Slashdot Mirror

To put this in a slightly different context, raiding an address because of the location prodived by an app doesn't always work out:

A LANDLORD says he is disgusted after police smashed down the door of his house looking for a burglar – after receiving information from an iPad app. The victim of the burglary had his iPhone stolen, but had software on his iPad that used satellite technology to trace his stolen phone. It pinpointed the phone to the house in Rufford Road, Sherwood. But when officers broke in they found no trace of it or the burglar.

It then goes on to quote an academic as saying:

"The apps' accuracy can be impressive. In an urban area the range is roughly 50m. But it cannot pinpoint an iPhone to a specific address in a built up neighbourhood.

So yeah, just because apps are handy doesn't mean they'll always provide enough evidence to raid somewhere on.

...the ground moves more than 3cm (in any direction)? It happens in major quakes; the 2006 tsunami was the result of the sea floor dropping over 2m. I've been through a 5-pointer, and the ground certainly moved more than 3cm, although it did move back as rapidly as it shifted. That one moved my entire house probably four inches and back, causing major structural damage (buckled window and doorframes, two cracks from foundation to roof) which is still being repaired after four years.. almost to the day, in fact(!).

What really gets to me is deliberately running over cyclists. As far as I can see, this should be treated as attempted murder (what do you expect will happen when you run over somebody with a heavy, motorised vehicle?).

A motorist who deliberately drove into a cyclist, left him lying in the road critically injured and then tried to cover his tracks has been jailed

A 63-YEAR-OLD disabled woman has been found guilty of dangerous driving after she deliberately rammed a cyclist off his bike as he rode home from work.

Sorry but that's bullshit.

It has been demonstrated in the UK quite successfully that speed limits and cameras do increase safety so saying it's about revenue generation is simply ignorant. I'm not even convinced they make more money sitting an officer on a road that is quite clearly signed that speed cameras may be in operation really nets them enough money to make up for the cost of paying that officer to sit there all day and paying for the costs of running the camera etc. anyway. If it was really about revenue you a) wouldn't get points for speeding so that you could be banned, they'd want you to keep getting caught and paying fines indefinitely and b) they wouldn't have to legally have signs up pointing out that speed cameras are in operation on a specific stretch of road. See here:

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Cameras-help-slash-Notts-road-deaths-injuriesarticle-900689-details/article.html

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/lawandorder/Speed-cameras-lose-money-save.5230243.jp

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/speed-cameras--have-cut-road-carnage-by-over-40-psni-13409612.html

http://slower-speeds.org.uk/cameras_reduce_speeding

Yes, correlation is not causation, but it's pretty strong evidence, particularly when road deaths decrease at a greater proportion in areas where speed cameras exist than where they don't even if road conditions are effectively identical. Furthermore, when a fatal accident does occur, accident investigators have to report the speed the car was travelling at as calculated by evidence such as the skid marks which tell the breaking distance and so on. In a high proportion of these cases (iirc about 50%) the vehicle in question was speeding. The remaining cases were real accidents such as lorries getting blown over and that sort of thing. Of course, there are plenty of sites countering that speed cameras improve safety but I've yet to see any that are more than just an opinion peice, or making a mountain out of a single anomally. Statistics relating to improved safety through speed cameras exist for large data sets and repeatedly show that cameras, and hence forcing most people to stick to speed limits does increase safety.

You state the safest way to drive is in a manner safe for the road conditions presented to you, but are you telling me you know the road conditions of every single road you might travel down? Say you travel down a road at 5:30pm every day from work as I do, there is a road that is 30mph which you can easily go safely down at 60mph at that time. Try doing it at 3:30pm though and I gurantee you'll again plow into a bunch of kids that come out of a school that is set back just behind the houses lining that road. The fact is, speed limits are there because they have been created with the hidden dangers on that road you do not know about in mind. What about the one day of the year that that corner you go round at 50mph is known to be prone to black ice formation that you weren't aware of? What you think is a safe speed to drive might not necessarily be correct, and different people have different opinions on what is safe, that's why it's better to have a sign for everyone to adhere to that has been tested to be the best balance between speed and safety.

Now, that's not to say I agree with this measure. The issue I have with speed limits are not that they exist, but that the dangerous people are those that ignore them anyway. Safe drivers follow them, if you remove them, safe drivers no longer know how fast is safe unless they truly know that specific road and it's hazard

oh yes we are

This week my local city center was gridlocked for over 2 hours because someone left their suitcase in the bus station, a not altogether unlikely occurence in a bus station.

If they're busy playing EQ then they won't be doing shit like this : Four-strong county council party flies club class to a conference in New Orleans at 2,699 pounds a ticket.

A trip that cost local tax-payers 58,000 pounds!

(for some reason slashcode won't let me enter £)

If they're busy playing EQ then they won't be doing shit like this : Four-strong county council party flies club class to a conference in New Orleans at 2,699 pounds a ticket.

A trip that cost local tax-payers 58,000 pounds!

(for some reason slashcode won't let me enter £)