By Frank Williams
January 31, 2008
Filming yourself speeding has become an problem of pandemic proportions in Great Britain. Or at least that's what it would seem, based on the way the constabulary in England and Wales are reacting to the videos of highway hoonage on YouTube and other sites. Equating the videos to slasher flicks and pornography, the Old Bill wants the government to pass laws banning them. Apparently, the home-made vids "encourage more young people to speed and in turn, more young people to get killed." In Fife, Scotland, Chief Inspector Alex Duncan actually spends time scouring YouTube looking for the videos. He says if he can identify anyone in the footage, they'll persecute prosecute them. Even more Big Brotherish, Duncan hints at a wider probe. "What really scares me is how many people are doing this and not putting it on websites where we can find it." YouTube says it won't ban the videos, but if police think a post is evidence of a crime, they should "get in touch with them." While TTAC doesn't condone lawbreaking, and we accept the police's right to investigate criminal matters, we defend freedom of speech and personal privacy in all its permutations. And the video here was shot on a derestricted section of the German autobahn. In case you were wondering.
Subscribe to New Content Alerts16 Comments on “ British Thought Police Look to Ban YouTube Hoonage ”
Leave a Reply 
Back to Top
You must be logged in to post a comment.
POWERED
January 31st, 2008 at 11:53 am
I don’t get it. Once someone posts something on the internet it is hardly private any more. Plus if you post a “crime” you commited yourself you should be arrested for stupidity.
Also, what does “derestricted” mean?
January 31st, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Also, what does “derestricted” mean?
From dictionary.com:
derestrict
verb
make free from restrictions
In other words, there is no speed limit on those sections.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
“Derestricted” means no speed limit Juniper.
Additionally speeding in and of itself is not considered a crime by many people and many jurisdictions. In the larger scheme of things, there are far more serious crimes. Seriously, speeding is probably the most often broken law, virtually every driver exceeds a speed limit – quite probably every time they drive their car. Very few people commit robbery or murder however. Shouldn’t the police be more concerned with crimes against people and property? Driving 30 MPH over some arbitrarily set limit does no harm to anyone really, so why waste the resources of the State to investigate a victimless crime?
If people or property are ACTUALLY HARMED, then by all means prosecute. But, no harm, no foul.
–chuck
January 31st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
There’s no speed limit on those sections.
I don’t have a problem with the police using the internet to catch criminals, either. My problem is with the British government trying to force YouTube to remove these videos. They have no right to.
The thing I’m wondering is, why is Duncan surprised that people are hiding it better? That’s just frighteningly naive.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:36 pm
chuckgoolsbee :
If people or property are ACTUALLY HARMED, then by all means prosecute. But, no harm, no foul.
I don’t really agree with this logic. If two people are speeding at the same rate, and one gets unlucky and gets into an accident, why should he be punished any differently. They both broke the law in the same manner and should receive equal punishment.
I have the same issue with Drunk driving. The results of an illegal action shouldn’t have an effect on the punishment. If you break a law, then there should be a set punishment for that law.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
In Indianapolis, they have a traffic monitoring system on the metro area interstates that measures traffic flow. The local news stations use this information for reporting traffic tie-ups, etc. One station I watch in the AM shows a graphic indicating where traffic is flowing or congested. They also show the traffic speed in that area, the majority of the time it is 10-15 mph over the posted (suggested) limit (we really don’t have traffic in Indy). The traffic guy always says “traffic is flowing at the posted speeds” with a wry smile on his face.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
1996MEdition:
They also show the traffic speed in that area, the majority of the time it is 10-15 mph over the posted (suggested) limit (we really don’t have traffic in Indy). The traffic guy always says “traffic is flowing at the posted speeds” with a wry smile on his face.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens as drivers’ average speed data becomes more and more public. I’ve heard cell phone companies have this info – or can ‘create’ from cell-tower swapping data.
It’d be nice to know how fast traffic moves over certain roads at certain hours over a typical weekday/weekend/holiday. Ya know, in order to
plan your next hoon runavoid congestion…January 31st, 2008 at 1:16 pm
OK, I guess I’m being picky. Derestrict is a verb, unrestricted is an adjective. Derestricted isn’t anything. I just hadn’t seen derestricted used before.
I’ll go away now.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Yeah, wait till they try to slap you with a speeding ticket based on your cell phone company’s data.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I don’t know what “dictionary.com” is, but I have the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary–the 20- volume version (mine is miniaturized, needs a magnifying glass to be read). Neither derestrict nor derestricted are in it, and the OED is universally considered to be the last word in lexography.
“Lexography” probably isn’t in it either…
January 31st, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I don’t know what “dictionary.com” is, but I have the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary–the 20- volume version (mine is miniaturized, needs a magnifying glass to be read). Neither derestrict nor derestricted are in it, and the OED is universally considered to be the last word in lexography.
Dictionary.com is a site that looks up words using multiple sources. The source for ‘derestrict’ is WordNet which is run by Princeton University. Here is the reference:
derestrict
verb
make free from restrictions [ant: restrict]
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
I found this at Webster’s site:
derestrict
One entry found.
derestrict
Main Entry:
derestrict
derestrict can be found at Merriam-WebsterUnabridged.com.
Of course, the unabridged version is not free.
“Lexography” probably isn’t in it either…
Dictionary.com and Webster have no results for ‘lexography’.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:34 pm
OK, I guess I’m being picky. Derestrict is a verb, unrestricted is an adjective. Derestricted isn’t anything. I just hadn’t seen derestricted used before.
I would never use the terminology, but that’s what I have always seen when referencing the sections of the Autobahn with no limit.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
So…uh…when YouTube doesn’t take them down, whats the Crown gonna do? Ban YouTube? Free England YouTube? A revolt?
Or will it just be like the British Police?
“Stop, or I shall be forced to say stop again!”
January 31st, 2008 at 9:20 pm
i have been watching motorcycles weaving in and
out of traffic on youtube, going anywhere between
130 and 190 mph. scary stuff, kinda hard to sleep
after watching.
my german is nicht so gute/ just how fast is this
gentleman going? what kind of car? thanks
February 1st, 2008 at 6:10 am
That looks like a Vette dashboard to me.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:54 am
Mirko Reinhardt :
That looks like a Vette dashboard to me.
Give the man a cee-gar! It’s a Z06 to be specific.