Slashdot Mirror
Britain to Pilot GPS Speed Governors
Rich0 writes "In a new twist on traffic speed enforcement, The Times is reporting that Britain is piloting a new device which will use GPS to actively prevent speeding. The device will initially be offered in conjunction with discounts to the London congestion surcharge." From the article: "A study commissioned by London's transport planners has recommended that motorists who install it should be rewarded with a discount on the congestion charge, which tomorrow rises to £8 a day. The trial Skodas were fitted with a black box containing a digital map identifying the speed limits of every stretch of road in Leeds. A satellite positioning system tracked the cars' locations. "
Considering how many mouth breathers seem to think that the roads are for playing GTA and not getting from point A to Point B, I'd love to see this here. I follow the speed limits to the letter becasue I've NEVER seen an unreasonable speed limit anywhere in my travels. (I've driven in almost every state except, Hawaii and Alaska) Sorry folks, but the roads are for people like me to get safely from one place to another. If you want to speed, go find a race track and have at it. If you want to get your testosterone rush on, then play GTA. Otherwise, mind the speed limit.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
in police cars.
I can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen police in the US get away with speeding because they're the police. For some reason, I can't imagine it being much different elsewhere around the world since government corruption doesn't know geographic boundaries.
They'll come up with excuses like people trying to track law enforcement or something like that and that's why they won't be on the grid.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Plus, everyone's seen school buses with their regulators, going 60mph on the highway. No one wants to be like them/
So what will happen if your GPS doesn't work? Maybe someone uses one of the commercially available GPS jammers, or homemade ones: http://www.phrack.org/show.php?p=60&a=13
Will they not give you the congestion charge discount? Will they slow down the car until the GPS signal is re-acquired?
Who says the GPS device needs to be going the same speed as my car? How are they going to ensure that I didn't leave my GPS device in my garage while I take out my minivan for a street race? I predict that later GPS will replace human police in the seeking of speed limit violators. Go too fast, and the GPS connects to a violation reporting server and uploads your tracking number and the type of violation (exceeding speed limit for area, failing to stop at a stop light, etc.) Of course, I am sure there will be ways to crack it, but what if insurance companies start using GPS data to calculate your risk factor based on where you park your car (in front of a pub, at Wal-Mart). Don't take me too seriously though, I have a tin foil cap embedded in my skull. ;-)
Powered by caffeine and sugar; BSD
still think you're free? fear fear fear, they'll whack you over the head with it over and over, give away your power, let the state protect you, it's children. the prison without walls is still a prison. sheep, slaves, call it whatever. this is bullshit, and the sad thing is that people will probably take it lying down. back to sleep sheep, we'll install more televisions and strobe lights and what-not to keep you entranced... oh look tom cruise, football. wakeup ppz
If you thought congestion was bad before, what if it accidnetly limits you to 40kph in a 100kph zone?
What does one have to do with the other? Anyone who can speed in Central London during congestion charge is pretty fortunate.
I really don't like this sort of thing. can we lose the attitude that driving past the speed limit is the be all and end all of road safety. There is never a speed at which driving abruptly changes from "safe" to "dangerous".
This joke may need to be explained to us Yanks. ;)
Dude, that's stupid. There's a little something called "flow of traffic." You're blocking traffic if you're going 55. Sure, it may be the law to go at the speed limit (55 around where I live), and you _can_ get a ticket for going with the flow of traffic if you exceed the speed limit, but that does _not_ mean you don't have a responsibility to be mindful of the environment around you and your fellow drivers.
Perhaps in a situation where everyone else EXCEPT you is speeding, and a fast moving car comes up behind you from over a hill and has to suddenly brake hard, causing the car behind him to have to brake hard, etc... Sooner or later, somebody's getting rear ended.
Also worth taking into consideration is a scenario in which someone is trying to flee a violent crime... Or perhaps rush a seriously wounded person to a hospital...
Personally, I normally set my cruise control right on the speed limit. I'm getting a little older and more mature, and paying speeding tickets just isn't as entertaining as it once was. Still, I can imagine several scenarios in which exceeding the posted speed limit would not only be justified, but the right thing to do.
