming liable for their actions. Second, prestige is of key importance to these institutions. Once the fact that illegal methods were used for intelligence purposes is known publicly, the society would put huge pressure on the institutions because of illegitimacy of their actions. That is likely to result in a change of the main officials and also the decrease in the powers of intelligence agencies. Hence, we can see that due to incentives not to use the illegally obtained information, intelligence agencies would be willing to use illegal means no more than they are at the moment.