I'll not be turning that decision making process over to an automated system, voluntarily, any time in the near future.
I haven't RTFA yet, but unless this system allows for some sort of "manual override" by the driver, I think it's a horribly bad implementation of an idea that wasn't all that good in the first place.
I have avoided two major accidents in my life by punching the gas to squeeze through a shrinking car/car or car/wall gap. If I was already doing the speed limit [which I was in both cases] and the vehicle was prevented from executing a sudden and dramitic increase in velocity I would have been caught in both resulting in unknown injuries [one of those accidents I avoided did have fatalities...]. The lack of this abiltiy may not have 'caused' the accident, which was the thrust of your question, but in both case I was clearly not part of the ongoing accidents because I was able to immediately accelerate and avoid them [I really miss that car....]. This idea sucks ass.
Cameras in public aren't too threatening - after all, it's public, where expectations of privacy come only from one's incompetence at spotting voyeurs, or their incompetence at staring. Embedding spies in private vehicles is across that essential line, even if it starts out voluntary. Only rich people will be able to speed, or even just afford to avoid the surveillance. Until the "nondiscount" fees are unaffordable.
The real invasion of this system is that the raw data will be used not only to trigger a GPS speed limit. No, it will inevitably be used to halt cars driven speeders, then suspects of other crimes, then any "person of interest" to the police, or their political bosses. The stored records will be used to track people wherever they drive. The entire population will be tracked everywhere we go, and people's sense of privacy will go extinct.
--
make install -not war
Passing another vehicle on the road is perfect example. You have to accelerate to pass the car that is in front of you. A legal move.
A car that decides to cross a road at a moment you are going through that road. In certain circumstances, the car could t-bone into you if the driver "assumes" you will continue to go faster. To avoid this, you speed up to miss him from hitting you from the side.
While probably very rare, if you are at a railroad crossing with about four tracks, and the speed limit there is 15 (I've seen areas with 5-10MPH signs near train tracks) and the gates start closing in on you, you can't accelerate to get out.
One time, a police officer sort of gave me "permission" to speed. It was an area where the highway forked, and traffic on the right side was at a standstill, and I was the only one of the left. Over the PA he gave me a "go ahead" to go faster than so he could get through to the other fork. There was no shoulder for me to turn off onto, so this was the only option of him to get by.
I'm sure there are a lot more examples where speeding is necessary on the road. Its the careless speeding that needs to be enforced. People that go 100+ on a highway of average 65-70 MPH drivers.
What the device should do, is somehow gather the average speed of cars in the area, and limit speed to the average so there are no careless speeders.
What I would give a shit about is the implications for the insurance companies to rip you off even worse than they already do. As an American you probably don't know how bad it already is - for me (a 17 year old male) to be insured on a basic, old car (say a VW bug) would cost somewhere between $2300 and $3500 (converted to US$ for your convenience). If they're mining all this data about exactly how and where I travel, they'll do anything in their power to declare me unsafe and raise my premiums. If I refuse to have a GPS tracker they'll assume I have something to hide and stick a statutory (and massive) penalty on me.
Most people survive being hit by a car going 30km/h. Most people die being hit by a car going 50km/h.
You probably survive if you have a frontal collision at 65-70km/h in a modern car. You will probaly die in the same collision if you go 150km/h.
These are the facts, taken from accident statistics.
Cameras in public are also nearly useless. They've only rarely, if ever, proven useful to catch a crime in progress, and are not particularly useful in court. They're a massive subsidy to the camera manufacturers, and that's about it.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
WTF?
1. It's not a tracking device. Its a one way GPS system with a map. That 'satellite positioning system' thats tracking the cars movement. Its in the car, not the sky. Tracking the car against a map is a fundamental part to make the system work.
2. What about when I need to speed to avoid an accident? Once again - WTF? Maybe if you were following at a safe distance and speed you wouldn't get into situations where speed was required to get you out of it. (There are extreem exceptions I know, but there are thousands of acciedents a day where less speed is a good thing).
3. It's a research trial. I think its great that somewhere has finally managed to implement a system that many have wondered about, finaly give a real trial. Yes, results can be manipulated and misinterpreted to a politicians viewpoint, but as long as the reseach, methodologies, and results are sound, I'm all for research.
4. People will just remove them. Well, concidering it is volentary at the moment, I guess that's the idea. If they were mandatory, removing them would be illegal. Ahh, Just like it is illegal to speed right now. Police would be given powers to check if you are breaking the law. And they could hand out fines and court dates. Just like they do with speeding today. Its an interesting system.
Bullshit. The speed limits havn't changed since the 50s, cars have.
How about human reaction times?
When you notice that hazard, you maybe have a fraction of a second to decide that speeding up is the only away to avoid it. The time required to remember how to override the system may exceed that fraction.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. -- Thomas Jefferson
"You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up
against -- then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful
gestures. We're after power and we mean it. Your fellows were pikers, but
we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to
rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack
down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes
them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible
for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding
citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws
that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted --
and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt.
Now that's the system...that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll
be easier to deal with."
There is never a speed at which driving abruptly changes from "safe" to "dangerous"
There's never an age where a child suddenly becomes an adult either... does that mean we should eliminate statutory rape laws, let 10-year-olds drive, and let cigarrette companies sell to grade-schoolers?
Laws are about reasonable compromise; there are always cases where the line seems wrong, but overall you just have to pick a reasonably good place. Likewise, something doesn't have to be the "be-all end-all of road safety" to regulate it. That's why we havea variety of traffic laws.
So we should all drive 30km/h (18mph!) any time there's a remote chance of someone being in the road? Seriously, you must be from Europe, where the EU has brought us the EURO-NCAP crash test for pedestrian safety. As Jeremey Clarkson on Top Gear put it, "There is an order for the people I care about in this world. Number one are my children in the back seat. Number two is ME. Somewhere, towards the bottom, is the bloke stumbling out of the pub into the middle of the road in front of me."
Nowadays I see signs slapped up all over my neighborhood- "we love our children, GO SLOW", "CHILDREN PLAY ZONE"(I kid you not), and so on. If they love their kids, why can't they a)supervise them when they're outside and b)pound it into their heads that ROADS AND CARS ARE DANGEROUS? Nevermind that in a state of half a million people, the only two kids to be killed in recent memory were both cases where parents backed over their kids(in #1, kids were playing/hiding in a pile of leaves; in another, the kid made a bee-line for the garage and ran behind the father's car right as he started to back up; both were truly tragic).
You probably survive if you have a frontal collision at 65-70km/h in a modern car. You will probaly die in the same collision if you go 150km/h.
70km/hr is 40-ish MPH. 150km/h is about 91mph. It should not be shocking that survivability at almost 26 MPH over the legal highway speed limit(in the US) is not so great as 20MPH BELOW. You've doubled the speed in both cases- no shit, there's going to be a difference. Stating "you're more likely to die at a higher speed" doesn't mean speeding is the primary cause of death in motor vehicle collisions, much less that speeding should be our #1 priority in traffic safety- which it pretty much is, because it earns revenue for police departments which are badly underfunded, especially since they've been forced to train/buy equipment to 'deal with terrorism'.
The problem is that anything over 5-10% is enforced like the world is going to end, and god help you if you're over 15-20%. You can get into a fist fight and get fined less than you will for doing 75 in a 65 zone- barely 5% over the 10% legal tolerance on speedometers.
Please help metamoderate.
" after all, it's public, where expectations of privacy come only from one's incompetence at spotting voyeurs, or their incompetence at staring."
There are two kinds of privacy, and they're getting mixed up every time this issue comes up. There is a privacy that comes from not being seen or having one's presence otherwise perceived by fellow humans. You don't have this kind of privacy in a public place, granted. You only have it some kind of seclusion.
But there is another kind of privacy - that comes from not being monitored and/or identified. From not being *watched*. Unless you have police or a private eye tailing you, in a modern city you're almost perfectly anonymous, even as you're being seen by hundreds of people, likewise anonymous to you.
I would argue that the latter kind of privacy is far more important and it certainly is the kind we're losing. This is the kind of privacy you lose when being monitored by CCTV, spyware, cookies, RFID, whatever technology does these days. Even if it doesn't identify you by name, it identifies you by a number of characteristics that's sufficient for purpises of marketing, law-enforcement and, if anyone wants, invigilation.
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
The one major problem with this that I see is that it actively slows you down. What happens if I need to go faster due to road conditions? What if going slower is actually less safe? What if I'm passing an 18-wheeler in the left lane, and suddenly he starts moving into my lane? With this system I don't have the option of accelerating to the speed I need to avoid the collision. Granted, the article did say that there's a hazard button on it. But frankly, if I'm in that kind of situation, I don't want to think about 20 different buttons to press. I just want to step on the accelerator and go 70 mph instead of 60 mph.
If you really want to stop speeding, increase the speed limit to say 90 mph on major highways, maybe 70 or 80 on minor ones. Basically, as fast as any reasonable person would attempt to travel on those roads. Personally, I wouldn't go 90 mph on any road unless it was basically straight and I had a good car. And I wouldn't break the 90 mph speed limit. Then, instead of having the police hide out with their radar guns, get them to find the people who are interfering with traffic and making problems.
Every time I see a police car, I hit the breaks automatically. Even if I'm going the speed limit. It's just a natural reaction now. That causes the car behind me to hit the breaks, and every car behind that one. This creates a hazard. If I didn't have to worry about the police, and the police stopped people who drive aggressively instead of people who stay in one lane and just go 70 instead of 60, you wouldn't have this kind of situation anymore. Also, they'd need to stop the idiots who go slower in the left lane than those the right lane is moving. But in general, instead of causing accidents they'd prevent them.
With regards to the argument made by those who appose this idea - that foolish drivers will abuse this trust - that's what the police are there for. Instead of stopping people who are just driving at their comfortable speed, they can be stopping idiots who aren't paying attention to the road or don't know how to drive well.
I don't know if that is an official term (probably not) but it's what I call it. Say you are stopped at a redlight, you and a line of cars. Light turns green. You can see the light change, but you can't go yet, you have to WAIT for the person in front of you to get going, and on up the line. it's nutz! People are looking at the back of the car in front of them, waiting for that car to move. You can see it happen, lead car gets going, then the next, then the next, etc., ie, the centipede effect. The result is a huge waste of time at a limited green interval just getting back up to speed, whereas if everyone looked at the light and just went, it would allow faster and more coordinated acceleration and smoother traffic flow. Drivers education would help here obviously, but it isn't taught like that.
Perhaps something like these speed governors, but timed with lights via wifi or something like that. Away from the lights you have normal throttle control, near the lights the speed sensors coordinate stopping and starting, so the line of cars could be smoother during the frustrating transition periods.
GPS terminals are only receivers, that's true. But installing them is the big hurdle in invading our privacy. Adding telemetry transmitters will be a much easier followup. Especially when they're bundled with "free" info services, like traffic directions.
Take off your fuzzy blinders - you're starting to boil, slowly, under the magnifying glass.
--
make install -not war
Wow, you must be one of those guys that like to blow by me when im doing 5 over the speed limit. You know, the guys weaving in and out of traffic because all of us inconsiderate asses would rather not die in a flaming wreck of a fireball.
Since you are one of those guys, any chance you could clear something up for me? What is it thats at the other end of your mad hurtling journey anyway?
Oh and as for this GPS thing, I think its horrid. Sure, it has some very very good points. I even envision a future where the cops can turn off the car of some drunk driver thats endangering innocent citizens as they flee. Whatever good this kind of big brother scenario can provide, is tempered by the huge loss of personal freedom we lose. I would rather remain free and find other ways to reduce or eliminate the evils this is supposed to solve. Trading loss of freedom for personal safety is a long slippery slope and once we start down it will very, very difficult to stop.
The carrot is that having the GPS speed limiter will reduce the (recently raised) congestion charge in London. The stick is that the UK government is hell bent on introducing pay-per-mile road travel. Introducing this technology under the guise of maintaining proper speed limits allows the charging system to be implemented by default simply by adding a mobile phone to the black box. If everyone had a black box and kept to the speed limit, then speed cameras would become irrelevant - therefore no revenue - therefore a new revenue has to be found - therefore pricing roads per mile.
The real problem is that the majority of people are not capable of driving a motor vehicle, yet it's considred an essential liberty to own one of these things. In the US at least, motor vehicle ownership and expenses are massively subsidized. Those gas taxes and license plate fees don't even come close to covering all of the costs of even road maintenance. They also fail to cover the costs of oil wars, covert ops to destroy democratic governments in oil producing nations, the yearly deaths caused by air pollution, public health costs of obesity, the costs to the public to support hospitals in taking care of people without insurance who are maimed or crippled in motor vehicle accidents, or the continued destruction of the environment. 80% of vehicle deaths occur without any impairment of the driver. Motor vehicles are an unsafe and inefficient means of getting people from point A to point B, and if capitalism wasn't subverted to provide very large subsidies for their use, it is doubtful that so many people would own them.
The privacy of one's private property, like one's house, is much more important than any privacy in public. That's not to say that the right to be "presumed innocent until proven guilty" isn't also important. Nor is the necessity of "due process", where "reasonable suspicion", "probable cause", or other evidence-based causes for state monitoring, as judged by a judge, documented for defense, and rescindable.
But public places are, as you mention, defined by witnesses. Being seen in public means one's actions are public: knowable to anyone who "looks". The police shouldn't have any less access to the public than do private citizens. But they also shouldn't have the power to stalk people in public, just as private citizens don't. I think you are creating a right to privacy in public, that really is just the right to due process in obtaining surveillance, the right to freedom from stalking. If you try to claim more privacy than we actually have a right to, like freedom from cookies which document our activities in another person's private space - and which are under our control - then you're not going to get everyone to agree on the absolute boundaries of this fundamental right.
--
make install -not war
Trying to legislate technology in some attempt to revoke the ability to do things that may or may not actually be illegal is... [*explitives deleted*]... well lets just say I don't think it's a very good idea.
I'll go you one better. In a free country, it's a necessity that EVERYONE have the ability to do something illegal when, in thier best judgement, it is necessary to do so.
"Of the people, by the people, and for the people"
NOT....
"Of the congress, by the president, and for the police..."
I agree that a system of law is necessary, along with the accompanying infrastructure. I'm also not advocating breaking the lay "just for fun", or anything of that nature. There are times, though, where specific situations arise where the letter of the law runs contrary to what the "right thing to do" is.
One example: 8 or 9 years ago I was out on a date with this girl. We were at a bar in her hometown, a town that I'd never been to before. When we left the bar and were on the way back to my car, I got jumped from behind by her ex-boyfriend. I beat him senseless, as my right to self-defense entitled me to do. He spent several weeks in the hospital as a result of that beating.
Here's the kicker, though. Even after he was no longer able to pick himself up off the ground, he kept mumbling threats about what he was going to do to her later. Even though I was, personally, out of danger at that point, I went back and increased the severity of his medical condition by several notches.
Was it wrong for me to continue to beat on a helpless man? To be honest, my gut reaction would be to say yes. At my trial, however, her testimony about the hell that this guy had been putting her and her children through for several years, and about how they had had a calm and peaceful life after what I did to him was enough to convince the judge to not only send me on my way, but to thank me for stepping up to the plate when the circumstances called for it.
By the letter of the law, I could have (and maybe should have) spent several years in prison. Thanks to the concept of "spirit of the law", I got turned loose, the judge actually THANKED me for what I had done, and a single mother and her two children now live a life free from constant harrasment.
So, no, I don't think it's a good idea to remove the ABILITY for people to choose to break the law.
(Don't even get me started on this "mandatory sentencing" bullshit....)
If everybody goes at the posted speed, there are fewer slower drivers, and the rate can be sustained for longer periods of time because fewer accidents will happen.
But that doesn't happen. Not everybody drives the posted speed. I grew up in the sticks, and I currently live in L.A. In neither place does everybody drive at the limit.
Do you have any idea of how dangerous it is to be behind some drooler who enters the freeway while going 40? I see this happen every day. The speed limit on the freeway is between 55 and 70, yet you have to deal with entering at 40 and trying to deal with merging into a lane going 20mph or so faster than you.
Do the cops ticket those clowns? No way; there isn't enough revenue to bother.
The fine is not the biggest part of the profit made by Governments. Insurance companies *LOVE* speeding fines because it allows them to charge you more for what is principally not an increased risk (your rate of accidents is actually a more reliable indicator).
Who wins? The insurance company as well as the government because a part of that increase is tax.
That's why speeding fines and abuse of the system is here to stay.
Insert
God, you're an idiot. You really think that the finding an illegal machine gun in Britain is easier than filling in some paperwork in Texas? Really? In that case, where do all these illegal machine guns go and what are they used for? From the evidence, it's certainly not gun crime.
We have about as many gun deaths in Britain every year than you have in the US every day*. Read that last sentence again, because I'm sure it's news to you. The US, which has roughly five times Britain's population, has roughly 365 times as many gun deaths per year. And the number of non-fatal incidents is similarly disproportionate.
Of the UK fatalities, almost all involved handguns and shotguns (most of them illegally owned; there are a few, heavily-regulated, legitimate reasons, such as farming use, why someone might be permitted to a gun licence and gun ownership in the UK). Gun incidents in the UK involving machine guns are all but unheard of: on the rare occasions that they do occur, the tabloid press isn't slow to sensationalise that element of the crime, so when it does happen we do hear about it. The lack of machine gun usage in the few gun crimes that do occur is a good indicator that the country isn't awash with them and that they aren't as easy to come by as you think.
You paint this picture that getting an AK-47 in Britain isn't much more difficult than buying a beer. Your picture couldn't be further from the reality. I suggest you check the facts first before making such pithy throw-away comments about something as serious as guns and gun crime.
(*US gun deaths for 2001, the latest year for which I could find statistics: 29,573, or an average of 567 a week, or 81 a day. UK gun deaths for July 2003 to June 2004, the latest records available: 81.)
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I've driven 100mph on a snowmobile. Never done that in a car.
Why haven't I driven 160km/h in a car?
Because I haven't been in any situation where that wouldn't have been grossly irresponsible and wouldn't have endangered others.
The snowmobile thing was out on a frozen lake, with perfect visibility and nobody near me. I also made my own tracks and drove back and forth a few times to ensure there were no bumps.
Death will come to us all. Let's live responsible lives and not be mesmerized by the wonderful possibility of being paraplegic survivors of probabilistically survivable 70km/h crashes.
Let the statisticians hypnotize themselves. Let ourselves concentrate on driving well and with foresight and control. And for the sake of the children (not kidding on this one): it's much worse driving 70km/h in a populated 60-zone than driving 110km/h in a deserted 90-zone.
Speeding does slow you down. Especially when it's significantly faster than the limit/traffic flow.
The reasoning is simple, there are enough people who don't want to get ticketed, die in a car wreck, ect. that when you are trying to maintain the high rate of speed you will eventually have to go around one of them, and sooner or later you will get stuck in the outside lane by one. The outside lane is called the slow lane for a reason. By the time you Unstick yourself the cars you were in front of in the other lane have already passed you.
Not only that but the spacing and cycle duration of red lights is such that you typically find yourself stoped at one for long enough that all those 'slowpokes' you left behind are now right next to you also waiting for the light to change.
And of course over the long haul the time you spend pulled over getting a ticket brings the average way down (as doese the wasted time on the bus when you finally loose your drivers license).
I average about 30k miles a year, mostly local travel on a few highways and local roads. And based on my experience a fast car is slower than a smart driver. I've frequently pulled up to red lights next to the guy who was so frantic to pass me (when I was already doing the speed limit) twice in about three years I've caught up to the guy made plain his discontent at my only doing +5 over on the highway, except he was pulled over and I'm shure I got where I was going well before he did. I've had idiots 'pass' me three or four times because thier in such a hurry they get themselves repeatedly stuck behind slower traffic.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea