Slashdot Mirror


UK To Passively Monitor Every Vehicle

DrSkwid writes "The UK Police are building a network to monitor the movement of every vehicle in the U.K. through an extensive Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. The data will be retained for 2 years. The Register further reports that the system will likely be used for issuing speeding fines." From the article: "The primary aims claimed for the system are tackling untaxed and uninsured vehicles, stolen cars and the considerably broader one of 'denying criminals the use of the roads.' But unless the Times has got the spacing wrong, having one every quarter of a mile on motorways quite clearly means they'll be used to enforce speed limits as well, which would effectively make the current generation of Gatsos obsolete. Otherwise, checking a vehicle's tax and insurance status every 15 seconds or thereabouts would seem overkill."

703 comments

  1. What's a Gatso? by chris_mahan · · Score: 2, Funny

    What's a Gatso?

    Don't misread that you dyslexic perv.

    --

    "Piter, too, is dead."

    1. Re:What's a Gatso? by Alioth · · Score: 4, Informative

      A type of speed camera.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatso

    2. Re:What's a Gatso? by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1

      The cameras used in a lot of European countries to monitor traffic and catch speeders. There's site with dozens of pictures of vandalized Gatsos somewhere out there.

    3. Re:What's a Gatso? by derrickh · · Score: 1

      It's an automatic radar gun. Sits on the side of the road and waits for speeders. Takes a picture, and a few weeks later (fortnight?) you get a ticket in the mail.

      D

    4. Re:What's a Gatso? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you mean they have to pay for all that bandwidth somehow?? They are evil.

    5. Re:What's a Gatso? by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else find the irony, in that this technology was originally used to help one drive faster (rally corners) but is now used to enforce speed limits, rather delicious?

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    6. Re:What's a Gatso? by s7uar7 · · Score: 1

      And to give you an idea of how prevalent they are in the UK, this is just one area of East London; I count at least 50.

    7. Re:What's a Gatso? by chris_mahan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Paying for bandwidth is one thing. These guys make plenty of money above the hosting costs.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    8. Re:What's a Gatso? by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      ah, summary justice at it's finest. You can't say Britain it lagging behind on progress, we're handing out new powers to dispense summary justice to the police almost every day, which creating crazy new laws just for summary justice purposes.
      I'm moving to sealand.

      --
      FGD 135
    9. Re:What's a Gatso? by lakin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gatso is the current yellow-back speed cameras, which uses the

      These new speed cameras (called SPECS) are already deployed on some parts of motorways and a few A roads (they look like yellow CCTV cameras), which have two cameras spaced about a mile apart and they calculate your average speed.

      Either way, i think these new systems are generally a good idea. Speeding is a problem, and the current speed cameras can in some areas cause more accidents than they save. I think all we need now are more dynamic speed limits, so A roads could become national when its quiet, but drop to 50 when its busy - kind of like they currrently drop some speed limits when the weather is bad.

      As much as i support them though, you are left thinking this is starting to give the government a bit too much control - as these systems dont just record you when you speed or have no tax, they record you all the time. I mean, if all you want to do is catch tax evaders, just stick them on a few key junctions. If you want to catch speeders, just put them on key accident sites. More complete deployments though gives them an easy way to monitor people. You can just imagine them changing the taxes so you are taxed more the more you drive. And heck, eventually they could do more advanced monitoring, say checking the type and colour of the vehicle, or even looking inside to see who is in the car. Maybe even detect drunk drivers. Once the network is there its only a small jump.

      So, who is up for making a number plate shaped LCD? Sounds like a good job for e-ink type displays! Granted, they might notice if your number plate changes at each camera (especially if you are always between the same two cars infront and behind).

      --
      Paul
    10. Re:What's a Gatso? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Man, do the British really have that big of a speeding problem? I mean, sometimes you have to speed up to pass a car or something. I'm not a crazy driver, but I think I'd still be getting tickets in the mail every day.

    11. Re:What's a Gatso? by Fatchap · · Score: 1

      Speeding is a problem, and the current speed cameras can in some areas cause more accidents than they save.

      A problem for whom? Do you have any good statistical data to back up the assertion that speeding is a problem? Not trolling just interested if that was opinion / truism or not.

      --
      The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
    12. Re:What's a Gatso? by MooUK · · Score: 1
      So, who is up for making a number plate shaped LCD? Sounds like a good job for e-ink type displays! Granted, they might notice if your number plate changes at each camera (especially if you are always between the same two cars infront and behind).

      Hmmm, but them noticing that is only really likely if humans are watching. And they won't be, ever. A system like this can't be anything but fully automated...

    13. Re:What's a Gatso? by computechnica · · Score: 1

      Didn't James Bond have this system of number plate changing?

    14. Re:What's a Gatso? by name773 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    15. Re:What's a Gatso? by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You can just imagine them changing the taxes so you are taxed more the more you drive.
      Newsflash: they can already do this. It's called the gasoline tax -- the more gas you buy, the more you pay in taxes.

      However, I agree that these cameras have bad implications for civil liberties -- and far beyond just traffic offenses. Once they're tracking you, they can be monitoring to see if you're engaging in any "terrorist-like" behavior, such as planning protests against an opressive government.

      Of course, this just makes me glad I don't live in Airstrip One.

      By the way, even if speeding were a problem, in this case the "solution" is worse.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    16. Re:What's a Gatso? by name773 · · Score: 1

      for a cheaper implementation (as far as looking like the real thing is concerned) try a mechanical system with several number plates on a track or something

      if you're happy with 2 you could put one on each side of a metal plate and flip it.

    17. Re:What's a Gatso? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No the speeding problem isn't really that bad. It just gives cops somethign to do rather then chase after dnagerous criminals.

      Actualy it probably gives them more time to do so.

    18. Re:What's a Gatso? by Baddas · · Score: 2, Informative

      He used a roller with several plates on it.

      Theoretically, you could use physical means, for example, the standard LCD-type lettering, with the bars pressed into a flexible semitransparent plastic of a different color, thus standing out like a "normal" license plate.

    19. Re:What's a Gatso? by menkhaura · · Score: 1

      As much as i support them though, you are left thinking this is starting to give the government a bit too much control - as these systems dont just record you when you speed or have no tax, they record you all the time.

      Aren't you happy, Citizen? Unhappiness is treason, and treason is punished with death! /ha ha, only serious.

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
    20. Re:What's a Gatso? by Air-conditioned+cowh · · Score: 1

      "Speeding is a problem"

      As are the current ridiculously low speed limits on motorways. I am quite happy to drive at 30mph in towns and cities and even drive at 20mph in 20mph zones but 70mph is _much_ too low for a motorway. Those roads, and the modern cars that drive on them, are good for at least 90mph, maybe even 100mph.

      In fact, in the early sixties the speed limit used to be 90mph but the cars of the day, and the driving skills of drivers not used to motorways who had passed less-strict-than-today driving tests, resulted in some spectacular accidents.

      I think that is why speed cameras on motorways are disliked so much, because one has to drive unnaturally slow for the type of road to comply with the limit.

    21. Re:What's a Gatso? by jazir1979 · · Score: 1, Flamebait


      ummm .. if you need to speed in order to pass them, you really shouldn't be passing them.

      --
      What's your GCNSEQNO?
    22. Re:What's a Gatso? by jazir1979 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Speeding is a problem for cyclists and pedestrians who have to share the roads with impatient maniacs.

      --
      What's your GCNSEQNO?
    23. Re:What's a Gatso? by EsbenMoseHansen · · Score: 3, Insightful
      A problem for whom? Do you have any good statistical data to back up the assertion that speeding is a problem? Not trolling just interested if that was opinion / truism or not.

      Don't know about UK, but in DK about 1 in 5 casualties of traffic is thought to be caused speeding. Those are the official numbers. I would imagine that the numbers are not so different in UK.

      Of course, such numbers comes with the usual reservations. No one knows if the casualty would have been suffered if the speeder had not, in fact, speeded.

      --
      Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
    24. Re:What's a Gatso? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      If you want to catch speeders, just put them on key accident sites.

      That doesn't make money though does it? Most speed cameras are on straight, safe roads with no pedestrians where everyone speeds because the limits are ridiculously low for the conditions.

      Speed cameras are revenue generators for the police and nowt else. Saving lives is just the excuse.

    25. Re:What's a Gatso? by ydrol · · Score: 2, Informative
      Man, do the British really have that big of a speeding problem?

      Partly speeding and partly seen as an easy source of revenue for the various boroughs.

    26. Re:What's a Gatso? by Taladar · · Score: 1

      No you couldn't, at least not in Europe, most of our number plates use letters with distinct curves so people can't e.g. convert an F to an E with black duct tape.

    27. Re:What's a Gatso? by nmg196 · · Score: 1

      Our license plates don't have letters that stand out... they're completely flat. You start with a sheet of clear plastic, put the letters on from behind (backwards) then cover the whole lot in sticky yellow (back) or white (front) plastic and shove it through some rollers to make sure the plastic never comes unstuck. We keep the same license plates for the life of the vehicle (unlike in some countries where the plate itself seems to change every year or so).

    28. Re:What's a Gatso? by speculatrix · · Score: 1

      You can just imagine them changing the taxes so you are taxed more the more you drive.

      We are taxed the more we drive... for each mile, I consume fuel, the cost of which is more than 75% tax in the UK. In fact, the UK government charge VAT (=~ value added tax, i.e. sales tax at the point of sale) on top of the excise duty already charged on the fuel, which means that the cost of the VAT is more than the actual value of the fuel!

      Stats sources:
      http://www.see-search.com/business/fuelandpetrolpr iceseurope.htm
      http://www.bts.gov/publications/journal_of_transpo rtation_and_statistics/volume_04_number_01/paper_0 6/html/table11.html
      http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/fuel/

    29. Re:What's a Gatso? by imdx80 · · Score: 1

      the uk's official figures are 66% (iirc) of accidents are speed related, but to get to this 66% they lumped a whole lot of accidents up, eg weather conditions, failing to judge a cars speed etc. Only 3% of accidents are solely caused by speeding eg going faster than the speed limit (which is the only thing a speed camera can catch) the other 63% were going to fast for the road conditions, eg dangerous driving or careless driving, which the only way of preventing is to have traffic police, which been moved into other areas since speed cameras have become prevalant in the uk This is why if you look at the raw data for a longer period than is usually supplied by the speed camera partnerships websites you'll see reversing trends in accident rates.

    30. Re:What's a Gatso? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      I don't think so.

      There are accident blackspots, in many of which there are no gatsos.
      There are 30 mph zones which don't seem particularly hazardous where
      they have these things. Everyone local gets to know where they are
      and slow down to 30 for the markings on the road. They sting those
      who are new to the area or a bit careless.

      It's described as a safety measure, and my God, you can't question
      anything to do with safety, after all if this saves the life of just
      one child.......

      I tend to the view that it's a money making racket, just another
      stealth tax, dishonestly fobbed off as a safety measure.

      It also has the effects of decreasing respect for the law and reducing
      the difference between the generally law-abiding and the reckless.

      I think most people stung by these things don't accept they've done
      much wrong, they just regard it as a sort of random negative lottery
      win.

    31. Re:What's a Gatso? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      It's not radar.

      It takes two photographs about 1/4 seconds apart. From that it's trivial to work out your speed (and both photographs can be produced in court as proof if necessary).

      Drivers hate them.. not sure why.. if someone broke into their house they'd expect the police to do something, but if it's *them* breaking the law they get upset???

    32. Re:What's a Gatso? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Most speed cameras are on straight, safe roads with no pedestrians where everyone speeds because the limits are ridiculously low for the conditions.

      I've heard the speed camera next to use described in *exactly* these terms by some idiot who thought that doing 60 down a 30 zone was perfectly OK (now lost his license, thank god).

      Yes it's a long straight road. There's also a school just on the corner that isn't visible if you don't know the area.

      Hell, I've narrowly escaped death a couple of times myself when drivers, assuming that red lights don't apply to them, have driven at 50mph+ across the pelican crissing.

      If it was a minority of drivers it would be managable, but these last few years it's got to be a majority... stand next to a junction sometime and see how many cars jump red lights.. you'll be surprised.

    33. Re:What's a Gatso? by Soruk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you also aware that once you go much above 65mph your car's fuel economy plummets, so although you're going faster you're not only using fuel faster you're also using more per mile you travel.

      OK, maybe you do like lining Gordon Brown's pockets. I sure as hell don't.

      --
      -- Soruk
    34. Re:What's a Gatso? by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      They don't photograph every vehicle, so presumably the camera decides which cars to photograph based on radar input, and then takes the two pictures at 0.25s interval to corroborate the radar measure.

    35. Re:What's a Gatso? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Yes it's a long straight road. There's also a school just on the corner that isn't visible if you don't know the area.

      No, there isn't. There's no school, no pedestrians, nothing, it's a dual carriageway.

      And cameras don't catch people doing 60, they catch them doing 35. On the other hand there are no speed cameras outside schools, as there's not as much money to be made there.

    36. Re:What's a Gatso? by Baddas · · Score: 1

      Well, for my part, I'm just looking at fooling a camera, which has (theoretically) got to work in degraded conditions like rain and such. At which point as long as it were vaguely recognizable as a letter or number, it'd work.

      Also, you could include the curved segments fairly easily, it's just a mosaic of parts to push into the film, doesn't really matter what shapes they are. You could even do it dot-matrix style, with a small enough dot, any script is doable.

      Assuming you've got Q's budget, of course

    37. Re:What's a Gatso? by Orgazmus · · Score: 1

      The reason they are hated, are the stiff fines and utter insane placements of the cameras.
      Many innercity roads with lots of accidents never get a camera, but some highways get reduced speed limits and a cam for every 4-5 miles even though there are far less accidents there.
      The fair cameras are no problem, its the money machines that makes us mad.
      Its the same in Norway

      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    38. Re:What's a Gatso? by shatteredsilicon · · Score: 1

      Speeding is a problem for cyclists and pedestrians who have to share the roads with impatient maniacs. So, how do you justify these on motorways where cyclists and pedestrians are not allowed?

    39. Re:What's a Gatso? by hesiod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Only 3% of accidents are solely caused by speeding

      No, 0% of accidents are caused by just speeding. Speed doesn't kill, it's the sudden stop. The only way that speed could have killed a person is if they had a heart attack: "scared to death" from going so fast. Actually, then it's their heart thay killed them.

    40. Re:What's a Gatso? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Speeding is a problem for cyclists and pedestrians who have to share the roads with impatient maniacs.

      Cyclists on the roads, sure, but don't you have things like sidewalks or zebra and/or toucan crossings?

    41. Re:What's a Gatso? by Fatchap · · Score: 1

      I don't see why speeding per se is the problem. Impatience could feasibly be dangerous if it caused someone to act in a dangerous fashion but speed on its own does not necessarily have to be a problem.

      What I was actually trying to see was if the original poster was aware of any proof that speed was a problem or if it was just a gut feel as it is with you, based on your personal experience of poor road use in others.

      --
      The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
    42. Re:What's a Gatso? by Epi-man · · Score: 1

      You can just imagine them changing the taxes so you are taxed more the more you drive.

      Newsflash: they can already do this. It's called the gasoline tax -- the more gas you buy, the more you pay in taxes.

      Finally, someone makes the point I wanted to. My understanding is that Europe and the UK have HUGE gas taxes vs. the US (and judging from the pump prices I see over there, that better be the case!). I would think they would want to encourage speeding given the dramatic drop in efficiency as you increase speed (don't have the reference on hand, but it was 1%/mph above 55 or so, getting worse after crossing 70 mph I believe), so let them drive faster, use more gas, get more revenue.

    43. Re:What's a Gatso? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is radar, the photographs are simply used as supporting evidence as there is obviously no police officer present. I hate them because I'd rather be watching the road than concentrating on my speedo. In an unfamiliar area, I should be studying the road rather than spending time trying to spot speed cameras frequently hidden by bushes or other road furniture.

    44. Re:What's a Gatso? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are Jeremy Clarkson AICMFP!

    45. Re:What's a Gatso? by Cederic · · Score: 1


      I worked out maths. Going 90 not 70 saves me 7 minutes each way on my commute to work.

      That's 70 minutes a week.

      That's 60 hours a year (allowing for holidays, etc).

      Yeah, I'm prepared to pay £400/year extra on fuel for 60 hours of my life back. That's pretty cheap.

    46. Re:What's a Gatso? by jazir1979 · · Score: 1

      You have a good point, and in an ideal world driving to the conditions would be better than adhering to some arbitrary speed limit.

      The thing is, speed is quantative and very easy to measure. Determining if somebody is driving safely for the current conditions is subjective and too hard to police.

      --
      What's your GCNSEQNO?
  2. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    exactly what we needed ;) , more fines ...

    1. Re:wow by ben0207 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Only for those that commit crime.

      Which is why Im personally fine with the whole idea. Why track me? I go to college and do collegey type things, then on weekends I work in a shop doing shoppy things. Not exactly a global terror ring.

      As for tracking us with this, as far as Im concerned, those that need to hide are exactly those that need monitoring.

      --
      cmd-q.co.uk - some sort of stupid fucking internet bullshit
    2. Re:wow by Entropius · · Score: 1

      At least in most of the USA, speeding is not a crime in the sense of "infringement on other people's rights."

      Speed traps are used as a revenue source for small towns.

    3. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Except when they put you in the slammer for 90 days because you 3 times in the past 2 years have been driving behind a suspected terrorist.

    4. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't normally like to resort to ad hominem attacks, but you are a moron for believing this.

      There are so many problems with government organizations having this level of control over their citizenry. Starting with the people actually doing the control, who do they get to monitor these systems? What if it's some creepy guy trying to stalk women with this technology? What if it's someone trying to use knowledge of your actions to blackmail you? If I'm working the camera, and I see you walking down the street holding hands with one woman, then the next day another woman, I could demand that you pay me money or I'll let them know about each other, etc. This is one example but you can see many more. What if I'm not even working for the government, but I hack the system to gain access to this kind of information?

      At a higher level, what's legal and what's not is always subject to change. You could be subject to hundreds of dollars in fines every day just for doing something that otherwise seems ordinary. See the above comment about the man asking a drug offender for directions. Nothing illegal took place, but in the investigation of the drug offender, while trying to find his customers and sources, you would get flagged for investigation and would be subject to search and arrest. Just getting arrested is often enough for you to lose your job and be embarassed by your friends, colleagues and family.

      I can go on, but I hope that you see why your line of thinking that this is "only bad for bad people" is flawed.

    5. Re:wow by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So how about we put cameras in every home, in order to detect criminal activities?

      You've got nothing to hide, so it's all fine and dandy, right? After all, why watch you? You're just doing your average activities, right?

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    6. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least you are not shut for been a illegal not white running in the metro.

    7. Re:wow by modecx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, this goddamned stupid argument again. So, if you're not committing crimes, why don't we stick a camera up your ass so you can have a perpetual colonsocopy? Obviously, it would be good for your health, no? It could have embedded GPS, and remote monitoring so in the event that you develop a polyp the doctors can come and tear you out of your mistress' bed and take that sucker out!

      Maybe some of us don't like living under a microscope, for any reason? Could increase your safety in a way significantly relative to the amount of privacy (every)one gives up? I sincerely doubt it.

      I'll take my chances with the fucking speeders and terrorists, thanks.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    8. Re:wow by egoshin · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Which is why Im personally fine with the whole idea. Why track me? I go to college and do collegey type things, then on weekends I work in a shop doing shoppy things.
      "Why track me?" - just to be sure that you do not visit a meeting with opposition or whatever. If you do - you would be jailed for 90 days to limit a damage for goverment party.

      More exactly - just to find out who is an opposition LEADER before people start listening and vote. And jail him for 90 days.
    9. Re:wow by Eideewt · · Score: 2, Funny

      What happens when you do feel the need to commit a crime? You're not going to be too happy then are you?

    10. Re:wow by dswan69 · · Score: 1

      Well then you won't mind if we come round and install cameras and microphones in every room of your home. We'll also need to put them in your vehicle. And we'll have someone follow you around with a mobile unit.

      You don't mind of course because you have nothing to hide.

      If you're into having the government spy on you please move to a proper authoritarian police state where you belong. You'll even be able to get rewards for ratting out your neighbours. Hitler and Stalin loved people like you.

    11. Re:wow by Shoreline · · Score: 1

      Someone once said that when we have more laws than anyone can enforce much power is given to the authorities to decide which laws to enforce. And when. And against whom.

  3. New motorsport in the UK by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2, Funny

    having one every quarter of a mile on motorways quite clearly means they'll be used to enforce speed limits as well,

    Does this mean drag-racers can practise on the highway and get away with it?

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:New motorsport in the UK by slazzy · · Score: 1

      yes, in fact you'll find the quarter mile markers with cameras great places to start your quarter-mile track times from. just make sure you stop before the next one!

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    2. Re:New motorsport in the UK by misleb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Only if they place a brick wall just before the next camera...

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  4. Boy am I glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That we in the colonies won the war and started a country that didn't take away our rights and treat us like criminals.

    1. Re:Boy am I glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was extreme sarcasm...right? I can bet that we are montoring folks as much or more than in britain!

    2. Re:Boy am I glad... by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      Britian monitors more, but on the east coast of the us of a we're catching up fast.

    3. Re:Boy am I glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New to /. eh?

    4. Re:Boy am I glad... by oddaddresstrap · · Score: 5, Funny

      You forgot the "oh, wait..." part.

    5. Re:Boy am I glad... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yep, that's one reason I'm glad I moved to the West Coast. No one really cares what you do over here.

    6. Re:Boy am I glad... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's why I didn't move quite that far west. I'm in Arizona--you can walk down the street here with a handgun holstered on your hip, in broad view. Things seem to be more Libertarian here; we don't have the stupid gun-control laws of California and the Northeast, and we don't have all the religious fervor of the South. All the Californians moving in here lately might screw things up, though.

    7. Re:Boy am I glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he didn't. That comment wasn't sarcasm, it was the God's honest truth.

      It's funny how you people laugh and mock, but if you said that to my face, I'd fucking whack you upside the head, boy.

    8. Re:Boy am I glad... by davidmcw · · Score: 1

      Posted by a true 'Anonymous Coward'

      --
      Just because your paranoid doesn't really mean they aren't out to get you
    9. Re:Boy am I glad... by monkeydo · · Score: 0, Troll

      Posted by a dork with a broken .sig

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    10. Re:Boy am I glad... by takeya · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We are?
      I've never seen a speed trap that wasn't a trooper running radar.

      And I always speed 10-15 over (and keep a good eye out!), so I'd've been ticketed by now.

      I really have to appreciate that the police presence doesn't deter me from speeding, but makes me a more conscious driver because I'm more prepared to break for them or other roadside dangers, and far more aware. I mean, you've gotta be when you're travelling an interstate US Route (not highway mind you) at 95 MPH ;p

    11. Re:Boy am I glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, we have the RIAA and the MPAA to do that for us.
      don't corporations work so much better than governments
      besides, our gov't respects its citizens rights and passes laws to protect our property, like the DMCa....err, Patriot Ac....ummm, damn, nevermind

    12. Re:Boy am I glad... by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      Uh, care to give examples?

      I have lived on the east coast of the USA for all 32 years of my life. I have lived in NJ, PA, SC (USMC), NC (USMC) and now FL (Orlando area). I have never been "monitored" (neither have my wife or two kids) even close to what the Brits are doing. I would really like to know exactly how "we" are catching up? Or were you just trying to get some mod points by saying the typical crap like "USA sucks!"? You should throw in a "GWB SUCK @SS!" to get a few extra mods while your at it. It is real easy to make stupid "blanket" statements about the USA. However, when you compare reality in the USA to the rest of the world, we here in the USA are far better off over all.

      Can you give me _ONE_ real example of how _YOUR_ rights have been violated here in the USA? Or are you just spewing the typical crap with no real evidence? I would honestly like to see you post back to this about how your right were violated or how you were "monitored".

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    13. Re:Boy am I glad... by Tassach · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Can you give me _ONE_ real example of how _YOUR_ rights have been violated here in the USA? I live in Maryland (which doesn't issue carry permits unless you're politically connected), so my right to bear arms is violated on a daily basis.

      Thanks to the USA-PATRIOT act, I might be one of the 30,000+ US citizens with no links to terrorism who was a subject of a national security letter. I'll never know, because of the gag order that accompanies them. My (9th amendment) right to know, as previously guaranteed by the FOIA act and other laws, has been nullified.

      My right to petition the government for grievances and to peaceably assemble is violated every time I'm herded into a "free speech zone".

      My right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures disappears the moment I get in to a motor vehicle, whether I'm driving it or not.

      My property can be taken without just compensation any time the government feels that someone else would pay more tax if they had it instead of me.

      That's just what I can think of at 11:30 at night after a couple of stiff drinks. I'm sure I can come up with some more.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    14. Re:Boy am I glad... by IAmTheDave · · Score: 1

      Where the hell are people with mod points? Perfect answer to GP's question.

      --
      Excuse my speling.
      Making The Bar Project
    15. Re:Boy am I glad... by plumby · · Score: 1
      but if you said that to my face, I'd fucking whack you upside the head, boy.

      Would that be your 'freedom of speech' in action?

    16. Re:Boy am I glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you want the right to bear arms? I'd assume you'd prefer the right to not be shot. I just don't get otherwise sensible seeming Americans on this.

    17. Re:Boy am I glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Maryland (which doesn't issue carry permits unless you're politically connected), so my right to bear arms is violated on a daily basis.

      Where do you get the idea that you "have the right" to carry a device designed for killing other humans from ?

      We dont have that "right" in the UK, and I certainly dont feel like it takes anything away. We have a lot less gun crime than you guys. I have lived in Mexico as well, where you can buy guns in supermarkets, and believe me, the "right" to feel secure walking down the street knowing that there are very few people in the country with guns is a whole lot better that the right to point a gun back at one of these "bad guys" that you and George Bush seem to believe in.

    18. Re:Boy am I glad... by bhiestand · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why would you want the right to bear arms? I'd assume you'd prefer the right to not be shot. I just don't get otherwise sensible seeming Americans on this

      The right to bear arms is, fundamentally, the right to self-protection from government, authority, or any other asshole that tries to infringe on any other rights you may have. Even if you could stop CRIMINALS from obtaining firearms, don't you think that they'll just switch to knives, axes, brass knuckles, large wooden stakes, or any other type of weapon that could be used to gain control of, or injure, defenseless, weaker people?

      That being said, I could give a damn about having firearms for self defense. I want them in case my government ever gets out of control. I want them so that I can, if the need arises, be part of an armed revolution. And that's a DAMNED patriotic, American thing to say. Eventually it WILL be a necessity, despite our well-written constitution, because eventually some dickwad will gain control of the government. It could be a foreign power, it could be a corrupt politician in a time of war (like Marcos in the Philippines) instituting martial law then refusing to remove it, and it could be a military coup de'tat. I know this sounds loony and paranoid, but you never really know. My money says it'll happen eventually in America. Hopefully it won't in my lifetime but, if it does, I will happily take the risk of imprisonment or death at the hands of a bad regime in order to try to restore a proper government.

      I know people are going to chime in about Bush and all of that crap, but I don't think that's nearly as bad as people think. Now, if the man declared himself King Bush II, announced that the 2008 elections were going to postponed indefinitely, etc. you can bet I'd jump on that bandwagon. Even if his actions are criminal (which I doubt), there is a proper constitutional system in place which can still be utilized.

      To summarize, some of us aren't scared shitless of being shot. Some of us are scared shitless of being unable to shoot.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    19. Re:Boy am I glad... by archeopterix · · Score: 1
      Can you give me _ONE_ real example of how _YOUR_ rights have been violated here in the USA?
      I sure as hell won't be waiting till _MY_ rights are violated.

      First they came for the Jews
      and I did not speak out--
      because I was not a Jew.
      Then they came for the communists
      and I did not speak out--
      because I was not a communist.
      Then they came for the trade unionists
      and I did not speak out--
      because I was not a trade unionist.
      Then they came for me--
      and there was no one left to speak out for me.
    20. Re:Boy am I glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you've never been mugged at gunpoint, then. If one of those "bad guys" breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I want the right to go out shooting rather than being forced to watch him rape my wife at gunpoint.

      And I'm sure my mugger got his firearm through the proper channels...

      Criminals have, and will still have, guns even if the Second Amendment continues to be ignored. The government has guns. I don't have a gun, but I definitely want the right to have one since my potential enemies have them.

      The UK obviously doesn't give a damn about freedom. Sadly, most in the US don't anymore either. What virtue is there in respecting the law when you have no choice? In the absence of freedom, humans become automatons. And obviously, no one over there has read their Orwell.

      Power corrupts. Keep giving the government more power, and it will continue to get more corrupt and inefficient. This has been going on for years. Are you really so blind?

      Whatever. All empires die eventually, and Greater America is aging fast. We'll have another revolution and another great society and another great disaster, this time somewhere in Asia, likely. It's a cycle. Just keep your third world prospects open in case things get too nasty here too fast... but really, I think we've got 50 more years until things completely dissolve over here, and I don't think I'll care much then. Hopefully, any kids I might have will have gotten out to get a good paying job in Cambodia.

    21. Re:Boy am I glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been robbed at gunpoint in Mexico, actually....

      Never happened here, cos we dont have guns.
      You americans really are as stupid as you are portrayed in Bowling for Columbine.

    22. Re:Boy am I glad... by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      I live in Maryland (which doesn't issue carry permits unless you're politically connected), so my right to bear arms is violated on a daily basis.
      So move out of that crappy state or file a suit and take it to the Supreme Court if you have to. Letting your rights be violated by one state is not the same thing as the Federal government taking away a constitutional right. I live in Florida and a law was recently passed that _allows_ us to use deadly force anywhere it may be necessary.
      Thanks to the USA-PATRIOT act, I might be one of the 30,000+ US citizens with no links to terrorism who was a subject of a national security letter. I'll never know, because of the gag order that accompanies them. My (9th amendment) right to know, as previously guaranteed by the FOIA act and other laws, has been nullified.
      Again, if your rights were violated, why don't you fight for them? I personally have never heard of something like this.
      My right to petition the government for grievances and to peaceably assemble is violated every time I'm herded into a "free speech zone".
      When did this happen? On what occasion did you try to peaceably assemble and had the govt. of Maryland herd you to another location? And if this personally happened to you, why didn't you do something about it? Maybe call the ACLU?
      My right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures disappears the moment I get in to a motor vehicle, whether I'm driving it or not.
      When did this happen to you? Were you pulled over and a cop forcibly searched your motor vehicle without cause?
      My property can be taken without just compensation any time the government feels that someone else would pay more tax if they had it instead of me.
      I agree with this one. I heard some cases of it happening here in Florida. However, I don't agree with the "without just compensation" part. All the cases I heard about the person(s) were given fair market value, though I still do nothing think it is OK. I think I heard that the Federal govt. is going to try to stop this by withholding money from states that take private property for commercial purposes.

      What I want to know is, did all of these things you listed happen to _YOU_? Or are you just spewing out the typical anti-govt. junk? I hear people say the same things over and over, yet when I ask them when these types of things happened to them, it is always the same response, it never happened to them _personally_. Can you give us the details on when all of the things you listed above happened to _YOU_?

      Maybe there have been a few isolated cases of the things you listed happening, however, I doubt it is very common. The person(s) involved should have faught back. They could get the media involved, call the ACLU, etc. Letting your rights be violated should not be accepted. Neither should exaggerating about the extent of rights violations in the USA.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    23. Re:Boy am I glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. As long as this sort of thing happens to other people and not me personally, everything is just peachy. Right.

    24. Re:Boy am I glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, then, the question is why don't you have guns? Our criminals here don't get them through legal channels as a rule. So how do they get into our black market, but not into yours? I'm sure it helps to be completely surrounded by water and have a relatively tiny amount of border to patrol, but the real issue here is stopping the black market influx of guns to our country, not banning legal guns.

      In America, we have something called the Constitution. There is a process built in to the Constitution if people believe it needs to be changed. If society really believes the Second Amendment should be repealed, fine. We can follow the process. But acting like the Second Amendment is meaningless is a surefire way to make sure that our freedoms of speech, assembly, etc. etc. are all meaningless too.

      Oh, and for the record, Michael Moore is a blowhard hypocrite, though this fact is ignored by our knee-jerk, unthinking liberals (and for the record, I'm a liberal on just about every issue save this one), and he makes such an arse of himself that one wonders if the conservatives aren't actually financing him. Oh, that's right, they are. Check out his publishing company's tangled corporate web.

      I'll be happy to face off with you on any pure test of intelligence (not training or industry specific) that you'd prefer. A standard IQ test would suit me fine. You're obviously so much more intelligent than I, making a sweeping generalization about an entire country of people, resorting to flaming and leaning on a pop-culture crutch in order to justify your position as you've just done.

      When in doubt, argue Ad Hominem. Typical unthinking liberal. In 20 years, you'll be a typical unthinking conservative. Whatever.

    25. Re:Boy am I glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, civil rights violations aren't a problem until they happen to you?

      Your head in the sand attitude is far more dangerous to your country than Islamic terrorism. Thanks for helping steer us all down the road to tyranny.

    26. Re:Boy am I glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... apparently you missed his sarcasm.

    27. Re:Boy am I glad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you check the threading, you'll see that my comment was a reply to AstroDrabb who obviously wasn't being sarcastic.

  5. Thanks by keesh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd just like to say thanks for trying to waste my hard-earned tax money on this, rather than going out and using it for something useful like fixing the sorry state of our education system or making the NHS ever so slightly less pathetic.

    1. Re:Thanks by HugePedlar · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps even filling some potholes. You know, like our road tax is supposed to pay for.

      --
      Argh.
    2. Re:Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      noooo. We don't need more money waisted on those black holes. Free health-care for all has already been achieved. It seems though some people just won't be happy until that free health-care is to 5-class hotel standard complete with jacuzzi in the corner of the room.

      And the education system? Ever been to Indonesia, Africa or just about anywhere outside Europe & America? then you'll see a 'sorry state' education system.

      Please stop Whinging.

    3. Re:Thanks by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      Sensible placement of them I can understand, like every 10th motorway sign overhang, and at regular intervals along trunk roads. This way cars can automatically be roughly located (Good for stolen cars), finding if they're driven without tax etc. etc. but the proposed placing interval is just bloody ridiculous. It would be more efficient and have the same effect to make all car on-board computers carry tracking and 'phone-home' equipment.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    4. Re:Thanks by p2sam · · Score: 1

      Ah, but you gotta spend money to make money. Your tax dollars are being invested into a infrastructure that will generate a steady stream of revenue. Cheers.

    5. Re:Thanks by el+americano · · Score: 1

      thanks for trying to waste my hard-earned tax money on this

      There are plenty of reasons to object to this, but money probably isn't one of them. This should be a revenue generator that pays for itself in a few short years. Clearly money is the reason for the irrational zeal with which government prosecutes vehicle infractions.

      Go out and catch some criminals, you lazy bastards! Don't act like you doing us a favor by stepping up prosecution of ordinary citizens.

      --
      Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
    6. Re:Thanks by Kenrod · · Score: 1


      Unless the Brit bureaucrats aren't worth their salt, they've already performed a cost/benefit analysis of the system.

      Like Jessica Alba's ass, it's a moneymaker.

      --
      Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
    7. Re:Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on the OECD-PISA tests of 15 year olds over 40 OECD countries the UK ranks about 7th, so the education system isn't as bad as some people imagine. It is fashionable to knock it, though. Any improvements in the education system are still welcome.

    8. Re:Thanks by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      There's no such thing as "road tax" in the UK. It's called Vehicle Excise Duty. The revenue from it isn't "ring-fenced" for maintaining roads. That comes out of general (+ local) taxation (of which VED is a small part).

    9. Re:Thanks by VdG · · Score: 1

      One doesn't even need them to be that frequent. One set of monitors between - or at - each exit is perfectly sufficient for tracking movement and checking tax and insurance. You could even still do speed monitoring as an average between junctions, (not that I want that).

      I'm outraged that such intrusive monitoring appears to be being slipped through without parliamentary scrutiny.

  6. Am I the only one suspicious of the source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The register does have a lot of information, most of which has some facts behind it.... But they have always struck me as an extremely biased news source.......

    1. Re:Am I the only one suspicious of the source? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Biased? Perhaps, but you might more accurately have described the Register as 'cynical and nasty'.

      The Register thinks the worst of just about everyone and everything. Since it's pretty evenhanded in its loathing, 'biased' while technically correct doesn't quite convey the right picture here.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:Am I the only one suspicious of the source? by FireAtWill · · Score: 1

      "The Register thinks the worst of just about everyone and everything."

      But the vulture looks so friendly....
    3. Re:Am I the only one suspicious of the source? by Kelson · · Score: 1

      The term I usually use to describe The Register is "journalistic snark." I considered "equal-opportunity curmudgeon" at one point, but curmudgeonly doesn't convey the self-satisfied attitude that generally comes through in their articles.

      Just last night I was saying one of our local papers -- also called The Register -- would be much more interesting if it were like this site...

  7. Just another day in the UK.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    First cameras on _every_ corner...now this.

  8. I've seen the future... by multipartmixed · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lenina Huxley, you are fined one-half credit for a sotto voce violation of the Verbal Morality Statute. Additionally, you are fined 120 credits per infraction of the Safe Speed Statutes, for exceeding the speed limit of 45 miles per hour on the freeway 72 times this morning. Be Happy!

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    1. Re:I've seen the future... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doubleplusungood brother...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:I've seen the future... by loraksus · · Score: 1

      *cough* Be WELL *cough*

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    3. Re:I've seen the future... by Dragoonmac · · Score: 1

      Big Blaire is watching.

      --
      Shots: A Populist Parable
    4. Re:I've seen the future... by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      *cough* Whoops *cough*

      Been a while since I've seen that sucker. :)

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    5. Re:I've seen the future... by D-Cypell · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Seashells!!!

    6. Re:I've seen the future... by mankey+wanker · · Score: 1, Troll

      "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever." - George Orwell ...or... ...You could vandalize and destroy the instruments of your own surveillance and control. Maybe those Frenchies are on to something these days...

    7. Re:I've seen the future... by TDyl · · Score: 1

      Where's my SOMA?

      --
      Todd: I hope it proves as delicious as the farmers that grew them
  9. Another reason by VJ42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yet another reason for me to want to emigrate from the UK, what with ID cards, and 90 days detention without trial etc.(Thankfully the latter was defeated in parliment). At this rate, with ever more draconian laws I'll be able to claim asylum.

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    1. Re:Another reason by dfjunior · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or you could do what we did, have a revolution!
      The UK Gov't hasn't given us a whole heck of a lot of trouble since...

    2. Re:Another reason by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Insightful
      > > Yet another reason for me to want to emigrate from the UK, what with ID cards, and 90 days detention without trial etc.(Thankfully the latter was defeated in parliment). At this rate, with ever more draconian laws I'll be able to claim asylum.
      >
      > Or you could do what we did, have a revolution!
      > The UK Gov't hasn't given us a whole heck of a lot of trouble since...

      Ah yes, flee UK ID cards and 90-day detention without trial for the balmy shores of the United States, with REAL ID, and, umm... indefini... aaw fuck.

      As the gray of November gives way to a long cold winter for Western Civilization, the UK's forgotten stepchild (Canada, eh?) is beginning to look warm and sunny by comparison.

    3. Re:Another reason by Jetekus · · Score: 1
      Please. All they can do is see where your car is. What do you have to hide?

      If someone I knew was attacked or whatever, I would sure as hell want the police to know exactly where the criminal had driven off to...

    4. Re:Another reason by dfjunior · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I didn't say come to the U.S., I said have a revolution.

    5. Re:Another reason by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      A large proportion here in the UK are too lazy or ignrant to have a revolution (as demonstrated by majority public support for detention without trial), Emigration to Canada, sounds better with every passing week.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    6. Re:Another reason by Malc · · Score: 1

      And where do you propose moving to?

      As a Briton who has already emigrated, may I point out that things in the UK aren't as bad as you think? By far the biggest problem I see is lack of space and all the violence after the pubs close. Those issues dwarf anything like this one.

    7. Re:Another reason by VJ42 · · Score: 4, Informative

      All they can do is see where your car is

      Add to that a CCTV camera on virtually every street corner (hell I even had one pointing at me inside a taxi the other day), the extention to detention without trial (even to 28 days is longer than most common law countries*) & the hair-brained biometric passport & ID card schemes, so now they know exactly what I do and where I go all the time, and want me to pay for it all. Sounds doubleplusgood to me.

      *according to the latest private eye.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    8. Re:Another reason by VJ42 · · Score: 1
      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    9. Re:Another reason by Spectra72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure and when you decide to join a political group that maybe isn't looked upon favorably by the Govt, they can track you right to the meetings.

      Maybe you're having an affair, your spouse can now petition the state to have your movements tracked.

      Maybe you take the daughter of a important MP out on a date, one thing leads to another. Now he can track you and have you busted for statutory rape! (not sure if that is a law in the UK, but you get my point).

      Government tracking is never a good thing.

    10. Re:Another reason by Tango42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's the point of a revolution in a democracy? You're more likely to persuade people to vote for you than fight for you.

    11. Re:Another reason by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      IAAC (I am a Canadian). About a month ago, I saw two odd signs going up on our purely residential, not heavily trafficked street. A beginning sign, and an end sign with a digital speed gauge. I don't know if the radar attached to the signs was issuing automatic tickets (I don't believe it was) but here in Southwestern Ontario, they're testing these things. They took away the signs after a week or so to move them to another street, but the point stands.

      I feel that unless SOMEONE has a revolution and flatout refuses to put up with the beginnings of a police state, the US will export their "system" to every first-world country on the globe. Only by resisting can we stop it.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    12. Re:Another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, you are using examples of a proposed policy and proposed legislation that was defeated as reasons to emigrate? And you consider -GASP- people knowing where you travel in public to be draconian?

      There's a very thick, very obvious line between civil rights and privacy, and plain old paranoia. You are on the wrong side of that line.

    13. Re:Another reason by TwistedKestrel · · Score: 2, Informative

      As far as I know those signs are just there to make one feel guilty, I don't think they have any ticketing capability.

    14. Re:Another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OUR 'system'? We're talking about the U.K. here. Doing this kind of thing to U.S. citizens would

      1) Be prohibitively expensive, given the sheer distances involved

      2) Result in speed limits that accurately reflect the speeds at which people drive (maybe)

      3) Provoke a general riot among the anti 'big government' types, who also happen to overlap with the majority of gun owners

      Most of those cameras would have steel-jacketed rifle slugs in them within weeks of deployment. I might even consider buying a gun, solely for that purpose. Until now, I've had no desire or need for one.

    15. Re:Another reason by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Don't forget attempting to outlaw religious jokes, as they can be taken as terroristic or hate inspired threats.
      Regards,
      Steve

    16. Re:Another reason by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      Either way, it basically comes down to how much spare cash you've got.

    17. Re:Another reason by Unordained · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So ... would you complain if cop cars seems to mysteriously always be nearby when you were speeding?

      Do you object to cops monitoring your speed?
      Would you object to an increase in police personnel to do this same job?
      Do you object to automatic ticketing?
      Do you object to the notion of guilty until appealed? (tickets are like this)
      Do you object to the entire notion of speed limits?
      Do you object to spending this much money on speed limit enforcement? Any money?
      Do you object to the excessive proportional allocation of funds for this?
      Do you object to the road work this will require, and the associated traffic?

      While there's obviously some discomfort with the notion of having cameras tracking our vehicles all over the place, I'm not seeing the 'why' pinned down precisely. When out in public, you expose yourself to scrutiny -- whether by passers-by, cameras, car-tracking systems, etc. The UK measure is extreme, yes, but we're talking about the automation and scaling-up of existing abilities, not new ones. They could have posted cops every quarter-mile, and hoped they could read and remember plate numbers as well as an electronic system. There would be the same implications in terms of their ability to ticket you, track you, find a stolen (or not) vehicle, etc. but without the technology.

      Don't misunderstand me: I get a creepy feeling from this too. And I'm all about revolutions. But it's best to have clearly defined principles first. A new government would need to be limited appropriately, or the same thing would eventually happen again.

    18. Re:Another reason by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      But if there are quote marks around "democracy" because of Diebold voting machines, votes don't matter.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    19. Re:Another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I feel that unless SOMEONE has a revolution and flatout refuses to put up with the beginnings of a police state, the US will export their "system" to every first-world country on the globe. Only by resisting can we stop it.


      The goddamned thread was about the UK and already a Canuck is whinging about the US. Amazing.

      Did they run over the border and take over your government? Didn't think so. You can blame your own government for shitty legislation, but that would be taking responsibilty and admitting that the Canadian governemnt has its darkside too. (Good GOD, we can't do that! We'll never get that top quality of life rating back from Norway) Don't want to trade with the big bad USians? Close the border and join the EU. Don't like the laws? Vote.
    20. Re:Another reason by AJWM · · Score: 1

      The UK Gov't hasn't given us a whole heck of a lot of trouble since...

      Well, there was that little incident where they attacked Washington and burned down the White House. But that was nearly 200 years ago now.

      --
      -- Alastair
    21. Re:Another reason by RobinH · · Score: 1

      Um, IAAAC (I am also a Canadian), living in Ontario, and where the heck have you been for the last decade? We HAD photo-radar in Ontario years ago, then Harris got rid of it, and now McGuinty was talking about re-instating it, and given his record of shooting himself in the foot, there's still a good chance he might try it one of these years. The fact that he even said it was only to raise money is an admission of why speeding tickets are a scam.

      Those road signs that tell you how fast you're going do not issue tickets - they're just a feedback mechanism which seems to work better than your speedometer. It is amazing - even when I know I'm just going the limit, seeing one of those signs makes me check my speed.

      Personally, I'm in favour of a 2 step process:

      1) Raise speed limits to reasonable amounts (120 kph on the 401, 90 in rural areas, 60 on city streets, etc.).

      2) ENFORCE THEM STRICTLY.

      That would fix the problem of speeding. The fact that the police won't pull you over on the 401 (speed limit 100 kph) when you're going 119 is stupid when there are about 3% of the drivers trying to obey the real limit at 100 kph and causing accidents, but the road itself was designed for 120 kph.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    22. Re:Another reason by krbvroc1 · · Score: 1
      I think it boils down to the issue of fairness and equal justice. Everyone speeds. Only a few get a ticket. Usually when I get pulled over, I get a ticket. When my wife gets pulled over she gets a warning. Its very spotty. It depends on the mood of the officer, attitude, the weather, how many tickets he has written so far this month, how close he is to going off duty, etc.

      People speed for various reasons but in general the posted speed limits do not equate to safety of modern vehicles and in many areas it is obvious they are for revenue collection. I would much rather there be ticketing for 'unsafe' operation (such as tailgating or not staying in ones lane). Abrupt 55 to 30 mph on the same road passing thru some 'township' who uses the revenue to fund everything locally.

      I wonder if such as system would backfire? If EVERYONE who speeds is automatically ticketed without discretion I predict a support for an increase in these limits.

    23. Re:Another reason by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You're more likely to persuade people to vote for you than fight for you.

      Unfortunately, as the UK system so kindly demonstrated a few months ago, a "democracy" can still be a place where winning the support of only 22% of the population eligible to vote (and only thirtysomething percent of those who actually did vote), not to mention losing the popular vote in the largest single country in the union (England), is still enough to get you a comfortable absolute majority in parliament, with which you can pass any laws you want (assuming they even need new laws, rather than conveniently circumventing parliamentary scrutiny as this measure has, and assuming that your own party don't finally give in to the truly absurd and rebel against you for the first time in three administrations, only to cave in on the overall principle half an hour later anyway).

      Constitution or revolution, place bets now.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    24. Re:Another reason by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I believe you'll find even the previous 14 days was the longest period of detention without charge allowed anywhere in the first world; so the news stories floating around at the time of the vote were saying, anyway.

      28 days was an absurd result, neither sticking on the point of principle, nor caving in to the demands of security services (who strangely said that 28 days rather than 14 wouldn't help, but 90 would, though of course they can't tell us why for national security reasons).

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    25. Re:Another reason by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      The reason why the police wont pull you over if your going 119km/h, is because of the errors in both radar guns and car spedometers. Combined, its about 20%, therefor anything less then 120 has "reasonable doubt" written all over it. If they raised the limit to 120km/h, then police wouldnt bother pulling anyone over unless they were going >145km/h.

    26. Re:Another reason by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      While true, you miss that an election campaign as a replacement for a armed rebellion would, assumably, would smack upside the head of all these apathetic voters. OTOH, if they are so lazy as to not even vote, what makes you think that they will be even remotely usefull as militants?

    27. Re:Another reason by saranagati · · Score: 1

      no, they're there to verify that your speedometer works in speeds of excess of 100mph. Also i've seen cops to lazy to hold up a radar gun just sit in front of them waiting for it to say someone is speeding.

      --
      Give a man a match and he'll be warm for a minute, set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    28. Re:Another reason by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, flee UK ID cards and 90-day detention without trial for the balmy shores of the United States, with REAL ID, and, umm... indefini... aaw fuck.

      What's your problem with REAL ID? You think illegal aliens should be able to get Driver's licenses? I guess you think they should be able to vote, too.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    29. Re:Another reason by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except that I'm beginning to believe that violence is the only way to defeat the large corporations that make all those bribes^Wcampaign contributions.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    30. Re:Another reason by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      "Add to that a CCTV camera on virtually every street corner..."

      One word, two syllables: first one is "bull", second one is "shit". 'Nuff said.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    31. Re:Another reason by bishop32x · · Score: 1

      My problem with REAL ID is that I want people on the roads to be reasonably competent and ,ideally, insured. Denying them Driver's licenses doesn't keep them off the roads. The way I see is that Drivers licenses insure some minimal amount of competency.

    32. Re:Another reason by name773 · · Score: 1

      if they're not voting because of being fed up with the choices, you might have a compatriot

    33. Re:Another reason by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Two million people marched in London to protest against going to war in Iraq, yet our troops were still sent. That's what two million votes are worth to this government.

      The membership of the NRA in the US is about three million if memory serves, and your population is about 5x ours. Despite some dubious laws, you still have your Constitution, and your Supreme Court to rule on it.

      On this one, I think it's pretty clear that you're winning.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    34. Re:Another reason by Dave2+Wickham · · Score: 1

      Though that doesn't exactly apply to the UK voting system, what with it being completely paper-based ("put an X in the box next to the guy you want to vote for").

    35. Re:Another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure and when you decide to join a political group that maybe isn't looked upon favorably by the Govt, they can track you right to the meetings.

      Not unless they have cameras inside the office block/school/home whatever.

      Maybe you're having an affair, your spouse can now petition the state to have your movements tracked.

      Can she now? Since when? Oh wait, she can't. There's no law allowing the public to get tracking information on whoever they want. You are making things up.

      Maybe you take the daughter of a important MP out on a date, one thing leads to another. Now he can track you and have you busted for statutory rape!

      So the CCTVs are present in bedrooms too? Again, pure fantasy. Or are you arguing that you should be able to fuck underage little girls in public and get away with it?

      Of course you are outraged. You are making shit up to be outraged about. Hey, I can do that. I'm outraged that the UK government are slipping cyanide into the water supply of everybody who likes to wear red sweaters. I'm outraged that they force motorists to fellate goats before they are issued driving licenses. I'm outraged that Tony Blair buggers sheep paid for by the UK taxpayers.

    36. Re:Another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, imagine if the people (pronounced "vic-tims") who are not citizens of the united states affected by american policies were able to vote on the united states government ...something tells me the republicans would still win.

    37. Re:Another reason by aurifex · · Score: 0

      Don't assume that one extreme is better then the other.

    38. Re:Another reason by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      "the extention to detention without trial (even to 28 days is longer than most common law countries"

      The USA's indefinate detention of suspected terrorists is a lot longer than 28 or 90 days. Also, most other European countries deport suspected foreign terrorists back to countries where they are likely to spend god knows how long in jail with or without trial.

    39. Re:Another reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of those "clearly defined principles," of course, would be the right to face your accuser in court.

      Good luck fitting that radar trailer through the door.

    40. Re:Another reason by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      Not that of what you've said actually makes any sense. Your theories ignore basically all of the human rights laws (both British and European), political fairness laws, and data protection laws.

      Also:
      Your spouse can "petition" the state all she wants but this ain't the USA and no amount of money is going to get around the data protection act.

      I Don't understand what exactly you mean by "one thing leads to another" but if a rape was committed I'd hope the guy does get caught, if not how exactly is he going to get it to stand up in court? and why would "a important MP" (sic) have access to confidential police information anyway, this ain't Zimbabwe!

    41. Re:Another reason by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      Your population is about 2x that of my country. Im live in satans neighbour to the North. Note the correct spelling of neighbour.

    42. Re:Another reason by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Apologies; I was following several subthreads at once, and confused you with some of the other posters from the US (which does have about 5x the population of the UK, and where the NRA is a significant political player).

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    43. Re:Another reason by dcapel · · Score: 1
      --
      DYWYPI?
    44. Re:Another reason by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I'm not seeing the 'why' pinned down precisely.

      Automating widespread surveillance of civilians allows for more concentrated power, abuse of that power, and makes politically motivated harrassment easy. Why wouldn't you be worried? Instead of asking why people opposes this, perhaps you should be asking why the government should have this.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    45. Re:Another reason by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      If they raised the limit to 120km/h, then police wouldnt bother pulling anyone over unless they were going >145km/h.

      And only the few going over 120 now will be speeding then.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    46. Re:Another reason by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Well, there was that little incident where they attacked Washington and burned down the White House. But that was nearly 200 years ago now.

      Well, we did invade Canada, so we had it coming.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    47. Re:Another reason by cornjchob · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except that I'm beginning to believe that violence is the only way to defeat the large corporations that make all those bribes^Wcampaign contributions.

      You mean the same large corporations who produce the components that enabled you to post that?

      --
      We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
    48. Re:Another reason by Skinny+Rav · · Score: 1
      What's the point of a revolution in a democracy? You're more likely to persuade people to vote for you than fight for you


      You mean like those guys that blew themselves up in the London Underground or these who burn cars and shops in France?

      Yeah, probably it was easier to persuade them to vote...

      Raf
    49. Re:Another reason by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Bear in mind the only reason it was defeated in Parliament is because people wanted to do over Blair. As soon as he's gone it'll probably pass.

    50. Re:Another reason by drsquare · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The American revolution got rid of the old government and replaced it with one that's even worse, so what benefit would we have to having a revolution?

      If anyone in Britain actually gave a shit, and actually thought about what the government was doing rather than reading the opinions from The Sun, it would be easier to vote in a better government than having a revolution.

      But when a party can gain absolute power with 35% of the vote, it seems democracy is broken.

    51. Re:Another reason by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter if you get people to vote for you. 65% of Britain voted to kick Labour and Blair out, but they're still here with a majority in parliament allowing them to pass anything they want.

      In their 8 years in power they've had one bill rejected last week, and that was because of rebel MPs who just wanted to get rid of Blair, rather than because they disagreed with the bill.

    52. Re:Another reason by SysDaemon · · Score: 1

      Hey! You are wrong about the sheep -he buys them himself.

    53. Re:Another reason by telso · · Score: 1

      the UK's forgotten stepchild (Canada, eh?) is beginning to look warm and sunny by comparison.

      Somebody hasn't been to Canada lately.

    54. Re:Another reason by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      other European countries

      most other Europian countries arn't common law countries, and have entirely different systems.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    55. Re:Another reason by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1

      I am so sick of the "If you have nothing to hide" argument trotted out by nanny-state apologists. Have we learned nothing from history?

      Let's see merciless transparency in government and the public sector, and independant metrics on performance. Then I might just about trust them with systems like this. But probably not.

    56. Re:Another reason by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      Hah - it's not necessarily better having proportional representation. Heck, here in Ireland we even have transferrable votes (you can vote for someone unlikely, and if they're knocked out, your vote is transferred to your next preference. Conversely those who get more votes than they need to win a seat in a constituency, have their excess votes transferred). All in all it pretty much means the country gets what it asks for.

      Guess what? The "general public" are often ill-informed, misled by politicians, and have die-hard fanaticisms for certain parties even if they've been misled. They have selfish desires of what they want politicians to do for them, are led by catchy slogans and personalities, and don't care as much about what the govt. does for their fellow countryman as for them.

      Looks like our next election will provide another interesting problem with multi-party politics - the mad raving looney party (Sinn Féin - who apart from their treasonous attitude to the Irish State, and rejection of the legitimate rule of the North by the UK, don't sit with the communists in the European Parliament groupings for nothing) holding the balance of power.

      So a more accurate form of democracy is not necessarily going to be better.

      It's amusing that in the UK you're suddenly realising the benefits of having a less democratic upper house of parliament!

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    57. Re:Another reason by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Canada? Too near to Mordor for my liking.

      No need to go so far west to flee Blair's police state. Myself, I'm starting to seriously think about Dublin...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    58. Re:Another reason by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      You make a good point, It's in the EU to so I won't need the Canadian equivilent of a Green card, which is probably a hassle to get.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    59. Re:Another reason by RobinH · · Score: 1

      Combined, its about 20%

      I'm an engineer. I know the technology. I'm not going to accept the number you just pulled out of your ass without some kind of reference to back it up. If I had to guess, I'd say they're more in the range of 5%, which would be high for this type of sensor. I've been pulled over twice, and both times he was within a couple kph of what my speedometer said. With lasers, the accuracy is even better.

      I drive through a lot of states in the US and they are all much stricter. Ohio will pull you over for being 5 mph over the limit, and Michigan seems to have a 10% rule, for instance. Michigan also has higher speed limits (70mph) than Ontario. They're all using the same equipment.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    60. Re:Another reason by jrockway · · Score: 1

      [ X ] Candidate A
      [ ] Candidate B

      Well, there's another vote for Candidate B.

      Just because a computer isn't involved doesn't mean the process works.

      --
      My other car is first.
    61. Re:Another reason by Dave2+Wickham · · Score: 1

      No, but it's a lot harder to rig a paper-based vote than an electronic one. With the electronic one, you simply need to have a corrupt system vendor. With the paper-based ballot, you'd have to have a lot of corrupt vote counters, and - of course - this increases the risk of having a whistleblower.

    62. Re:Another reason by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      No, I mean the other large corporations. The ones who produce the components that enabled me to type this are mostly either "good" (e.g. Apple and IBM) or foreign (so they don't lobby in the US).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    63. Re:Another reason by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know we had them before, but I've never seen them on my street or anywhere near my neighbourhood (which is in London, Ontario, at the small risk of stalkery) until recently. And yes, they do work in making me check my speed, but IMHO it's still a waste of money.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    64. Re:Another reason by cornjchob · · Score: 1

      No, I mean the other large corporations. The ones who produce the components that enabled me to type this are mostly either "good" (e.g. Apple and IBM) or foreign (so they don't lobby in the US).

      I hope that post was a joke. Just because your computer was made by a company you deem good for some arbitrary reason (Big Blue used to be a very derogatory term, remember), what about all of the Microsoft-powered computers you connect to just to access the internet? Or all of the companies who beat their employees and make them live on premises and poison their water to make your memory chips cheaper? The memory chips in the servers you connect to? That was a rather unfocused iceberg tip on my part, but a tip no less. I don't mean to be too much of a dick, but you've gotta look a little further than your own monitor. Even inside the monitor. Where'd the boards come from? Even the cables. The companies that cleared the land to lay communication lines, that send you your electricity to power the thing, and the servers and etc etc etc. To say that none of these companies has lobbyist/campaign ties to the US government is reckless ignorance.

      --
      We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
    65. Re:Another reason by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      "You mean like those guys that blew themselves up in the London Underground or these who burn cars and shops in France?"

      Did they achieve anything? I think not...

    66. Re:Another reason by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      As the gray of November gives way to a long cold winter for Western Civilization, the UK's forgotten stepchild (Canada, eh?) is beginning to look warm and sunny by comparison.
      Hey, it's not the only one - Australia and NZ are still there, too.
    67. Re:Another reason by jdvuyk · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I am leaving!
      Ok, its not entriely because of these sorts of issues but I cant help but feel helped along by this kind of crap. Being photographed in public has become part of life in the Uk and many other countries. You can walk down the street and be on camera dozens of times. But I have always seen this as something on the protective side, as they arent tracking me. If I were to be mugged or even killed these cameras would be valuable to me, and the police. But if they were to do face recognition whilst I am walking around, this is another thing altogether! This is really no different. People spend large percentage of thier lives driving around. Now they can know where you are for this entire percentage of you life. This scares me alot.
      No, this scares me, ALOT!

      Im movong to NZ next week. This will never happen over there as the governement just does not have enough money. At last, the smaller country with smaller populations offers huge advantages to the bigger, richer more populated countries. I aint coming back.

    68. Re:Another reason by eWarz · · Score: 1

      You've been on that road too huh? :P

  10. Kinda Cool, Kinda weird by ViperG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember seeing something like this technology being tested with police. They setup a unit like this (might be the same thing) on a busy road. Anyways, a few hours later, the system caught a few stolen cars, speeders, and few other things, that led to a record number of arrests that day.

    Kinda werid though, for some reason it reminds me of 1984.

    --
    Black Sky
    2D Elite Inspired Game
    1. Re:Kinda Cool, Kinda weird by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      You mean people in the UK drive stolen cars with the original license plates?

      And, what's this? They drive the cars? I thought they would become little parts in the aftermarket.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    2. Re:Kinda Cool, Kinda weird by xintegerx · · Score: 1

      Maybe it helped find mismatched license plates? Any car with a fake license plate that isn't in the database is a stolen car or should be pulled over!

    3. Re:Kinda Cool, Kinda weird by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      >>You mean people in the UK drive stolen cars with the original license plates?
      --
      If the model/color doesn't match the licence plate record they have a photo of you and, if enough cameras are in place, also the location you drove it to.

    4. Re:Kinda Cool, Kinda weird by daikokatana · · Score: 1
      You mean people in the UK drive stolen cars with the original license plates?

      And, what's this? They drive the cars? I thought they would become little parts in the aftermarket.

      Of course, but first you need to get hold of fake or stolen license plates. If you do not have those at that moment, you still need to take the car to someone who can take apart the car and sell on the parts, for which you need to travel by road. Once you reach said person, prior to stripping the car, it will cost you at least...

      Oops...

      What I meant was "yeah, amazing they still do that". Yeah, that's what I meant. Really.

      --
      http://jcsnippets.atspace.com/ - a collection of Java & C# snippets
    5. Re:Kinda Cool, Kinda weird by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      I remember seeing something like this technology being tested with police. They setup a unit like this (might be the same thing) on a busy road. Anyways, a few hours later, the system caught a few stolen cars, speeders, and few other things, that led to a record number of arrests that day.

      Did the report say how many lives were saved by getting those speeders off the road?

      Thought not...

    6. Re:Kinda Cool, Kinda weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that surveillance is bad it's that humans do not have the oustanding moral character as a race to use these methods wisely. They are idiots. If we were all truly rational and compassionate beings there would not be need for surveillance in the first place, or if there was (for some justifiable reason), we would not have to worry about it because there would be such a level of trust among the entire race of a nation / world.

    7. Re:Kinda Cool, Kinda weird by AndyS · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, speed cameras in Kent (SouthEast of England) now say how effective the cameras were just before you reach them. Hearts and minds at a guess. The one near us has had a "48% reduction in accidents" since being installed (or it could have been casualities - I'll look more closely next time I go past).

      Most people who think they can drive safely at 90mph probably can't.

    8. Re:Kinda Cool, Kinda weird by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      From their website, the cameras are only placed in high-fatality locations, and are not revenue-gathering devices. Hurrah. If only all speed cameras were placed as sensibly as these ones.

  11. interesting from the police side by mandreko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    this could be a very interesting tool. Other than it's privacy issues of course, it could be used in some neat ways.

    Let's say you have a criminal who has been busted for drug charges. You could then find out where he's been, and probably track down where he gets his stuff from, and take it straight up the channels to the big guys.

    Or does it not work that way?

    1. Re:interesting from the police side by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Drug pushers take cabs.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    2. Re:interesting from the police side by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if you had stopped your car next to his to ask for directions it would look like you did a drug deal. Good enough reason to search your home, car, and office. I am sure that your boss, family, and the people living next door would understand...
      I am not a privacy nut but this seems just wrong.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:interesting from the police side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They certainly won't be taking the train.
      Not with the millimetre scanners that we're getting to "stop terrorism"

    4. Re:interesting from the police side by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      "Let's say you have a criminal who has been busted for drug charges. You could then find out where he's been, and probably track down where he gets his stuff from, and take it straight up the channels to the big guys."

      you fucking narc. drugs and speeding are really the biggest problems society has. good thing you have those bases covered or id be worried! This is a sick idea. Take away honest peoples drugs, and they will have ALOT more time. Alot more bored time. alot more bored time to fuck with you.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    5. Re:interesting from the police side by fredmosby · · Score: 1

      If they had the tracking information for your car they could see that you only stopped next to his car once in the last two years. The tracking information would make it easier to exonerate innocent people as well as prosecute criminals.

    6. Re:interesting from the police side by john9348 · · Score: 1

      Would a simple change of number plates not solve this problem? Maybe have a few number plates and change them often? It is unlikly the police would pull you over and run a check on your number plates, it may be worth the risk if you wanted to hide where your drugs came from.

    7. Re:interesting from the police side by ndixon · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's not just about speeding. Check this blurb from the company supplying the tech:
      Derbyshire Constabulary has operated ANPR systems in some of its road policing unit vehicles since 1999 and will act as the Lead Authority on the framework. Whilst the contract sees Derbyshire working with Lincolnshire, the framework may also be utilised by a number of other East Midlands police forces.

      As part of the five year framework agreement, 'vehicles of interest' will be detected and stopped, using the new system to cross reference the data against a variety of databases including the Police National Computer (PNC), Local Force Intelligence Systems and other related databases, for example at the DVLA.

      I've nothing against this in principle, but given UK.gov's track record in implementing computer systems and maintaining "accurate" databases, I predict this system will be making regular appearances in RISKS.
      --
      Oh, how convenient: a theory about God that doesn't involve looking through a telescope.
    8. Re:interesting from the police side by PurpleWizard · · Score: 1

      You make a good point. If you stopped next to a terrorist you are likely to end up detained for 28 days whilst they rip your house apart and everything else you own!

  12. I predict... by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One group of people asking why the English let their government run roughshod over them, and a group of Brits claiming that they fully understand the reasons behind the measures their government is taking and are willing to endure scrutiny for the public good.

    1984 wasn't set in America.

    1. Re:I predict... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      In addition,t he 2'nd group will say that if you are not doing anything illegal, that you have nothing to fear.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:I predict... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I've always felt that if the government wants to put us under that much surveillance, then I think we should have surveillance on the politicians that give the thumbs up to these proposals, the people that administer the system and the people that access. They should be forced to wear microphones, they should be monitored, with their every move accessible by the public.

      If they really feel that privacy is an extinguishable notion, then they should be the ones to suffer that loss of it the very most. If they are unwilling to put up with this intrusion, then they can bloody well stop demanding intrusions on the common citizen.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:I predict... by suitepotato · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I want to watch Ted Kennedy sitting on the john. I mean, ogrish.com is one thing, but watching the private moments of some politicians is just way too far.

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    4. Re:I predict... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a third group blaming America...

    5. Re:I predict... by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even as the poster of this story, I'm with you.

      Information wants to be free and all that.

      I think we should all have access to all the CCTV cameras.

      In Ian M. Bank's sci-fi books, the culture have droids that will follow you and record your every details so you can watch it later, and that other people can have access to. You can turn them off but people in The Culture generally have nothing to hide. If your citizens are hiding stuff, you're society is wrong :)

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    6. Re:I predict... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If they really feel that privacy is an extinguishable notion, then they should be the ones to suffer that loss of it the very most. If they are unwilling to put up with this intrusion, then they can bloody well stop demanding intrusions on the common citizen.
      No, in fact I suspect that politicians will be exempt from this system, perhaps by means of a 'VIP list', that lists license plates not to be sent down to the central servers. Otherwise, a terrorist could hack the system and find out where each politician is, for easy assasination. The current obession with security works for them the same way it works against us.
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re:I predict... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you COULD become like what you despise, taking an eye for an eye approach... or you could just vote them out of office

    8. Re:I predict... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good idea. I prepose that all politicians be given a 24-7 news crew to watch their every move.

    9. Re:I predict... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always felt that if the government wants to put us under that much surveillance, then I think we should have surveillance on the politicians that give the thumbs up to these proposals, the people that administer the system and the people that access.

      That's funny. I've always felt that if the government wants to put us under that much surveillance, we should kill them.

    10. Re:I predict... by Bogtha · · Score: 1, Informative

      That should read British, not English. It's akin to me calling everybody from the USA "Texan". England doesn't have her own government.

      Us British get a lot of stick for CCTV and schemes like this. 1984 is always brought up. But schemes like this do not intrude into our homes. We still have privacy. In fact, we have state-protected privacy with laws like the Data Protection Act. Until the government mandates putting CCTV inside every room of every home, your Orwellian analogies just don't hold.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    11. Re:I predict... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fudge that.

      Every person in parliment that voted for it also get cameras installed in their homes and put on the telly as a new reality show.

      Maybe then they will think before voting.

    12. Re:I predict... by egoshin · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, if there is a list of exceptional license plates when it could be stolen or system can be tested against it and criminal can just put a faked license plate to avoid a surveillance.

      1984 must be for anybody w/out exclusions ! You like it in full or you hate it in full - no tradeoffs.

    13. Re:I predict... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 1984 wasn't set in America.

      Very true, and the original title set as _The Last Man in Europe_ but definately a British flavor of Europe.

      America is more likely to be called _A Brave New World_ in title or deed, anyway.

    14. Re:I predict... by terrymr · · Score: 1

      You mean everyone from the USA isn't Texan ?!

    15. Re:I predict... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but Texas didn't invade and conquer all the other 50 states. England, while only a part of Britain, seems to run the show, and the other parts don't seem to be too wild about being part of them. It wasn't that long ago that Ireland finally broke free after horrible mismanagement (possibly even genocide) by the British government, although they managed to hang onto a small part in the north. Scotland certainly didn't want to be part of Britain (raping every newlywed bride--that's a nice way to greet your new countrymen), nor did Wales.

    16. Re:I predict... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I think we should all have access to all the CCTV cameras.

      That would be grand. Unfortunately, they were all switched off for maintenance while the police held a few hundred people against their will on May Day the other year, right out in the open in London. Funny how that happened.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    17. Re:I predict... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "raping every newlywed bride--that's a nice way to greet your new countrymen"

      There is no actual evidence that this ever happened, but don't let that stop you getting your "facts" from rubbish films.

      I have noticed, a decline, in this sort of anti-English propaganda coming out of Hollywood in recent years since certain Arabs took an interest in Americans.

    18. Re:I predict... by csrster · · Score: 1

      Quite, and he probably didn't check the voting figures for the SNP in the last election either. (Hint: it was less than 50%)

    19. Re:I predict... by EdibleEchidna · · Score: 1

      1984 wasn't written by an American, so why should it be?

    20. Re:I predict... by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      I've always felt that if the government wants to put us under that much surveillance, then I think we should have surveillance on the politicians that give the thumbs up to these proposals, the people that administer the system and the people that access. They should be forced to wear microphones, they should be monitored, with their every move accessible by the public.

      I fully agree.

      I am not one to use violence, but if CCTV cameras were put up all over my town, I would be out there disabling them. Either messing with the CC itself, or the camera. Obviously the only people (general public) that want these systems, are the ones that are scared of something (muggings, drugs in their neghbourhoods, etc), while the politicians want them for money, power, and obedience. I would disable each and every camera. If they were put back up, I would take them down again. Yes, people would be angry because of the lost money, but after a few times they would be pissed off with the gov't re-spending the money on the same failed solution. Hopefully the idea would then be quashed.

      With all of these crazy gov't powers around the world, I am really starting to feel like starting a revolution to bring them down. My thoughts have been shifting from normal, every day things like going to work, eating, and socializing to figuring out how to take down governments. And no, I don't mean Im going to bomb them or something crazy like that. Anyone else starting to feel this way?

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
  13. Holy crap! by thekel · · Score: 1

    That is some scary stuff! Bring on the 1984 references.

  14. angry voters, film at eleven? by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Perhaps now the "silent majority" (people who speed) will elect officials who will raise speed limits or lower speeding penalties.

    Ok, never mind.

    1. Re:angry voters, film at eleven? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      The majority didn't vote for Blair last time. In fact, at the last general election in England, New Labout didn't even get the most votes; the Conservatives did. New Labour got in on the back of votes from Scotland, which has a separate government for the purposes of some local issues, yet still contributes MPs to Westminster who can swing votes on issues that only apply in England.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  15. A culture prone to understatement. by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    > "The primary aims claimed for the system are tackling untaxed and uninsured vehicles, stolen cars and the considerably broader one of 'denying criminals the use of the roads.'

    In other news, the Atlantic Ocean is described as being "considerably broader" than the English Channel.

    But these are folks whose pet name for the gulf of water separating North America from Europe as "the pond".

    One might go further and suggest that British people are prone to occasional tendencies towards understatement.

    1. Re:A culture prone to understatement. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "The primary aims claimed for the system are tackling untaxed and uninsured vehicles, stolen cars and the considerably broader one of 'denying criminals the use of the roads.'

      Or as we like to call them, the slave class working for minimum wage who can't afford insurance.

    2. Re:A culture prone to understatement. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "The primary aims claimed for the system are tackling untaxed and uninsured vehicles, stolen cars and the considerably broader one of 'denying criminals the use of the roads.'
      In other news, the Atlantic Ocean is described as being "considerably broader" than the English Channel.

      I presume by criminals they mean anyone who breaks any traffic laws. Ever.

    3. Re:A culture prone to understatement. by GWTPict · · Score: 1

      Personally I will concede a mild aversion to rocking the boat. If pushed, obviously.

    4. Re:A culture prone to understatement. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      One might go further and suggest that British people are prone to occasional tendencies towards understatement.

      I think even two or three of us might, actually. I doubt it's any more than that, though.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    5. Re:A culture prone to understatement. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They seem to be assuming that criminals register cars in their own name.

  16. Speed Limit by PresidentEnder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I just hope that the US doesn't adopt this idea.

    --
    I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
    1. Re:Speed Limit by aussie_a · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      If that's all this was, I'd have no problem with it. Speeding fines are a voluntary tax. Everyone is able to stop paying them whenever they want. You just have to do this funny thing called "follow the law." If you want to be able to do whatever speed you want (like on the german Autobahn (spelling?)) then petition your congress critters (and work towards it with like-minded people and not giving up after one letter) or move to Germany.

      However this isn't the only issue with these cameras. There's the privacy issue (will they be able to be used to show I buy drugs? For example, if I happen to stop a drug dealer on the road and talk with them asking for directions, will the fact I spoke with him be all that's needed to have my house searched?) and the cost issue (it aint going to be built for free y'know).

    2. Re:Speed Limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The State of Conn. has eyes from satilights ticketing speeders from space.

    3. Re:Speed Limit by RetroGeek · · Score: 1

      Everyone is able to stop paying them whenever they want. You just have to do this funny thing called "follow the law."

      Correct.

      Except that most speed limits are set too low. It is assumed that most people will speed about 10/$units over the speed limit. Plus, they are set low for revenue generation.

      With this system you will get a lot of slow drivers, increased time to get anywhere, and lots of frustrated drivers. And hopefully political pressure to raise limits.

      I sometimes get to work at 140/km in a 100/km zone. Usually in a train of cars doing the same thing. The conditions make it safe: little traffic, lots of space between cars, dry roads, daylight.

      --

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    4. Re:Speed Limit by aussie_a · · Score: 0

      There's no except. If you don't like speeding laws, or want them higher, work towards it. You can't complain when police enforce the law. That's their job.

    5. Re:Speed Limit by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      There's no except. If you don't like speeding laws, or want them higher, work towards it.

      There is an "except." When the limits are set too low, no one else follows them. It is less safe to follow the limit than it is to speed up to the flow of traffic. So, to follow the laws while working to change them will make me less safe. Also, disobedience, like Rosa Parks, is more a catalyst for change than following the laws while working to change them.

      You can't complain when police enforce the law. That's their job.

      No, their job is to protect and serve (too bad none of them follow the mottos printed on their cars and badges). They whine endlessly about their rights of "discretion". That is, they are proud of the fact they are allowed to pick and choose which laws to enforce. Since that is something they have fought hard for, then why can't I hold it against them when they use their discretion to pick out victimless infringements that aren't even unsafe, when there are so many other valid ones that should be higher priority?

    6. Re:Speed Limit by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      You're one of those people who does the speed limit in the fast lane, causing people to have to pass you on the right (or left, in Britain), aren't you? If so, here's a newsflash: your behavior is more dangerous than speeding!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:Speed Limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What you are actually saying is "I hope they don't tell us they have adopted (OK - invented) this already"

      With all the three letter agencies we have, you are severely deluded if you don't think that it exists in the US already. Just look at the way the Dept. of Homeland Security is eroding the Constitution.

      The only difference seems to be the level of disclosure from the Government.

    8. Re:Speed Limit by cornjchob · · Score: 1

      Listen, I don't hold your views against you: it's your government's fault. SA doesn't even allow arms out of the window. You can grow pot, but you can't rest a limb on the outside of a vehicle. Go figure.

      Just some ribbing from a yank who imported one of your fine ladies after a visit. Love the cockney rhyming slang though, that shit cracks me up.

      --
      We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
    9. Re:Speed Limit by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You don't have to pass him, you know. You can (actually, should) just observe the limit as well.

  17. Not in America by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Not in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But are the authoritahs actually issuing speeding tickets based on transponder toll payment time stamps?

    2. Re:Not in America by SoCalChris · · Score: 1

      When I lived in CA, I was fighting a speeding ticket, and found out that it is illegal to issue a speeding ticket based on the time to travel between two points. So the tollway option that you listed here won't work in CA (Not sure about the other states, or if the law has changed since then). It made it nice for remote areas where the "Speed enforced by aircraft". They would have to catch you speeding in the aircraft, and then radio a car, and have the car catch you with radar or pace you.

      Luckily, now I live in a large rural state, that only has 200 highway patrol officers for the entire state (1 officer for every 2,196 square miles if they each work an 8 hour shift every day). In my 50 mile one way commute, I go through 3 traffic signals (One turns off at night), and none of them have red light cameras.

      So, there's no monitoring for me, but a whole lot of speeding :)

    3. Re:Not in America by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      So, there's no monitoring for me, but a whole lot of speeding :)

      If there's no speed limit (montana speed limits), is it really speeding?

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    4. Re:Not in America by SoCalChris · · Score: 1

      There are speed limits, now. When the 55MPH federal limit was repealed, the limits on interstates went to "Reasonable & prudent". A guy driving a brand new sports car was ticketed for doing around 80, and he fought the ticket on the grounds that the speed was reasonable & prudent for the conditions. The state supreme court ruled that the R & P limit was unconstitutional due to its vagueness, so until the state lawmakers could set new limits, there were none on the interstates.

      Interestingly enough, during the time of no speed limits, there was not a single fatal accident on any of the roads that had no limit. Seat belt usage was far higher than the national average. Once speed limits were set again, the fatal accident rate rose 111% from when the limit was R & P.

      Now, the interstate limit is typically 75, and most 2 lane roads are 65-70. Speed limits tend to be loosely enforced, due to the low amount of officers patrolling.

      Links:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Montana
      http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
      http://www.motorists.com/pressreleases/montana.htm l

  18. Speeding tolerance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the Brittons were to use this system to enforce speed limits, which I hope they won't, what would be an intelligent tolerance of speed above the marked speed limit? I can't see getting a fine for going 105km/h in a 100km/h zone, where do you draw the cut off? Use the system that's unofficially adopted in the US where you're pretty much safe going up to 10mp/h over the limit?

    1. Re:Speeding tolerance? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      except at the end of the month when the cops are short on their quotas

    2. Re:Speeding tolerance? by gedhrel · · Score: 1

      Or if you're driving a pink car and they've got a large break whilst playing motorway snooker. This also happens.

  19. Much fairer speeding fines by kotku · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The point to point speeding measurements are much fairer than the spot speeding checks. For example if you average 150MPH down the freeway over 1km you can't really complain when you get busted. If however you get caught at 150MPH when passing a truck at the unfortunate location of a Gatso then that may just be bad luck.

    --
    The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
    1. Re:Much fairer speeding fines by ztransform · · Score: 2, Funny
      I have to say I totally agree with this.

      There are times when the offence of speeding is hardly justified as a safety issue. Overtaking is one such time when, done properly, one may need to exceed the speed of the vehicle one is passing..

      Of course one could have fun with this. After passing one vehicle registration plate recognition camera at 150MPH one could slam on the brakes and park on the motorway for a minute or so.. then drop the clutch and zoom off again..!

    2. Re:Much fairer speeding fines by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      If however you get caught at 150MPH when passing a truck at the unfortunate location of a Gatso then that may just be bad luck.

      Aaah, no. That's not bad luck. That's illegal. Speeding to overtake somebody (unless that person is a danger to yourself, in which case you should report it to the police ASAP, if only to get out of a speeding fine) is illegal and dangerous. If the truck is driving slowly, then you are able to overtake them without speeding. Otherwise you should have no reason to overtake the truck.

    3. Re:Much fairer speeding fines by AKAImBatman · · Score: 0

      I seriously hope you intended to put KPH instead of MPH. ANYONE going 150MPH in a 65 zone ought to have their license revoked on the spot.

    4. Re:Much fairer speeding fines by mallardtheduck · · Score: 1

      Except they would probably make these new cameras also function as radar cameras...

    5. Re:Much fairer speeding fines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have never had the pleasure of being stuck behind a diesel on a single lane road with moderate opposing traffic.

      Just so you can not think a little more: Truck going 50 in a 55 with a line of cars behind him, you can attempt to pass at 55, but the problem is you need to accelerate pass the truck in a passing lane (which normally reside going up a hill) or you can wait until the other lane of traffic is open at which you can cruise a few inches and leave yourself open to oncoming traffic which would be even safer.

      **excuse my rant**
      Speeding is just another tax. There's a reason why police in a good number of places have removed the "protect and serve" from the vehicles. It's because they are there to enforce code, and speeding is one hell of a revenue generator. Of course, the police are special and they should be able to speed and kill people like they have in the past due to recklace driving. I always wondered where I could go to get a license to drive like an asshole and then I realized that all I need to do is become a cop.

      Examples:
        State troopers who raced down a residential road to see who could make the best time.
        Local officers running red lights in a city that prides itself for writing tickets for running yellows.
        Local officers who have killed people in passenger cars because something was so important that they get to choose who is at risk. Of an of course they don't have to use lights and drive completely in the dark.
        Local officers who like to sit in the dark while in a turn lane. I would love for someone to plow right into one of those SOB and then sue them for recklessness, but then again they would get off.

    6. Re:Much fairer speeding fines by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      There's a trial run of them on the M90 just north of edinburgh. They dont emit radar and are much higher than regular gatsos, more like lamppost height.

      My cousin is working on a driving technique which involves tailgating trucks as you pass the camera. Although at the time that the test install went up they were every mile... that's a lot harder to sustain for every quarter mile.

      They could easily attempt something like this on tollways here in the US, i'm sure the ExpressToll timings give away the average speed of the vehical.

    7. Re:Much fairer speeding fines by fmobus · · Score: 0

      In Brazil you can overtake over the speed limit, but you're limited to speed limit + 16%.
      It sorta makes sense: if a truck is doing 70Km/h and you want to overtake it, doing 80Km/h is dangerous, for the relative speed will be 10Km/h and the maneuver (driving in the opposite lane) will last more than recommended. In such situations, doing 90Km/h is actually safer than doing 80Km/h.
      Back on initial topic, sometimes speeding control is just money-sucking device. In the town I live, there are some safe spots (large lanes, no schools, no pedestrians, no obstacles) with 60Km/h limit (this is the limit in city-owned streets/roads in Brazil) and Gatsos/radars.
      There are a lot of red-light cameras here too, but, for security reasons, they won't fine you past 10pm.

    8. Re:Much fairer speeding fines by blueflash2o · · Score: 1

      thats not the way it works if you have a car that can go 150mph then you have the money for the bribe

    9. Re:Much fairer speeding fines by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      ok, speed limit it 70 MPH
      Person infront of me is doing 65 MPH
      I have 300 miles to travel today
      The difference in travelling time is slightly under 1/2 and hour
      What if I have 600 miles to do? that's nearly an hour on top.
      Ok, how about 1200 miles? (I'm not suggesting you do this in one go, you should definately have two drivers for such a journey) that's two extra hours, just from going 5MPH slower.

      Now, say that I pull out 100 yards behind someone and pull back in at 100 yards (and assume that they have a 0 car length). If I'm travelling at 70MPH to overtake them, that's 81 seconds.
      You don't spend 81 seconds in the outer lane unless you want every other driver on the road to think that you're an idiot. Once you get into the outer lane you make your overtake and get out as quickly as possible. at 75MPH, 40 seconds and at 79 MPH (the enforcement threshold)~ 31 seconds. Now, you you could use 90MPH you get your overtake done in 16 seconds and be free to continue your journey at 70MPH.
      Now, consider the fact that you probably pull out at ~ 50 yards and back in at ~ 25 yards, at 80MPH you'll have overtaken in ~ 10 seconds. The practical difference between 80MPH and the 70MPH speed limit on a motorway over a short distance is negligible.
      Also, when the insurer Norwich Union was trialing a system which recorded you speed and location when you drove to see how often you drove over the speed limit and adjust your premiums as necessary, speed-limit breaking for up to 11 seconds at a time was ignored entirely to allow people to overtake.

      So, in conclusion, being able to break the speed limit over the short term is necessary to a smooth-running motorway network.

      --
      FGD 135
    10. Re:Much fairer speeding fines by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Then work towards getting a law that allows speeding to overtake people. But until that happens you're breaking the law. That isn't unlucky, that's illegal. Don't complain when the law is enforced.

    11. Re:Much fairer speeding fines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      60 miles on a twisty single carridgeway in the UK.

      You're in a car, you can legally do it in 1 hour (60MPH). Unless you get a truck in front of you because they're only allowed to do 40MPH. So using that guy's reasoning you should just accept an extra 20+ minutes increase to your journey time (not to mention several hundred percent increase to stress levels) unless there's somewhere long, straight, and clear enough for you to safely overtake without exceeding the speed limit. In an average family car with under 100bph that's not many places.

      In the past I've gotten past a small convoy of trucks on a long A road by blatantly exceeding the speed limit to perform the overtake. By the end of it I was doing somewhere around 100mph, which I soon dropped off. There was a police car behind me who performed the same manouvre shortly after, again clearly exceeding the speed limit. He overtook me while he was at it, and continued away driving at 70. Yes I knew the copper was there but no I didn't worry about it because it's the only sane thing to do.

      Yes it's technically illegal (as is J-walking) but under certain conditions it's obviously safer to exceed the speed limit and 2) it was not irresponsible.

      It's the same reason I have never been pulled for doing over 90 on the motorway at off-peak times when traffic's light. It's not unsafe if the road's clear and the weather's good. 6pm it would be dangerous, but not at 3am.

      What really is dangerous is travelling at or above the speed limit on a motorway (70MPH) like a shockingly high number of people like to do when you can't see more than a few feet in front of you due to weather. What are these cameras going to do to stop that? NOTHING!

      Put cameras in front of schools set to 22mph. Put traffic light cameras all over the place. Put cameras around shockingly dangerous roads with high fatality rates. I'm fine with all that. But penalising people who are blatantly not putting anyone in danger, and removing the coppers that are able to deal with the real dangerous drivers? WTF?

    12. Re:Much fairer speeding fines by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      You're lucky to have 65 as your limit. Here on Long Island the limit is no higher than 55 mph on any superhighway. Even the right lane slow-pokes do at least 55 mph. Left lane and HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes generally move at 75-80 mph when the road is open. 55 is asking to be rear-ended by cars moving with the flow of traffic, or more likely by a person speeding and doing 90-100 while weaving through traffic and mis-judging your speed. Even though the other is at fault, it's still an accident that you could have avoided by going as fast as the average car is going.

      It's been shown statistically that the safest speed is the median speed of the other cars on the highway. The risk of accident and death rises rapidly as you go further away from this speed. With a 65 mph average speed, your risk of death is similar at 0 mph (a sitting duck in a busy highway) as at 130 mph (weaving in and out of traffic with a death wish). The former also forces people to do high speed and very risky maneuvers to avoid you.

      PS: This is only true on superhighways and other places where you are far more likely to crash into another car AND there is a physical divider between you and the traffic going the other way, for small roads, going too slow is safer than too fast, though just right is still safest.

      On an aside, I personally wish that I could do 55 safely. Fuel efficiency at 70 mph is easily 20% lower than at 55, and I'm almost never in a rush to get anywhere. If it had autopilot, I usually wouldn't mind doing 40 if it saved another 20% gas and I had an internet-ready laptop.

      PPS: I am completely ignoring all the privacy implications. They easily trump the imagined increase in safety in imposing low speed limits, but everybody seems to be in agreement over that, so it's a moot point.

    13. Re:Much fairer speeding fines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't want to get there as quickly as feasible, WTF are you doing in a car rather than public transit?

    14. Re:Much fairer speeding fines by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I was actually advised by my driving instructor -- a former police driver herself, and married to one of the highest rated police pursuit drivers in the country -- to exceed the limit somewhat when overtaking, if it was safe and it was necessary to complete the manoeuvre within a reasonable time. She reckoned that no traffic cop was ever going to pull me for that; most of them would rather I did the safe and reasonable thing than the legal one. They have to clear up the mess when accidents happen, which (speaking as a first aider myself) is pretty good for putting things in perspective.

      Of course, the wonder of automated enforcement is that it removes any use of common sense in such cases, while giving you a rock solid "Well, you knew it was illegal" to fight in court, where "Well, you knew it was a poorly written law" is no defence.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    15. Re:Much fairer speeding fines by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      6pm it would be dangerous, but not at 3am.
      You know how you can tell the police set up speed traps for revenue generation, not safety? They're there in the middle of the day, not rush hour!
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  20. Don't forget the third group... by ctid · · Score: 1

    ... of pedants who point out that Britain != England.

    --
    Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
  21. This isn't so bad by mgv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've always felt that these sorts of measures are alot better than the speed enforment that we have in Australia and many other places - The hidden multinova cameras that police now use here.

    If you really want to stop speeding, this is the way to do it. All the time. Everywhere.

    If it sounds radical, well at least it will mean that in the long run the speed limits themselves will have to be adjusted to something that is reasonable, rather than what has happened in most countries - speed limits that were set but which are only enforced a very tiny fraction of the time.

    Also, getting done for doing too fast an average speed is far more important than getting unlucky for doing an instantaneous speed that is too fast at some random point in your trip. Almost everyone speeds a little at some time - unless you only use cruise control to drive with you will always run the risk of going too fast at some point when you aren't looking at your speedo. (And, its not exactly safe to drive the whole trip whilst looking only at your speed)

    As for the privacy issues.

    Well, I think its a little too late for anyone in the UK (maybe anywhere, really) to get worried about that. Look at the congestion tax in the UK (Automatic licence plate recognition). Look also at the ability to obtain a list of every base station that your mobile is associated with - the phone companies can do this if requested by a magistrate, although that usually only done in murder cases or similar. Look at the number of CCTV's that proliferate in every public place.

    Unfortunatly, the invasion into our privacy has only just begun. There is no techonlogical way to avoid this - it will only get worse. Soon enough automatic facial recognition will be connected to all the CCTV's around and you will be trackable just for being visible. You can identify people by the way that they walk. Some systems now can identify potential suicides in the happening in train stations by the typical behaviour people make prior to jumping in front of trains.

    The only solution to the privacy issues are legislative ones. You can't stop this level of data collection anymore, all we can do is ensure that only certain legitimate uses for it exist. This is the only way that any of us will have real protection in the future - if its in a constitution or in legislation.

    Just my 2c worth,

    Michael

    --
    There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
    1. Re:This isn't so bad by arevos · · Score: 1
      Unfortunatly, the invasion into our privacy has only just begun. There is no techonlogical way to avoid this - it will only get worse.

      In terms of cameras and the like, I agree with you, though in terms of purely virtual privacy issues (for instance, monitoring instant messages and emails), it's reasonably easy to gain secure privacy through encryption and pseudonymous networks.

      I just wish there were a way of applying this to meatspace :(
    2. Re:This isn't so bad by Excen · · Score: 1

      Soon enough automatic facial recognition will be connected to all the CCTV's around and you will be trackable just for being visible.
       
      I can see it now:
       
        The headline from the May 2010 issue of Modern Crackpot:
       
        Burqas, the New Tin Foil Hat?

      --
      "No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
    3. Re:This isn't so bad by ZoTo · · Score: 1

      But if the cameras aren't close enough, like the Safe-T-Cams in New South Wales, you get done for speeding when you take a shortcut between cameras. Coonabarabran to Dubbo is a good example - some truck drivers take the shortcut through Mendooran, cutting 32km from the trip and get "clocked" at illegal speeds.

      Britain's quarter mile spacing is suitable but can't be done in Oz.

    4. Re:This isn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, I'd like to be able to manipulate spacetime to my will, which would be pretty much the only safe way to achieve that.

      Note: the word in the image I got is 'intrude' Ha!

    5. Re:This isn't so bad by oolon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The thing is speeding is not actually the problem they need to solve, accidents are. With the level of cameras now on the road, I find I am paying far more attention to, what the last speed sign said, where the next camera is and how fast I am going. However what i probably should be doing is looking at the road conditions, other vehicles and people/objects near the road for potental hazards. When i drove through nottingham on the M1 there is an average speed check, and it keeps you on edge all the time, the road was of minor importance like wise other cars, my speed was my primary consern as it was with other drivers, you can see this from cars "wandering" onto the lane divisions. Two months ago I got my first speeding ticket ever and have been driving for 10 years. Not to much of a problem, but its getting easier to make mistakes and get caught, at 3+ points each its getting all to easy to hit 12 points in 3 years and get banned. I am starting to think people should get one "free" offence a year.

      James

    6. Re:This isn't so bad by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      I certainly agree with you that speed enforcement as it currently is (here in the midwestern US at least) sucks. What's the best way to get a speeding ticket? Drive 10-15 over the limit (much faster and they'll just let you go) at night on some highway in the middle of nowhere with very light traffic (say, I-74 between Peoria and Champaign or I-57 around Paxton; if there's enough traffic that you'd actually be endangering someone the police seem much less likely to stick their nose in).

    7. Re:This isn't so bad by Bogtha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two months ago I got my first speeding ticket ever and have been driving for 10 years. Not to much of a problem, but its getting easier to make mistakes and get caught, at 3+ points each its getting all to easy to hit 12 points in 3 years and get banned. I am starting to think people should get one "free" offence a year.

      Why? So that people can keep speeding, keep getting caught, and keep getting away with it? A law isn't wrong just because you could get away with it easily before but can't any more. The idea is that you either don't speed (hence not having to pay attention to where the speed cameras are, or that you get caught and, if you don't learn your lesson (as exemplified by repeat offences), you get banned.

      Giving people "free passes" completely undermines that for no reason. You appear to have the following thought process:

      1. I have been speeding for years.
      2. The government hasn't punished me for this before.
      3. I am not a bad person.
      4. From 1, 2 and 3: My speeding is not wrong and shouldn't be punished.
      5. From 4: The government has recently started punishing me for this.
      6. From 5: The government is obviously wrong to punish me for this.
      7. From 6: People like me should be let off.

      4 is wrong. Speeding is wrong. Just because you are getting caught now, it doesn't mean it wasn't wrong before. If you don't want to get banned from driving, then there's a simple, obvious answer: slow down. Operating something as dangerous as a car in public is a privilege, not a right, and if you can't comply with basic safety laws, that privilege should be revoked.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    8. Re:This isn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      speeding is NOT wrong. setting a speed limit lower than what most drivers drive at IS wrong and should be increased to a speed at which 85% of drivers do not exceed.
      BTW, travel is a RIGHT and not a privilidge. just because you happen to use a *car* does not make it any less of a right.

    9. Re:This isn't so bad by Bogtha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      setting a speed limit lower than what most drivers drive at IS wrong

      Why? The limit isn't there to make you feel better about the speed you drive at, it's there to slow you down to a safer speed.

      BTW, travel is a RIGHT and not a privilidge.

      But I didn't say "travel", I said "operating something as dangerous as a car in public". You can travel by other means if you aren't willing to comply with safety laws regarding cars.

      just because you happen to use a *car* does not make it any less of a right.

      Cars are very dangerous things. A quarter of a million people were hurt in UK road accidents in 2003, thirty thousand of those injuries were serious. Thousands died.

      So long as improperly-operated cars continue to kill people every day, it is not a right to operate a car, but a privilege.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    10. Re:This isn't so bad by oolon · · Score: 1

      Nope I haven't, I try to drive inside the speed limit at all times, and yes I said inside not in my "bonus" 10%+2mph.
      I made a mistake a drove 40 in a 30mph area. I infact saw the mobile speed camera, but that had not been a speed sign for several miles, and made the mistake of sticking with the road speed of the other people arround me, particularly as someone was driving right on my bumber and to break suddenly (just to be sure) WOULD have caused an accident. What I was indicating is the chance of being caught when you make a mistake is higher now than before yet the point system has not be changed, so I was suggesting an alturnative which would accomodate for this. I expressed it too quickly what I ment by "free" was points normally cancel after 3 years, I think the first 3 of any low level offence should expire after one, allowing people who make a the odd mistake to become "clean" faster.

      Your right, I don't think I am a bad guy, I think I am a guy who made a mistake, I have been punished for it, I did not appeal it, I was obviously guilty and deserved to be punished and as I said, I am even more paranoidly checking my speed, and second guessing myself, and that does not make me a safer driver (reducing accidents is the point of speed cameras). I have an 8 year no claims bonus! So atleast my insurance company thinks I am a safe driver and I live in london too!

      However the one thing I did think was the fine I got was a joke in its level, the price of a night out, I think 200 quid would make people think alot more.

      James

    11. Re:This isn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Different vehicles operate under different tolerances. Whipping around a corner in a SUV at 80 mph is always dangerous; doing so in a low-slung roadster may not be.

      The fact of the matter is that speed is only ONE of a number of variables that define how safe a particular trip may be. The road conditions, other vehicles on the road, and skill and attentiveness of the driver are also major components.

      So it really doesn't make sense to say that a particular speed makes a road 'safe'. It does not. The attentiveness and sane driving practices of those on the road make it safe.

      What the GP was really getting at is the fact that speed limits are ARBITRARY and inflexible and do not always take into account the real conditions of the road.

      The real solution to solving the traffic accident problem is to make it harder to get a license. Force more comprehensive driver training. Ruthlessly strip bad/unsafe drivers of their licenses. And for fuck's sake, don't let the elderly drive- if you want to talk about unsafe, take a look at the way that reaction time decreases with age. Oh, and ultimately, figure out how to make public transit or intelligent road systems work!

      Driving at a faster speed than the number on a sign is not immoral, so stop pretending like it is. Driving dangerously is. There IS a difference. Something is not automatically bad just because you are told it is.

    12. Re:This isn't so bad by Bogtha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact of the matter is that speed is only ONE of a number of variables that define how safe a particular trip may be. The road conditions, other vehicles on the road, and skill and attentiveness of the driver are also major components.

      Speed can be objectively measured and legislated. You can't make rainy, dark nights illegal. You can't measure how attentive a driver is as he passes. We already bar the less skillful from driving (you need to pass a test before getting a driving license).

      I'm not stupid, I know that speed is just one factor. But it's an important one, and an easily controlled one.

      So it really doesn't make sense to say that a particular speed makes a road 'safe'. It does not.

      But speed limits aren't based on that. Speed limits are based on the idea that a particular speed makes a road unsafe. And that's obviously true. You might argue that particular limits in particular locations are unreasonable, but that doesn't invalidate speed limits as a concept.

      Driving at a faster speed than the number on a sign is not immoral, so stop pretending like it is. Driving dangerously is.

      The second you start driving faster than people can get out of the way, you are putting people at risk. That's okay, as a society we've learned various practices to reduce that risk to a socially acceptable level. Imposing upper limits on speed is one of those practices. Who are you to decide that the rules don't apply to you? The rules that are there to reduce that risk? Because you think you are a better driver than average? Newsflash: everybody thinks they are better drivers than average.

      Something is not automatically bad just because you are told it is.

      And something is not automatically okay just because you have been getting away with it for a long time.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    13. Re:This isn't so bad by aaronl · · Score: 1

      The excuse for these things is to keep the speed down, but the reason is to tax the people as much as possible. Speed limits in most anywhere have only a passing correlation to safe speeds. People ignore the speed limits because they are arbitrarily low. We aren't driving the impossible to corner and shakes at over 60mph cars of decades ago. We aren't driving with solid rubber tires, steel on steel locking brakes, or no suspensions (in most cases). Those in power would simply rather tax by issuing unneccessary traffic violations than raise the speed limits.

      One of the reasons for having an officer issue tickets was that they examined the situation and decided whether they felt a violation was in order. Then you had officers running around playing ticket-tron throwing violations to every third car. Now people lock their brakes and stop paying attention when they see a police car. The same thing has happend with these ridiculous cameras, except now people are never paying full attention to the road, lest they may drift 1 mph over the limit.

      Operating a car is most certainly not a privilege; operating one on a public roadway is a licensed privilege. If you built your own private road, you could drive however you wanted.

      Oh, and don't get on so much with the cars kill people bit. Everything kills people. People fall down stairs every day, so we put cameras into every house to make sure the kids didn't leave toys on the steps? How about we put them in every kitchen just in case someone decides to stab another with a kitchen knife, and in every bathroom because people are drowned in the bath.

      If the cameras are there, the assumption is that you're already guilty of something and they're just waiting to catch you. That's a real problem. Then again, that's one of those many reasons for why I won't live in England.

    14. Re:This isn't so bad by aaronl · · Score: 1

      Heh, no kidding. Up in the North-East there's I-84 that runs from central Massachusetts into Pennsylvania. There's a stretch in Connecticut that is supposed to be 50mph, and that continues for an absolutely ridiculous amount of miles. It starts justified, as it goes through the middle of a city, but then it's still 50/55mph on a straight highway with nothing around.

      The bit that goes through that city is a little intimidating. Traffic goes 75-85mph with heavy volume and not so good visibility. You never see a cop out on that road through there. I've been told that the patrol officers aren't willing to risk their lives to give out speeding tickets on that road.

      Hell, at one point I was going through there, made it out of the city alive, and was cruising along happily at 70mph after it went up to 65 again. Some tractor trailer decided to pass me in the middle lane, cut me off, and lock his brakes. Mind you, it is illegal for rigs to be in the left lane there, and there was maybe five vehicles in sight on those four lanes. That car never worked again. I try not to drive in Connecticut. ;-)

      State police have no problems issuing lots of tickets in their wonderful 40 miles of undeveloped land, where they refuse to raise the limit from 55mph. Average speed there is around 75mph, and there is excellent visibility. I see at least three cars pulled over every time I drive that stretch.

    15. Re:This isn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your arguments are pretty weak.

      "Speed can be objectively measured and legislated." Therefore it should be?

      "Who are you to decide that the rules don't apply to you?" Who decided it makes sense to limit me to the speed where it's safe for 90 year olds in unmaintained cars to go? I have 20/15 vision, grew up playing racing video games, pay very close attention to the road, and have a car with remarkably advanced stability/traction control and brakes probably bigger than your wheels. If my judgement about what a safe speed for a given road condition is has never been demonstrated to be inaccurate, then why is it the government's job to impose arbitrary restrictions on me? Why is my speed not potential evidence of reckless endangerment if I misjudge, as opposed to a de facto CRIME when my actions were demonstrably victimless, benefitting myself to noone's detriment?

      "Everybody thinks they are better drivers." This doesn't imply that nobody is.

    16. Re:This isn't so bad by mattwarden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The thing is speeding is not actually the problem they need to solve, accidents are

      In my mind, that is the least reason to stop speeding. The maximum speed on highways has a huge effect on gasoline consumption (and therefore its environmental effects) and (relatedly) energy prices. You can see this by looking at graphs of consumption before and after the speed limit in the US was raised from 55 to 65.

    17. Re:This isn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think this is about safety? Is the camera going to pull drivers over and make sure that they straighten up and fly right? Will the camera be able to smell alcohol on the breath of a drunk driver? Will a speeder even realize he got a ticket until it comes in the mail? How exactly does a ticketing camera make individuals drive safer than the already present threat of a ticket?

      It doesn't, because this isn't about safety. These schemes exist to make money, just like the cameras that take your picture when you run a red light. Of course, the cops and politicians in my area gave the same bull line about making people more safe before installing those... But then they started making yellow lights shorter to bust more people, so you can guess where their priorities lie.

      "Speeding is wrong"? What's WRONG is attempting to rob, annoy, intimidate and criminalize the general public with mercilessly automated law enforcement tactics for the sole purpose of lining the pockets of those in position to benefit.

    18. Re:This isn't so bad by ptbarnett · · Score: 1
      You can see this by looking at graphs of consumption before and after the speed limit in the US was raised from 55 to 65.

      Correlation != Causation.

      The national 55mph speed limit was repealed in 1995, leaving it to the states to set the speed limits. It might be 65 in your state, but in mine it varies from 55 to 70, depending on a number of factors.

      After the 55mph speed limit was repealed, the number of miles driven increased substantially. Larger (and less efficient) vehicles also became more popular, as gasoline dropped to historically low prices in 1998 (after adjusting for inflation).

      There are lots of reasons that gasoline consumption increased. The higher speed limit may have been a contributing factor, but the US Dept. of Transportion estimated that the 55mph limit reduced US gasoline by 1 percent, at most. That's statistically insignificant, given the variables. Keeping tires inflated to the proper pressure would probably have saved more gasoline.

    19. Re:This isn't so bad by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      After the 55mph speed limit was repealed, the number of miles driven increased substantially. Larger (and less efficient) vehicles also became more popular, as gasoline dropped to historically low prices in 1998 (after adjusting for inflation).

      What is your point? Each of these is worsened by driving at a less efficient speed.

    20. Re:This isn't so bad by teknomage1 · · Score: 1

      45 mph is more efficient but it's not reasonable to limit travel to this speed with the way cities are designed in this country (US not England). Things are too far away and public transportation is either nonexistant or unreliable in most American cities. Environmentally you could help a lot more by making cars unnecessary than by slowing them down.

      --
      Stop intellectual property from infringing on me
    21. Re:This isn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the speed limits are where they are objectively, then why haven't they been increased as car technology has improved? For example, the motorway speed limit is 70 because cars in the 60s had blow-outs and lost control above that, rather than because of limited driver abilities. With speed ratings of tyres above 120 mph for basic ones, disk brakes rather than 4 drums, ABS etc the situation is entirely different.

      By automating speed ticket issuing, the judgement as to whether driving really is dangerous has been eliminated. Tailgating and other dangerous activities conducted below the speed limit are not caught.

      (Slashdot must agree with me as the captcha text below says "increase")

    22. Re:This isn't so bad by Gimble · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sorry, I've been driving for a long time and NEVER had a speeding ticket. Obviously this means that I've never been caught, but seriously for the last 10 years I've tried really hard not to exceed ANY speed limit, particularly in built up areas.

      It really isn't that difficult to keep to the speed limit. You manage to keep it on the tarmac, why not below the limit, or are your driving skills seriously that poor?

      It really incenses me when thoughtless commuters pile through my village, where there is a 30MPH limit, at 40+. There are schools on both sides of the two main roads as well as housing and kids are always crossing the roads. A very busy beach area near me has a 15MPH limit, and I've nearly had riots because I stick to the limit.

      I have no problems with a speeder getting hit really hard with fines, bans, increased insurance etc. but I am against this data being used for ANY other purpose.

    23. Re:This isn't so bad by arevos · · Score: 1

      Or discardable manufactured bodies, as in Ghost in the Shell. I think we're a while away from that, though :)

    24. Re:This isn't so bad by m50d · · Score: 1
      Look also at the ability to obtain a list of every base station that your mobile is associated with - the phone companies can do this if requested by a magistrate, although that usually only done in murder cases or similar.

      That's qualitatively different. Once you have a warrant, knock yourself out - but I'm not happy about people being routinely tracked.

      --
      I am trolling
    25. Re:This isn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different vehicles operate under different tolerances.

      Yes and the current UK speed limits are based on a 1960s Ford Anglia's stopping distance. Seen many of those on the road lately?

    26. Re:This isn't so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is the government slowing us all down?
      It must be because people start dieing and crashing when they drive fast. So they want to reduce the deaths.

      But to what level, why are they fannying around with speed cameras when the best way to stop us dieing is to make wheels ilegal. That way no one can drive and die.

      The problem is people need and want to drive. So when are the government going to stop reducing speeds / adding cameras / giving us points? what is an acceptable number of people to die?

      Every time someone dies on the road the family of the deceased get the governement to slow us all down. The only way the government are going to stop enfocing slower and slower speeds is when we put our foot down.

      The speed limits on todays roads have not changed much in 30 odd years, new cars are safer and better and the car checks are more stringent. We need a complete overhaul of the system. we need to redesign the roads so that people can go faster.

      I've been given 3 points for speeding, and im totally irate at the system. I'm a criminal because i went 10mph faster than "is allowed" on a road that was completely empty. It happenend on those jock roads where they have pissed speed cameras everywhere.

      I'm planning to go and cut down a few speed cameras, and i need a willing force to do the same in their area. If we cut down enough, then the government will understand how we feel about the speed camera issue.

      Are you with me or are you with me?

      *goes to get the saw*

    27. Re:This isn't so bad by ptbarnett · · Score: 1
      What is your point? Each of these is worsened by driving at a less efficient speed.

      My point is that your claim:

      You can see this by looking at graphs of consumption before and after the speed limit in the US was raised from 55 to 65.

      ... cannot be substantiated. There are many factors that cause gasoline consumption to rise. Aside from a few pauses, consumption has risen without regard to the speed limit: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/perspectives.p df. Look at figure 19 on page xxiv. There's no discernible change in the trend in 1995. As I posted in my last message, the US DOT estimates that -- at most -- the 55mph speed limit reduced consumption by 1%, which is statistically insignificant. But, that was at the expense of billions of man hours, which translated directly into reduced productivity and billions of wasted dollars.

      Repealing the speed limit didn't increase accident fatalities or injuries, either. After accounting for the increase in miles driven, accident injuries and fatalities actually declined from 1995 to 1997: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa346.pdf

    28. Re:This isn't so bad by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      US DOT estimates that -- at most -- the 55mph speed limit reduced consumption by 1%, which is statistically insignificant

      It seems you have your own misphrases when it comes to statistics.

    29. Re:This isn't so bad by ptbarnett · · Score: 1
      It seems you have your own misphrases when it comes to statistics.

      Translation: you can't back up what you wrote or refute what I wrote, so you resorted to a personal attack.

      I do statistical data analyis every day. If I claimed there was a correlation based on a 1% difference in measurements, my clients would (rightfully) question my competence. If I claimed there was a cause-effect relationship, I would be asked to leave.

    30. Re:This isn't so bad by PurpleWizard · · Score: 1
      We could just build cars that don't do more than 70mph. The fact that the vast majority don't go out and by cars that are limited to 70mph might be suggestive that the vast mass majority do not want that to happen. It would be cheap too, one line of code (maybe 5) in the engine controller.

      We could also require secure loggers on all cars with a major offense if you tamper that can be read at a distance by the police. They recorded your speed but not location at all times. If you speed you can be done.

      But no the choice is for a system that allows for the tracking at all times of vehicles. Why? I could easily feel paranoid about this.

      The UK intends to bring in GPS based road charging in 5 to 10 years, why waste money on this intervening system?

      The whole thing has lots of oddities to it if it is just to stop speeding.

    31. Re:This isn't so bad by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      I can't back it up because you didn't provide a source for that 1% stat you threw out. But, my suspicion is that it is the low end of the range. Otherwise, the DOT are morons.

  22. The only thing I have a problem with by Bazzalisk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    is keeping the records for two years - I can't see any good reason for that. The cameras themselves aren't much different from the camera system already used to maintain the congestuion charge in central london and are overall a Good Thing. (As a cyclist I find that the largest regular threat to my life tends to originate from speeding/incompetent motorists - and I want them to be caught and have their licenses revoked)

    --
    James P. Barrett
    1. Re:The only thing I have a problem with by Trepalium · · Score: 1

      The unsaid idea behind that is that they will want to use the records for criminal prosecutions. Having a retention window is invaluable for this. If their surveillance systems put your vehicle in the same area as the crime during the period during which it happened, that can be some very powerful evidence. On the other hands, I'd expect this system to be "leaky" with details so that politicians and other powerful people to find information about people that get in their way (don't you love blackmail?).

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
    2. Re:The only thing I have a problem with by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      is keeping the records for two years - I can't see any good reason for that.

      I can't see how they will do that. This isn't my field, but surely the data storage demands here are massive. Every UK car, clocked every 0.25 mile? That is a shit load of data to manage, I've not done the maths but I'd be surprised if it were possible.

    3. Re:The only thing I have a problem with by lesv · · Score: 1

      The only thing I have a problem with is keeping the records for two years - I can't see any good reason for that.

      Where were you between Midnight-1AM on October 23?

      With this system, the Police will be able to answer the question for you. Automagic enforcement of restraining orders also becomes easier, if you enter a zone where you don't belong, the police can send someone to remind you. Stalking and casing can be easily shown. Of course there are simple solutions to defeat this system for these applications, that most /.ers will understand, but it does increase the cost. The civil liberation in me hates this, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have some merit for protecting society. It will also make it easier to provide/verify an alibi.

      England (and to a more limited extend the USA) has been a Police State at various times in it's history. Using technology may actually be a more sane approach than the incredibly excessive domestic intelligence system of Shakespeare's time. With proper safeguards (Absolutely needed) it can provide a much fairer system. The trouble is how to prevent the abuse we have seen when the authorities have all the power.

    4. Re:The only thing I have a problem with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a regular training/commuting cyclist who rides about 10,000 km per year on road, I strongly disagree with your assertions regarding safe cycling behaviour.

      Firstly, I think it is important to understand that "traffic" is a consensual reality - ie it exists only because the rules that govern road use are recognised and respected by the vast majority of road users. Acting in conflict with the rules causes the system to break down and devolve into unpredictable and dangerous behaviour.

      I think your comments about taking up a full lane when necessary are a very valid rebuttal of the initial AC's remark about cyclists impeding traffic flow. I think that what he fails to recognise is that cyclists *are* traffic. It's only by behaving consistently and communicating with other drivers clearly - in this case, by our position on the road - that cyclists can fit into others' conception of traffic.

      My experience of cycling in traffic has led me to the understanding that it is generally possible to counter the effects of careless or incompetent driving through awareness and defensive riding. The most dangerous situations I encounter on the road seem to be when drivers conciously act in an unsafe manner - usually by passing too close or failing to give way without properly assessing my speed.

      The only solution I can see to the problem of aggressive drivers is to change the severity of unsafe driving penalties to be in line with assault with a deadly weapon.

      - Malcolm

    5. Re:The only thing I have a problem with by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 1

      Nice sermon...

      I would wager that the number of dick-head motorists is about the same as the number of dick-head cyclists.

      I go around a tight curve going 40 when the speed limit is 25 and right in front of me is a dude on a bike, right in the middle of the road. Now sure, I was going too fast, but exactly what is this idiot trying to prove? When my bumper hits his tire he looses, period. OK, sue me, throw me in the can, but biker dude is dead and who is at fault for that? Well he is? Or I am? But at that point does it even matter?

      The roads are designed for cars, not bikes.

      Bikers are jeopardizing their lives every time they ride on the road. Regardless of this being right or wrong it's accurate.

      Way too many cyclists have this "I have the right:" philosophy and it's dangerous. When I pull into the grocery store and take my kids out I don't just let them run through the parking lot, even though they have the "right" to do so. I make damn sure I hold their hand and try to explain to them that the cars are not looking out for them.

      Far too many cyclists simply assume that the motorist will see them and do the appropriate thing. Most of the time this is exactly what happens, sometimes something else happens. The blame for the problem is equally shared between the cyclist and the motorist.

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
    6. Re:The only thing I have a problem with by Bazzalisk · · Score: 1
      You are a classic example of why people should have their licenses revoked.

      In your example the cyclist is not only obeying the law (which you are not), they are also doing the most sensible thing -- keeping themselves in the most visible area so as tyo make sure they get seen.

      --
      James P. Barrett
    7. Re:The only thing I have a problem with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to point out somethnig with your first statement: A dickhead in a car is putting others' lives at risk. A dickhead on a bike is putting their own life at risk.

      Given the uneven risk, let the cyclist be a dick. Eventually things will sort themselves out.

      PS if the roads are for cars not bikes (where's it say that?), I'll cycle on the pavement. Just move out my way when I pass, peddy.

    8. Re:The only thing I have a problem with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. The reasons put forward are lies.
      RF Transponders would be better, cheaper, and work at night, in rain, in the fog etc. No new cameras would be needed.

      There is NO need to store anything after determination that no offence has been committed. It is a giant spy-on-public play. It will be hillarious to have the private wanderings of MP's leaked on page three.

      Money mis-spent on monitoring means more NHS deaths. British hospitals and NHS rationing IS causing pain and suffering, and real deaths, now, as opposed to extraordinary events.

      The flaw in this, is that walking, bicycle, bus, taxi or train or rent-a-car, or stolen wheels, is not covered. Private delivery couriers. Driving in from a foreign country without cameras - arrr too late that situation would not help the 'T' threat, unless border searching and hotel registration is re-introduced up to levels not seen since the 1940's.

      Build a better rattrap, and the mice will get smarter, and so far technology will not keep them out of the pantry.

    9. Re:The only thing I have a problem with by ankarbass · · Score: 1

      I think you are exagerating what I'm talking about. Do you mean to tell me that when encountering a red light with say 40 cars in a row that you wait in the lane through three light changes? The thrust of my point was this. Most cyclist follow the rules of the road at least as often as motorists do, in my opinion, more often. However, when you see a cyclist breaking the rules, more often than not, it's because the cyclist sees that as the safer choice. If you've ridden as much as you say you have then I know you've encountered the motorist who at the green light ignores your presense and makes a right turn in front of you. You talk about people passing too closely, I find that happens more often right out of the light when they think you are in the way and they are trying to save a few milliseconds. I stay visible and don't concern myself that I'm behaving exactly as a motor vehicle, because I'm not a motor vehicle.

      --
      Wanted: Clever sig, top $ paid, all offers considered.
    10. Re:The only thing I have a problem with by turgid · · Score: 1

      As a cyclist I find that the largest regular threat to my life tends to originate from speeding/incompetent motorists

      As a motorist, cyclist and pedestrian, I find that the largest threats to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists come from the majority of cyclists who don't think that the Highway Code, Laws of Physics and common courtesy apply to them.

      But they like to shout about how bad motorists are.

  23. Quarter miles? by numLocked · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It would appear that the times DID get the spacing wrong, since I seriously doubt the UK has randomly decided to use US units.

    1. Re:Quarter miles? by Bazzalisk · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, bizarely all our road lengths are still measured in imperial units - even though every other damned thing is metric (except milk and beer which come in pints).

      --
      James P. Barrett
    2. Re:Quarter miles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, actually us Brits use miles for distances not kms. Everything on our road network is in miles and speeds in miles per hour.

    3. Re:Quarter miles? by NeoThermic · · Score: 1

      ...

      The UK uses miles for measuring road distance.

      NeoThermic

      --
      Use my link above, or to view my server, NeoThermic.com
    4. Re:Quarter miles? by Stuart+Gibson · · Score: 1

      Either I'm missing something or there is an impression that the US is the only country to still use miles. Speed limits and distances in the UK are all in MPH/miles.

      Living in Northern Ireland makes for fun as once you cross the border to the Republic of Ireland you switch to KM for distance and MPH for speed limits whilst they're in the transistional phase to metric :)

      Stuart

      --
      It's all fun and games until a 200' robot dinosaur shows up and trashes Neo-Tokyo... Again
    5. Re:Quarter miles? by Malc · · Score: 1

      Errr, hang on a second. I think you'll find that the US uses Imperial (as in British) units. Not the other way around. Well most of the time - there are of course the bastardised Imperial units the US uses like larger fl. oz, fewer fl. oz to the pint (and thus smaller gallons), and smaller tonnes.

    6. Re:Quarter miles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      milk come in pints it comes in cows.

      (it really comes in letres)

  24. No intent proven by ear1grey · · Score: 3, Informative
    ... one every quarter of a mile on motorways quite clearly means they'll be used to enforce speed limits as well...

    The regularity of the cameras is irrelevant, you only have to know the distance between them, and ensure their clocks are in sync to be able to issue a speeding ticket.

    So thinking around the subject:

    • If you want to monitor road usage to check up on tax discs you only need one set of ANPR cameras between each junction.
    • If you want to monitor speed over distance you need two or more APNR camera sets.
    • Having multiple regular cameras makes it easier to passively monitor the progress of vehicles. What this will give the government/police is the ability to track certain people, and more importantly, to gain an understanding of road usage patterns.
    1. Re:No intent proven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct in asserting that you just need 2 locations at a fixed distance and accurate clocks in order to ascertain average speed, however there is a caveat that the two locations have to be located within a region of the same speed limit.

      Strictly speaking the reason for the cameras being placed at quarter mile intervals is due to the fact that the stretch of the M42 that they are located on has a variable speed limit system in place which changes between each set of gantries (which give the speedlimit for the next section). Therefore you need 2 cameras between each gantry to prove the the vehicle was exceeding the set limit between the particular gantries. The speed limits vary dynamically (and cam be different in consecutive sections) and are determined by road contitions and trafic flow. The cameras have a primary use in detecting the trafic flow in order to set the speed limit.

      The variable speed limit has been used very successfully like this on the M25 with normal Gatso cameras on each gantry and varies between 30-40-50-60 and national limit applies (this means tha cameras are off) MPH and has significantly reduced congestion.

      It does mean that travelling without care around the M25 near Heathrow and the M40 you can loose you licence in about 3 miles!

    2. Re:No intent proven by egoshin · · Score: 1
      Having multiple regular cameras makes it easier to passively monitor the progress of vehicles. What this will give the government/police is the ability to track certain people, and more importantly, to gain an understanding of road usage patterns.
      It depends from who is in government. Stalin and Saddam consider a tracking people en mass more important... It helps them to monitor an opposition and have a control of elections.

      So, just prey they are not in command yet.
  25. They have given you trouble! by kotku · · Score: 2, Funny

    > The UK Gov't hasn't given us a whole heck of a lot of trouble since...

    Really they fuc8ed you over big time. If they hadn't gone with you on the Iraq war fiasco then Iraq II would not have happened and you Yanks would still have a reasonably good international reputation. The UK gov plan is to make the US look so bad that the UK can lead Europe as this centuries only super power.

    God shave the Queen!

    --
    The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
    1. Re:They have given you trouble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so far off. Many people think that Blair was the lynchpin of the invasion. Without the UK, does Australia join up? Without our two Anglo brothers, does the US go? I think the answer to both is no.

      Since the UK has roped the US into 2 World Wars, got us mired in the Mid-East through our helping the Brits defend their oil interests (majority owner? the British Govt) in Iran, sucked us into defending Israel and overall left a crapload of trouble when their Empire crumbled, I don't find the parent poster's claim that far out of line.

    2. Re:They have given you trouble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, sucked who into defending Israel? Come off it; Israel is a US satalite state. There are two reasons for strong US support of Israel 1) A very large Jewish population in the United States 2) (More recent) Crackpot Christian Fundementalists who believe that Israel is necasary for the second coming of Jesus Christ and the subsequent end of the world.

  26. I've got a bike, by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 4, Funny

    you can ride it if you like
    It's got a basket, a bell that rings
    and things to make it look good
    I'd give it to you if I could,
    but I borrowed it

    Syd Barrett escapes the universal monitoring!

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:I've got a bike, by cornjchob · · Score: 1

      That's the kinda post that fits in with my world

      --
      We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
    2. Re:I've got a bike, by Alioth · · Score: 1

      You know what, I've always wanted to get a radar reflector, put it in my backpack, take my bike to England and find a Gatso at the bottom of some hill somewhere - then repeatedly ride my bicycle past it, setting it off over and over again.

      Completely pointless and arguably hazardous, but it'd be fun nonetheless.

  27. A very moral government by FishandChips · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Every Western country is facing Big Brother issues. However, I wonder if the UK has created its own issue here: whether it is wise or moral to criminalize huge numbers of the population with the aim of raising extra revenue for the government. Few in the UK would argue that the present system of speed cameras (they are called Gatso cameras) is designed for much else other than making money for the state.

    I guess if a government goes about giving very large numbers of otherwise law-abiding citizens a criminal record they should not expect much more than cynicism when it comes to other social problems. We are then all the losers.

    A by-product of the current obsession with safety is that enormous sums have to be spent on repairing emergency vehicles whose suspension is wrecked going over speed bumps in urban areas. In addition, more acute cases die because it takes longer for an ambulance to get them to hospital and the ride there is bumpy to say the least. It might even turn out that the safety obsession kills more people than it is intended to save.

    Meanwhile, new licensing laws in the UK permitting the sale of alcohol 24/7 promise many mores deaths from alcohol abuse and its fallout. Liver disease from alcohol abuse among those under 30 is several hundred per cent higher than it was even twenty years ago. Apparently it's OK to drink yourself to death in the UK, but woe betide you if you get in an automobile stone cold sober.

    --
    Las qué passoun
    tournoun pas maï
    1. Re:A very moral government by Bazzalisk · · Score: 0, Troll
      Making otherwise law-abiding citizens criminal?

      The government doesn't force you to speed - you made that choice yourself. Admittedly the punishment should not be a fine -- it should be a temporary ban on driving and a requirement that you repass your test. Repeat offences should result in a permanent ban.

      A car is a deadly piece of machinary - if you can't abide by the safety regulations you are not competant to use it.

      --
      James P. Barrett
    2. Re:A very moral government by FishandChips · · Score: 1

      Are you a policeman, then, or merely firming up your views for a run at a seat in Parliament?You sound like ideal material for a position in government.

      --
      Las qué passoun
      tournoun pas maï
    3. Re:A very moral government by suitepotato · · Score: 1

      This all follows with the trend during the modern last several decades of "dumbing down", "going with the lowest common denominator", and "adjusting expectations downward". Now we criminalize more and more, make the situations damn near a fait accompli, and then profit off of it. If we can't find a way to come to honorable accomodations between each other as a society and between society and that damnable necessity, government, then we'll simply go for the easy way out.

      This will continue, I have no doubt. Justice Griffin's words from Judge Dredd ring out, "we need to expand the death penalty to include lesser crimes!" I also hear Princess Leia's words to Darth Vader from Star Wars regarding systems slipping through fingers. All this will do is increase the tension and resistance in society to structure and law and make things worse. Sadly, those who seem to most get into government also seem to be the least likely to grasp this.

      On we march towards control freakery and civil disobedience, tit for tat...

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    4. Re:A very moral government by JonyEpsilon · · Score: 1

      And here's me thinking trolling had gone out of fashion !

    5. Re:A very moral government by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      In addition, more acute cases die because it takes longer for an ambulance to get them to hospital and the ride there is bumpy to say the least. It might even turn out that the safety obsession kills more people than it is intended to save.

      On the other hand, if people respected speed limits in residential areas, then the speed bumps would not be there. You could consider however many people die en route to hospital because of speed bumps as having died because of speeding.

      Apparently it's OK to drink yourself to death in the UK, but woe betide you if you get in an automobile stone cold sober.

      When you drink yourself to death, then the person you are harming is yourself. When you speed, you could harm others. Huge difference (and the alcohol example undermines your "moral government" argument).

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    6. Re:A very moral government by bnenning · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It might even turn out that the safety obsession kills more people than it is intended to save.

      Yes; for example it's virtually certain that airline "safety" regulations have led to more deaths. As air travel becomes more inconvenient and expensive, marginal travelers will choose to drive instead, which is far more dangerous per mile.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    7. Re:A very moral government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eventually, technology will give governments capability of monitoring everything. Question is, does police need to do that?
      Answer is: whatever newspapers present as problem, police will pressure on that.
      In the end, citizens will go mad and riot, like in france. This is likely if you introduce control for everything. This is not just choosing side-of-law. This is controlling the freedom.

      E.g. here in Croatia police patrols have devices that recognise psychoactive supstances, but problem is that if you smoked your joint 4-5 days ago, you will still have detectable traces of it in your body. Occassionally they have nighttime actions when they force drivers to take the test (it takes 15 minutes to finish the procedure!)
      If you are positive, they first send you on blood tests (because of possible false positives on some medicaments). After you are positive, you loose driver's license for 11 months, pay 2300 kn-cca 300 USD(about half of average monthly payment here). But even worse is that you get criminal prosecution on your neck, which results in a dossier (having one puts you in bad position when trying to get a job).

      This is draconian. A kid who smoked marihuana 5 days ago and is totally clear, can have severe consequences on his life (when seeking job) just because some dick-head politician decided to conduct war on drugs by testing people randomly.

    8. Re:A very moral government by FishandChips · · Score: 1

      People very often don't keep to speed limits whether intentionally or inadvertently. That's life. It's no use passing laws which presuppose Utopian standards of behaviour. Countries that have tried to include places like North Korea or Pol Pot's Cambodia. No thanks.

      I'd suggest you ask some law enforcement folks or social workers about alcohol (or drug) abuse before assuming that the only person who gets harmed is the user. That could not be further from the truth.

      --
      Las qué passoun
      tournoun pas maï
    9. Re:A very moral government by oolon · · Score: 1

      I guess that depends on your opion on alcohol fuelled violence. Personally I live next door to a family (father and sons) who get drink and violent oftain, many times I have been awake at 4 am listening to fighting and screeming from their house. Fortunately they normally keep it in the family and have only threatened me with violence. But there again, they have been known to drive off after a few drinks/smoking drugs to, which I personally rate alot higher than speeding.

      James

    10. Re:A very moral government by m50d · · Score: 1
      Apparently it's OK to drink yourself to death in the UK,

      Which is absolutely how it should be. There are plenty of examples of bad laws by our government, but this is not one of them.

      --
      I am trolling
    11. Re:A very moral government by MartinG · · Score: 1

      When you drink yourself to death, then the person you are harming is yourself.

      Agreed.

      When you speed, you could harm others.

      I have been speeding every time I drive without fail for 15 years. I have never harmed others.

      While your statement is true, it is also true that I could harm others when I don't speed.

      You are assuming that speeding causes accidents. I have never seen any credible evidence that shows this to be true. I haven't even seen any evidence of any kind that it is. Even the police don't claim it is true. They usually say something vague like "speed is a factor in accidents" which is conveniently difficult to disagree with whilst not actually meaning anything.

      --
      -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
    12. Re:A very moral government by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Apparently it's OK to drink yourself to death in the UK, but woe betide you if you get in an automobile stone cold sober.

      Silly rabbit. That's becasue drinking yourself to death makes people money. Speeding is a profitless offense. If you had to pay a private company every time you were speeding, why, we'd all be encouraged to do it... ...oh wait.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    13. Re:A very moral government by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Our licensing laws in the Isle of Man permit 24/7 sales of alcohol. It isn't a problem and we're all laughing at the silly debate over in the UK.

      What happens is pubs close when landlords feel like closing. This means you don't get the last two rushed rounds in at closing time (because it happens much later, and people have generally stopped drinking anyway) - that last 'binge' that makes people really drunk. It also means the pubs throw out at more or less random different times during the night, so you don't get all the pubs disgorging simultaneously.

      Since we only have three breweries and one distillery for a population of 76000, the rumour that we are all drunks is fal...oh, wait...

    14. Re:A very moral government by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      wasn't that more flaimbaiting than trolling? /., where you can debate not only whether someone's an ass, but just what kind of ass they are :-)
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    15. Re:A very moral government by Laurence0 · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a pedestrian (I drive too, but formed this opinion long before I started) speed humps and other traffic "calming" measures make the roads more dangerous because the cars are constantly changing speed, from 30 between humps to 10 as they go over them. This makes it much harder to judge where the car is going to be at any given time, and hence makes crossing roads more dangerous. This is, admittedly, due to speed humps regularly being far too harsh - if they were flatter, you would be able to cross them at the speed limit without damaging your car and all your passengers! There's also the environmental side... Cars constantly accelerating and breaking for no good reason pushes up the fuel used, and so the damage to the environment. The other thing that puzzles me is the broken speed humps; the ones with gaps which are conveniently about the right width for most cars (ranging from Corsa size to Zafira size at least) to straddle them, and so whip through at about 40 with no discomfort.

    16. Re:A very moral government by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that you never break the law by 1 mile per hour- much less several times per day over particular quarter miles.

      But you can get a ticket for it. Last time I was in defensive driving, one of the people had a ticket for doing 56 in a 55.

      Personally, I think when I'm old and about to kick off anyway, I'll go take out as many of these kind of devices as possible.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  28. Escalation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, if you want to steal a car and not get caught when the driver reports it stolen, take the driver too. We have the same thing with cars that are very hard to steal. You can't hot wire them, do just take the driver too.

    The criminals will get used to these things and find ways around them. The ones who suffer from all this surveillance will be the 'honest' folk, ie. you and me.

    1. Re:Escalation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...So, if you want to steal a car and not get caught when the driver reports it stolen, take the driver too. We have the same thing with cars that are very hard to steal. You can't hot wire them, do just take the driver too.
      ---
      Kidnapping people and risking life so that you don't get a couple of months probation, very smart.

    2. Re:Escalation by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      Maybe in your country, but where I live (USA), getting caught stealing cars is some serious time. Right up there with kidnapping and copyright infringement.

      In one very famous case in California, a person was incarcerated for life for stealing a bicycle (which is a felony). The three strikes law over there means that a third felony leads to life in prison. His other two crimes were stealing another bike and stealing a car. Kidnappers generally don't get life in prison, though a repeat or particularly brutal kidnapping might.

  29. Why is speeding a crime? by Transcendent · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What I don't understand is why speeding is so strictly enforced with this system. It's an entirely arbitrary system (well, loosely based on some aspect of the road) that is outdated for current car designs. Do you think my 1,500lb escort should have the same speed limit as some guys 2 ton '88 Cadillac, or an H2? Should I be forced to drive at the same speed as a senile senior citizen?

    What about other circumstances where I sped up to avoid an accident, or to avoid further traffic congestion (as in moving into place to merge into an open spot rather than having 10 people brake behind you)?

    1. Re:Why is speeding a crime? by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 1
      It's an entirely arbitrary system...
      We could have systems where we have a ton of bureaucracy to decide whether or not the particular combination of you and your car qualifies for traveling at this or that speed. You decide to use performance tires on your car and now you have to send a document to the DMV or DVLA and wait 6 months as they process the application to allow you to travel 3.5mph faster by which time you've reached an age of 40 and you no longer qualify for that 2.5mph bonus you had for being old enough to drive wisely but not old enough that your reflexes have started slowing.

      I think I'll stick with a global speed limit for all.

    2. Re:Why is speeding a crime? by zebadee · · Score: 1

      There's just way too many variables to look at, in addition to the two you point out, vehicle and age. What about weather, tyres etc. Would you rather have no-speed limits so people can drive past your house a 100mph?.....reducing speed has been shown on many occasions to help reduce road fatalities. Plus you could use your argument with lots of things, such as why are certain drugs a crime? Finally ,how often do you really need to speed up to "avoid an accident", couldn't slowing down be a better option?

    3. Re:Why is speeding a crime? by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Yes of course it appears as arbitrary. But unfortunately it is not really.

      What is arbitrary is is the setting up of fixed speed limits that have nothing to do with road conditions. On a perfectly clear day with no traffic it can be very safe to drive above the speed limit. On a crappy day with no visibility, black ice and falling snow it could be deadly dangerous to drive at any speed at all. Thus the setting of the speed limit appears arbitrary.

      However, driving safely at any speed implies several things:

      1) You are driving within the physical capabilities of your car, your tires, and the road. (is the car well maintained, is the road surface good, and the tires well maintained?)

      2) You are driving within our own physical capabilities (are you perfectly fine or tired, drunk or drugged?)

      3) You are driving within the expectations of the people around you (are you keeping a safe distance, or tailgating at 2 feet at 100mph?) [1]

      4) You are driving such that you can respond to any future conditions (yes, 100mph is safe now on this country road, but will it be in a few short moments when you cross that blind hill and come across the heard of cows in the middle of the road?)

      But the one thing about all of this is the big question of:

      "Can the driver correctly ascertain fair and valid answers to these issues, and drive accordingly in a safe manner?"

      In some percentage of the population I would answer yes to this [2]. But it is the remainder of the population who cannot realistically and honestly answer these questions that cause the avoidable problems.

      Thus we have laws designed to hopefully protect the majority from the minority of stupid idiots who don't have enough sense not to endanger themeslves or other people by limiting their actions. For those of us who are responsible it all seems unreasonable, but on the other hand I prefer the current system to anarchy.

      [1] Back a few years there was a Nascar driver caught in Pa, when at 60mph (or so) on a freeway he "nudged" a car in the fast lane that wouldn't get out of his way. I am sure he was within his driving limits, but I pity the poor person who he nudged.

      [2] In general the only person on the road who drives safely is me, all the rest of you are accidents waiting to happen.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:Why is speeding a crime? by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      Speed limits are there to keep people going at the same speed. If some guy is going 90 along a road and turns a corner to see someone going 20 then they're pretty fucked (aka dead). The other reason is to stay safe when walking. I live in the country side, I quite often take the dogs for walks on backroads, theres no foot paths and in some cases no where to stand except on the road. If someone comes bombing along I could well lose my legs if I'm lucky.

      The police understand you close gaps, may go a touch faster, they're fine with this, it's when you start driving dangerously (talk to any twat in a BMW at 5-6pm, you'll see the cunts as they drive past you almost hitting head on traffix), they get a BIG problem.

      Just remember becuse "you" are safe, doesn't mean that fucked behind you is going to be safe. If you keep everyone roughly equal then theres less risks. It's the same reason we have "no running" in schools and silence in libaries. Idiots abuse their rights untill they die taking out others with them.

      Or shall we just make drunk driving legal and go "oh well not MY fault I was pissed out my skull, driving on the path and mowed down a little girl who's head is now between my car and a wall"? You "may" drive fine while drunk, you may not. You're not the judge, the people you kill or the jury.

      --
      I like muppets.
    5. Re:Why is speeding a crime? by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      Well said. As my mum always says "you may drive safely but it's the other idiots on the road".

      I know my limits and could drive way beyond the speed limits if I wanted to. But really whats the point, you get there no faster and risk much more. Driving at 50-60 is quite relaxed and planned well you get there in good time. Then again I've seen enough people in BMWs almost get themselvs killed and it doesn't look fun from where I'm sitting..

      --
      I like muppets.
    6. Re:Why is speeding a crime? by bnenning · · Score: 1

      Speed limits are there to keep people going at the same speed.

      Then they are failing badly. Some drivers scrupulously obey the posted limits, while others drive at speeds reasonable for the conditions, usually at least 5-10mph above the limit. More realistic speed limits would reduce variations in speed, and allow traffic cops to focus on actually dangerous drivers rather than the reverse lottery we have today.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    7. Re:Why is speeding a crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Don't get there any faster"? I don't know about physics on your planet, but if I go 5% faster (105/100) I guarantee you I'll get there 4.76% sooner (100/105). It's driving a different speed than all the other cars that's dangerous, whether faster or slower, and drivers who are "relaxed" while their life is in their own hands are a big part of the problem.

    8. Re:Why is speeding a crime? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "If some guy is going 90 along a road and turns a corner to see someone going 20 then they're pretty fucked (aka dead)."

      If that's the case, the driver isn't qualified to drive that speed.

      If you can't avoid hitting a stopped car, moose, stone, etc., you are driving beyond your limits.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    9. Re:Why is speeding a crime? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >It's an entirely arbitrary system

      Tell it to the judge.

      "What about other circumstances where I sped up to avoid an accident, or to avoid further traffic congestion (as in moving into place to merge into an open spot rather than having 10 people brake behind you)?"

      In my state, that's generally accepted as a defense, but if you do it to display your speed agressively, it's a separate violation.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    10. Re:Why is speeding a crime? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      Plus you could use your argument with lots of things, such as why are certain drugs a crime?
      Exactly, and you should!
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    11. Re:Why is speeding a crime? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      Back a few years there was a Nascar driver caught in Pa, when at 60mph (or so) on a freeway he "nudged" a car in the fast lane that wouldn't get out of his way. I am sure he was within his driving limits, but I pity the poor person who he nudged.
      I applaud the Nascar driver, because maybe that actually made the slow dumbass realize that "slower traffic keep right" is a law too!
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:Why is speeding a crime? by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      Know many people who can judge there limits? If you do go check out a town centre on a Friday night... most people don't.

      --
      I like muppets.
    13. Re:Why is speeding a crime? by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      Account for traffic and such and it all evens out on the average journey 20-30 minute journey.

      --
      I like muppets.
    14. Re:Why is speeding a crime? by wxjones · · Score: 1

      I vote for replacing speed limits with momentum limits. (My car only weighs 1200 kg.)

      --
      My SIG is a P226
    15. Re:Why is speeding a crime? by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Do you think my 1,500lb escort should have the same speed limit as some guys 2 ton '88 Cadillac, or an H2? Should I be forced to drive at the same speed as a senile senior citizen?

      Yes.

      One of the biggest factors in determining the national speed limit for highways (for example) is rate of gasoline consumption. Cars are not efficient machines beyond around 55mph. That's why the move from a 55mph national speed limit to a 65mph national speed limit is still controversial. Some people say it has contributed largely to how volitile our gas prices are.

      What about other circumstances where I sped up to avoid an accident, or to avoid further traffic congestion (as in moving into place to merge into an open spot rather than having 10 people brake behind you)?

      Have you ever actually received a ticket for the former (the latter seems a little fishy and likely to cause problems in the other lane you are moving into)? I'm pretty sure law enforcement is aware of these situations, and I've never heard of anyone being ticketed for evasive maneuvers.

    16. Re:Why is speeding a crime? by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Ahh .. so you support vigalantism.

      So let me ask you a question then .. suppose I am out driving, and there is a car in the fast lane who doesn't get out of my way. These dumbasses really piss me off. What they are doing is ileagal, they need to be delt with. So I nudge them, and they lose control and crash. And they become a quadraplegic vegitable because of it.

      And then it turns out that the driver was your mother or girlfriend or wife.

      Do you still support those actions?

      I agree that people who drive slowly in the fast lane *are* dumbasses. But it is up to the police to inform them of that. The rest of us just have to stay within the law and DEAL WITH IT.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    17. Re:Why is speeding a crime? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Actually, no; I was just trying to make the point that the slow drivers are a problem too.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    18. Re:Why is speeding a crime? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Know many people who can judge there limits?

      Well, my circle includes a lot of motorcyclists and people who race on a rally course, so my perspective would be a bit skewed. But the city I live in has a LOT of bad drivers. I couldn't count the number of cars I've seen upside down -- on roads with a 35MPH speed limit. I know of an intersection where you can sit and drink coffee and see at least a near miss from a red light runner every few minutes, and you're sure to see a serious accident every day or two. And around here doesn't even qualify as the worst I've seen!

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    19. Re:Why is speeding a crime? by halber_mensch · · Score: 1
      "Can the driver correctly ascertain fair and valid answers to these issues, and drive accordingly in a safe manner?"

      I'm sure the driver's license exam was intended to answer these questions. Unfortunately nobody took it very seriously, and (at least in the US) there isn't near enough attention paid to catching dangerous drivers in this phase. The test I took was 10 multiple-choice questions (When turning left, should you A) honk your horn, B) speed up, or C) signal left and slow down?) for a learner's permit followed by a short moving evaluation. The exam passed on a 60% or higher score. The moving evaluation was a short (<1 mile) drive around downtown with 4 right turns and a parallel parking test. The test doesn't address high speed driving, reaction to poor weather, or freeway and turnpike performance - and these are arguably the most dangerous situations for the driver. The test is taken once upon first applying for the license, and then no further testing is required to renew the license at its expiry. That doesn't reassure me very much.

      --
      perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
  30. Killing the Golden Goose by daemon_lothar · · Score: 1

    I don't know about the UK but if such a system were to result in speed compliance in a place like Texas, then many little (and not so little) towns would no longer be able to generate vast amounts of revenue from travelers who are just passing through and pay the fines just to be done with it. In my own case I'd really have liked to had this system then I could have successfully fought the false speed allegation (92 mph in a 70 mph zone with a $291 fine) that a state trooper leveled against me. In the end paying the locals off was easiest. It would be funny for the turkeys to have to tax themselves for a change.

    1. Re:Killing the Golden Goose by Tuxedo+Jack · · Score: 1

      How about enacting a law like what Texas has?

      "No police department can receive more than half its revenue from speeding tickets" is the version currently on the books here, and dropping it to a quarter wouldn't be too bad either for everyon but tiny-ass little police departments.

      That'll effectively kill nasty little speed traps like Slidell, Louisiana.

      --

      Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
  31. So now that they have these little monitors... by Torinir · · Score: 1

    I expect donut shops in the UK to experience a large sales increase shortly. :-p

  32. Fight this by cortana · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you have not done so already, get in contact with your local branch of No2ID. Sign the I refuse pledge (or at least the I support pledge). Lobby your MP and your councillors: many councils across the UK are passing resolutions to forbid government services from requiring their users to have ID cards.

    1. Re:Fight this by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Signed already, I'd rather be jailed than get one of those ID cards, It'll be this Labour Goverments poll tax once people realise how much it'll cost.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    2. Re:Fight this by RichardX · · Score: 1

      Hey, some of us WANT these new ID cards, y'know.
      Well, I need SOMETHING to scrape ice off my windscreen in winter, and my National Insurance card is almost worn through.

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
  33. potential for good, and bad by yagu · · Score: 0

    I think there is genuine potential for good out these kinds of systems, and while I'm not inclined to respond to The Register articles, on this I'll call bull on at least one thing. From the slashdot article:

    The Register further reports that the system will likely be used for issuing speeding fines.

    The nearest thing I can find related to this is the experimental attempt by users of this new system to "enforce variable speed limits", which doesn't necessarily mean "issue speeding tickets". I think it's probably more along the lines of exactly what it describes, "variable" speed limits, i.e. limits that change based on variables!

    The Register in typical fashion infers by the placement of readers .25 miles apart that this "quite clearly means they'll be used to enforce speed limits as well". I don't think the inference is necessarily or even likely correct.

    I don't know why these things always raise the specter that the world is turning Big Brother all the time. Many crimes have been solved (and who knows how many have been prevented) by surveillance devices, thank goodness!

    And, if by having these types of systems in place we find certain drivers like to drive 100mph, great!, I for one am sick of subsidizing their behavior in my overloaded insurance premiums.

    I could cite many more instances of good brought by these technologies, and certainly could cite two good results for any perceived bad results from this system.

    As an aside, I didn't see a single believable real reference to bad results from this system, simply rehashes of constant old paranoia for which I've not seen many real cases (I know some exist).

    1. Re:potential for good, and bad by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      I for one am sick of subsidizing their behavior in my overloaded insurance premiums.

      Please dont make me laugh like that, how ever do you think that the insurance companies are going to lower rates. When have they ever done so on a broad scale? They are going to take more profit, espicallaly now that its illegal to even have a car in a garage without insurace.

      A goverment with unchecked, uncontrolled power is far more dangerous than any individual can ever be. Unfortunatly many will find this out much too late.

    2. Re:potential for good, and bad by bigpat · · Score: 1

      I don't know why these things always raise the specter that the world is turning Big Brother all the time. Many crimes have been solved (and who knows how many have been prevented) by surveillance devices, thank goodness!

      Ah but the World has turned Big Brother, what you may fail to realize is that it is not a bad thing for those in the know. And knowledge is a powerful tool for punishing bad behavior.

      As long as your moral values never percievably transgress those mandated by the Community, then you have no worries.

    3. Re:potential for good, and bad by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      The variable speed limits mentioned are speed limits that are applied via illuminated boards by the side of the road to regulate traffic flow.

      When there is a motorway incident a few miles ahead, the boards are set to lower speed limits to keep motorists from arriving at the scene too soon.

      It is not uncommon to see 60 & 40 Mph boards posted along the motorway, sometimes the cause is bad weather or just congestion. Until recently (see below) there was no enforcement of these signs.

      The average speed camera system was used recently on a long stretch of road works on the M1 where a contraflow (where opposing traffic uses the same carriageway) was used. The speed boards were set to 40Mph for a 10 mile stretch of what is normally 70mph.

      The M42 mentioned is a very busy stretch of motorway and at peak times it is safer to make all traffic go at a maximum of 50mph than have some at 70mph and some 50mph.

      The motorway is not a freeway, the fastest moving traffic is supposed to use the right of the 3 lanes but often this outside lane moves lows up from congestion so people jump lanes to try and maximize speed, which can be more dangerous.

      EOM

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    4. Re:potential for good, and bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't know why these things always raise the specter that the world is turning Big Brother all the time. Many crimes have been solved (and who knows how many have been prevented) by surveillance devices, thank goodness!


      Who knows? Big Brother knows! Don't thank goodness; if it were goodness there'd be no commission of crime in the first place.

      Oh...and, that's why these things always rais the specter. It's up to the State to solve or prevent crimes because everybody needs a bigger brother to protect them from Bad Guys(c).
    5. Re:potential for good, and bad by egoshin · · Score: 1
      I don't know why these things always raise the specter that the world is turning Big Brother all the time. Many crimes have been solved (and who knows how many have been prevented) by surveillance devices, thank goodness!
      The Nazi Germany had a VERY little crime rate. Because of state-wide surveillance system. But they used it to track people (jews and others) and suppress a political opposition.
    6. Re:potential for good, and bad by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >The Nazi Germany had a VERY little crime rate.

      There seems to be a divide between those who consider that period to be a quaint, distant, vaguely interesting piece of history, and those who have a personal recollection of the time, or at least, were not born so far after it that it was forgotten.

      What people don't seem to grasp is the suddenness with which the situation turned from seemingly reasonable to atrocious.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  34. Not new - already in use by mustafap · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This has already been reported by the bbc ( more reliable than The Register ) where a camera has been used to record car licence plates on entry to a car park, and generate automatic fines if a matching parking ticket was not purchased.

    The system failed miserably because it falsely recorded cars *passing by* the car park.

    It's a real intrusion, but on the other hand, try getting compensation if you are in an accident with someone driving without insurance.

    I'll stick to monitoring speed cameras :o)

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
  35. They deserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this wouldn't have happened if they drived on the correct side of roads.

    Just my .02 euros.

    1. Re:They deserve by Widowwolf · · Score: 0, Troll

      The use of the word is DROVE not drived..please learn enlgish before spreading your ignorance.

      --
      ~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
    2. Re:They deserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The use of the word is DROVE not drived..please learn enlgish before spreading your ignorance.

      Thank you for a long, refreshing sigh.

    3. Re:They deserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The spelling you were looking for is "English". Note the use of capital letter due to the word being a proper noun. In addition, an ellipsis contains three dots and has a trailing space.

  36. Waaaaambulance by Ribbo.com · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Seems to be a lot of people crying about the system. They probably enjoy breaking the speed limit. Here is a controvertial little thought though. If you need to get somewhere for a certain time, how about leaving 20 minutes earlier and not speeding? Your life can't be that hard to get in order than you cannot manage it. I have no complaints about methods being brought in place like this. One of the big advantages of the system is the government will be able to track where all the traffic is going and where from. What this means is that if there is a lot of traffic in certain areas they will then subsidise local and national public transport to put on services in the area and reduce the car overload. This was last achieved by the UK national census in 2000, some of the questions asking people about their travel habits. I really do not see the issue about someone knowing what you're up to, after all, you all know i'm sat at my computer right now having written this reply. How ever will I live with you knowing that information?

    1. Re:Waaaaambulance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about this? you keep your gdamn big brother police state, and get the fuck out? The old line, i dont care if they because i dont breaklaws IS BULLSHIT! Sorry but the days of being presumed innocent are fading fast, and the fascist policestate is becoming a reality. I'm for law enforcement, but my rights to privacy and reasonable search and seizure as a citizen FAR OUTWEIGH the bs "terror" propaganda out there.

      I hope you get stopped, have a baton shoved up your ass and pay a $10,000 fine for jaywalking. Then MAYBE you'll say...oh crap what happened to my rights????

      I'll be laughing at you as they post your picture on the internet for MILLIONS of peeps to see.

    2. Re:Waaaaambulance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Economic view; Life is short, people will live it to the fullest. That means spending the least amount of time, alone in the car, breathing in the pollution etc. You would have a chance of also have more praise from your boss for being 20 minutes earlier, or the 20 minutes can be spent relaxing from the morning rush hour. As always, the human factor, stressed people will cause accidents but very rarely is speeding the reason unless you can't control your car. Will you risk the chance of accident of at least once in 2 years by speeding or being careful and potentially having no accident at all?

      Information; in the wrong hands can have potential for stalkers, fraudsters and such. If I knew about your family, car, work mates and your beer preferences. What will you use as an answer to your Secret Question? Celebrities are already suffering from their invasion of privacy already, not by the government but by the paparazzi stalkers, even though most of the celebrities want to protect their *rich* simple life of a celebrity. Perhaps they are just playing hard to catch like the privacy advocate groups are doing? It is said that information nowdays can be a commondity whether trade secrets or your secret demons are of value, one man's garbage is another man's treasure.

      Since I hardly hear anything about accidents in my area, and I have aprox a million people in my city area. I deduce on one day;

      I, and 90% (est. by me) of the general drivers average between 0 to 30 km/h above the speed limit to enjoy our life more. Of those, between 0.001% and 0.0001% people (again est. by me) have accidents on the day. Oh noes!

      I want my funding to increase the intelligence and foundation for future generations not build a highly efficient police state.

  37. Let's watch the watchers by Paul+Carver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The romans posed the question "Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?"

    I would be in favor of a system to track the movements of all cars and issue speeding violations as long as the data is a matter of public record and it can be proven (for example, via Freedom of Information requests) that all traffic regulations are being strictly enforce on all public officials, including elected official, appointed official, off duty police and their families, friends, and relatives, and anybody else in a position of influence.

    If a speed limit is too low, I'm sure it would get rapidly fixed if there were 100% enforcement of fines and penalties against senators and representatives.

    If a speed limit is, in fact, valid and legitimate for safety reasons then 100% enforcement is certainly a good thing.

    The problem occurs when traffic regulations are constructed in such a way that everybody violates them because they are unreasonable and the police use them as a means of selectively grabbing people they have an illegitimate beef against.

    1. Re:Let's watch the watchers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Very shortsighted. Your request is easy to accomodate in letter, and easy to make impossible in spirit. The greater the authorative power the easier it's abused.

      " If a speed limit is, in fact, valid and legitimate for safety reasons then 100% enforcement is certainly a good thing.

      It's not. Hasn't been since Carter was president and the first oil embargoes. The logic is still broken in too many ways to enumerate, including 100% enforcement is safe, there's a magic speed barrier beyond which lies death, that the systems necessary to regulate travel is money better spent than cancer research for example, etc., etc..

    2. Re:Let's watch the watchers by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      off duty police
      Not to mention on duty police, if they don't have their lights and siren on!
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:Let's watch the watchers by mattwarden · · Score: 0

      The romans posed the question "Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?"

      Ah, yes. Cicero's famous anti-speeding oration of 71 BC. Loosely translated, I believe it means 'Who will quote me out-of-context?'

  38. Easy to Defeat just like congestion charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Number Plate Recognition:

    1) Swap Plates
    2) Do Crime
    3) Restore Plates
    4) Profit and pity the fool who's plate number you used now doing bird.

    Oh yes and use the information to quash dissenting groups just like those 'terror' laws.

    And store the information in an easy to access place (such as a secure server) so criminals can profit from it too.

    Does anyone else feel that the UK is becoming an ultra right wing religious police state?

    1. Re:Easy to Defeat just like congestion charge by psykocrime · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else feel that the UK is becoming an ultra right wing religious police state?

      You mean like the USofA? Yeah, I noticed that too...

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
  39. Circumvention by ktappe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I see a sudden market emerging for adhesive tape for modifying license plate numbers/letters to confuse the cameras. WIth little effort 5's make great 6's, 0's and 3's transmogrify into 8's, C's become 0's. And suddenly your car becomes anonymous. *cough* Not that I advocate this of course. -Kurt

    --
    "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    1. Re:Circumvention by slim · · Score: 1

      There are already laws against this.

    2. Re:Circumvention by ktappe · · Score: 1
      Perhaps there are laws against it, but as Thomas Jefferson said, "Tis better to disobey a just law than obey an unjust one." I think that directly parallels efforts to defeat such incredible Big Brother intrusions on the citizenry.

      -Kurt

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
  40. Why upset by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is simply a voluntary tax system. Want to help your gov.? Simply speed.

    Besides, maybe they use the new money to fix some of the other systems or perhaps increase the police.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Why upset by TDyl · · Score: 0, Troll

      No - they use the money the same way you yanks do - subjugating sovereign states and bolstering "defence" spending rather than doing anything good.

      --
      Todd: I hope it proves as delicious as the farmers that grew them
    2. Re:Why upset by D-Cypell · · Score: 5, Informative

      maybe they use the new money to fix some of the other systems or perhaps increase the police.

      Unfortunatly, it is more likely that the money will be distributed around the various family members of government officials who 'happen' to own services companies who amazingly seem to always win those cushy government contracts.

      It is not widely known that the NHS often use private ambulance companies. When my mother was in the hospital I got talking to a few staff at the hospital and they let me on on how much the NHS pays for a 15 min ambulance journey between two London hospitals. It is an absolutely disgusting figure and given that my terminally ill mother was left in a seriously uncomfortable state for hours while she waited for an ambulance I can assure you that we do not get our money's worth.

      They will put up speed cameras to generate wealth for a government who tells us that it is a choice between raised 'tax' or lower public spending. Very rarely will they mention the waste that is so pervasive in our public services. I suspect because if anyone were to look into the books to investigate this waste they would find corruption that runs all the way up to downing street.

      It is just easier to pretend there isnt a distinction between driving fast and driving dangerously (and I have seen dangerous driving within the speed limit and also quite safe driving above the speed limit). Of course, it is far more difficult to punish dangerous driving using a device that will work 24/7/365 and doesnt require a salary!

    3. Re:Why upset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our troops before they goto Iraq spend seriously amounts of money on gear that they are not provided with, yup they goto war with piss poor equipment.

      There is a huge waiting list for operations for the national health service...nothing is done about it.

      If you want to see a denist? You really need to goto a private one as the NHS ones are paid poorly when compared to private appoitments.

      I suspect the schools are having the funds cut.

      The country has a massive debt, which wasnt there before the current government came in.

      So its a good idea to blow money to watch people and movements...

      Mr Blair you suck.

    4. Re:Why upset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "piss poor equipment"

      They took out the Iraq army in the middle of the night and dust-storms using telescopic laser sights supported by laser-guided missiles launched from submarines hundreds of miles away while the Iraq's tried to get their 20 year old rifles to shoot.

      Doesn't sound like "piss poor equipment" to me. Heck, some say the Iraq war was an equipments test. Funny how all the stuff which does work doesn't get mentioned in the papers though.

    5. Re:Why upset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They buy US Army boots....SAS quick dry clothing...i think they were buying there own night vision as well...

      At the start there was a lack of body armour as well as gas masks (I believe).

      Are you sure laser guided missles came from submarines? Most of the Iraq army from what I understand were made up of people who didn't want to be there, drafted in.

    6. Re:Why upset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the video game warfare equipment works just fine.

      Shame about that body armor though, eh?

    7. Re:Why upset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      amount of uninsured cars on uk roads is ridiculously big %.

    8. Re:Why upset by Dr_LHA · · Score: 1

      Just be glad you don't live in the USA, otherwise your grandmother would have got the Ambulance Bill, not the government.

    9. Re:Why upset by timmyf2371 · · Score: 1
      Where's the voluntary tax system?

      Let's say I don't speed. Does that suddenly mean that the actual equipment, running costs, and infrastructure costs of such a system are no longer present?

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
  41. Re:People who replied to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please set sarcasm-meters to the "on" position before participating in the slashdot experience.

    Thank you,
    RadioElectric

  42. Sadness by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm feeling sad that these kind of measures can be introduced in the UK and the citizens of the UK doesn't feel the need to throw those responsible for this surveilance into the ocean or something.

    Seriously, why is it, that we have to live in such a passive society? Like if it would have been bred for obedience.

    First, there were cameras on the streets and noone said a word
    Then, there were monitoring of cars and noone said a word
    ...
    Finally, when I got stripped from all my freedoms, labeled a criminal, then, there was noone to say a word.

    Sad.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
    1. Re:Sadness by DogDude · · Score: 0

      Like if it would have been bred for obedience.

      What makes you so sure that we're not? here in the US, the greatest population growth comes from families involved with Christianity, which strongly encourages both obedience and having kids. This is occuring all the while more intelligent people (better educated, not religious and more inclined towards disobedience in all aspects of their lives) tend to have smaller families. Personally, not one of my friends with at least one graduate degree have any kids at all, while my friends that are either A. religious or B. less educated have one or more kids. I'm not speaking necessarily from personal experience, alone, either. The demographic numbers across the country say the same thing.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:Sadness by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      We're English damn it! You hit us in the face and we say sorry for hurting your hand.

      It's the same problem as the US. Too many people stopped caring about anything but money, so they all work as hard as they can, then go "oh fuck me!" when they realize some strange law is now stopping them doing what they want.

      If you're ignorant to the world, you don't notice the brick wall you walk into untill it's hit you in the face.

      --
      I like muppets.
    3. Re:Sadness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quote you're referencing refers to people exterminating a racial group - nothing remotely as serious has happened, and it happens to everyone equally. Cameras on public roads simply aren't unreasonable. Traffic statistics are a good thing to have. Persuading people to drive at a safe speed is a bit patronising, but nothing is getting hurt apart from some egos. Gassing people is on an entirely different level.

      I have a problem with the data retention and tracking, which would go away if it was properly anonymised. However, frankly, given the UK government is utterly inept with computers I am confident that it won't be (mis)used, although the fact the current bunch of politicos seemingly don't comprehend privacy issues is a concern. And yes, I do donate to privacy lobby groups, am a NO2ID member etc, but don't give a fuck about the cameras.

    4. Re:Sadness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Christianity was, among other things, originally a nonviolent social reform movement that practiced civil disobedience.

      Then it got coopted by a fascist government (Rome) and turned into one of its appendages, the Roman Catholic Church, which today has a billion adherents and ungodly amounts of money--those who know how much aren't talking. In fact, it has its own bank. A cynic might even go so far as to call it the world's largest for-profit corporation. Someone even more cynical might even call it a criminal gang and, along with other "faiths," the biggest impediment to human spiritual and social evolution.

      But maybe I'm just being cynical.

    5. Re:Sadness by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      Seriously, why is it, that we have to live in such a passive society? Like if it would have been bred for obedience.
      We haven't been "bred" for obedience, but we have been conditioned for it, through the public school system.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:Sadness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it your a democrat. I have no love for evangelical christians, or childeren of any type that I have to support against my will. Here is an idea, restructure are tax and welfare system to provide disincentives for producing chlideren. On top of that, if we must have a welfare system, and provide free medical support, why not provide free abortions, birth control, and anything possible to get women to stop spitting out babies.

  43. How else do you expect them to pay for the system? by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean seriously... Of coarse speeding tickets will be issued with it. That is how they will raise funding for it. However, figuring out how much they were speeding is a whole different story altogether... Now grant it, the 1/4 mile distance will limit some of the speeds, but in theory, someone could hit 100+ mph and slow back down to 5 mph before they hit the next scanner, thus the overall time spent going the 1/4 mile could still be same time spent for going that distance as it would if you simply went the speed limit.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  44. As I Brit I can say... by Frogbert · · Score: 1

    Indeed.

  45. Re:Miles? by l_bratch · · Score: 1

    When did the UK switch from using kilometers to miles??

    Speed and distance has for the most part been measured in miles in the UK for a long long time, kilometres haven't moved into that territory yet.

  46. Solution! by sweetnjguy29 · · Score: 1

    Just put a tin-foil hat on your car!

    1. Re:Solution! by wraith0x29a · · Score: 1
      --
      ~ Better a freak than a sheep. ~
  47. Safest roads by putty_thing · · Score: 1

    Putting aside the massive privacy issues, and assuming it is used to monitor speeding; why put speed cameras on the statistically safest roads in the country? Speed cameras (statistically again) have rarely managed to improve accident rates where deployed, so I'll look foward to seeing how they justify this one (no doubt it will stop terrorists..).

  48. Stuff like this by Rac3r5 · · Score: 1

    Stuff like this makes movies like

    Aeon Flux, Equilibrium, Minority Report etc.. seem more and more real...

  49. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  50. Re:Miles? by Frogbert · · Score: 1

    They never switched...

  51. The "primary" aim? by Bronz · · Score: 1

    Speeding. What about the secondary aim? It would be a nice way to attempt to solve a murder if you had some suspects that needed to get from point A to point B and back. Then again, why stop at murder. You know there was a drug house at location X ... Let's see who was making long trips to somewhere in that vicinicty, not staying terribly long, and heading home. That sounds like probable cause for a little wire tapping too. Then again, drug deals will be taken care of the minute we get RFID in our currency ... or just go to a complete "credits" system. The future is so bright I gotta wear shades.

    1. Re:The "primary" aim? by Bob+4knee · · Score: 1
      will be taken care of the minute we get RFID in our currency ...

      get? That's a good one. Everybody knows we've had RFID in the currency for a long time. In fact, being able to "follow the money" using RFID was one of the first steps in showing that the moon landings were faked...

    2. Re:The "primary" aim? by MooUK · · Score: 1

      I think it would be more likely to prove innocence where it was doubted than to prove guilt. When you've got tracking records saying that you and your car were in a certain place at a certain time, you don't have to rely purely on alibis to prove your innocence.

  52. do, or do not, there is no try by PMuse · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Could the stated goals not be acheived more cheaply simply by fitting each vehicle with a transponder? Anything that must be installed every quarter mile of every road will necessarily be ungodly expensive.

    Vehicles operating without a transponder would be fined steeply. A few random checks would ensure compliance.

    It's one thing to be an evil overlord, but there's no excuse for being an expensive and incompetent evil overlord.

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    1. Re:do, or do not, there is no try by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      better still, speed limit the cars.
      I'm all for that.

      You can't sell a 1Kw transmitter and ask the purchaser to promise never to turn it up above 50w.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    2. Re:do, or do not, there is no try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vehicles operating without a transponder would be fined steeply. A few random checks would ensure compliance.....

      Kindof like how a few random checks with steep fines keeps uninsured drivers, or dirvers with suspended licenses, off the road. Yeah. Right.

    3. Re:do, or do not, there is no try by MooUK · · Score: 1

      A few random checks would not ensure compliance too well. As proven by, say, the number of people driving uninsured, or (until the new electronic system was brought in) the number of people driving without valid road tax discs.

      Also, installing that many transponders, and then also the tracking gear, would be highly expensive too. And would SEVERELY clog up the airwaves...

    4. Re:do, or do not, there is no try by strikethree · · Score: 1

      you just gave me a nice sig. thanks. (sorry, your name only partially fits in the 120 char limit)

      strike

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    5. Re:do, or do not, there is no try by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm sure you'll enjoy it when you die because your car won't let you speed up to avoid a wreck!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:do, or do not, there is no try by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Pffft. You, peasant. Which part of: huge government contracts go to governments' officials families/friends don't you understand? The more expensive the more glorious - I am sure there is a Latin saying for that.

    7. Re:do, or do not, there is no try by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      My car does 140Mph

      It can't do 70-140mph in the 2 seconds that accident would take.

      can yours ?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    8. Re:do, or do not, there is no try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your car brakes can absorp MUCH more horsepower than the engine can deliver.
      In other words, maximum deceleration is much higher than the maximum acceleration. Therefore it seems reasonable to assume that it is always easier and safer to avoid a crash by promptly decelerating instead of accelerating, especially if you have ABS.

      Are you really avoiding accidents by speeding up? I think you are you just taking unnecessary risks to avoid being slowed down.

    9. Re:do, or do not, there is no try by The_reformant · · Score: 1

      And installing something on every car wouldnt be ungodly expensive? Theres definately more cars than there are 1/4 mile stretches of motorway in the country.

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this post is too small to contain.
    10. Re:do, or do not, there is no try by innit · · Score: 1

      > better still, speed limit the cars.

      Some are. My BMW is limited to 155mph :)

    11. Re:do, or do not, there is no try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Change the "and" to "&".

    12. Re:do, or do not, there is no try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You clearly have never driven a car. Many potential accidents are avoided by speeding up.

      Although, I suppose we could extrapolate your oversimplification further - why not simply keep the brakes fully on all the time? That way, there would never be any potential for collision.

    13. Re:do, or do not, there is no try by strikethree · · Score: 1

      i tried. it gets changed to amp; which is counted against the 120 char limit. i just removed the quotation marks and his name fits now.

      strike

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  53. I can see it now... blinking license plates by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

    Now I just have to patent my "system of obfuscating an identification system for automobiles from digital optical collective devices".

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  54. Bastards! by dow · · Score: 1
    A few years ago they talked about abolishing road tax in the UK, which is currently based on engine size. They were talking about a system whereby you get charged per mile driven, on the type of road, at the time of day. It was unworkable of course, because the logistics did not add up. But now, technology marches on, and this is speculated. That they try to bring this in with underhand tactics, the back way, by lying through their back teeth, is typical of this government, and just another item in a long list of bastardized manouvers that disgusts me to the core. If they are going to do something, why can they not admit it, but being sly and pretending it is for our own good (cutting untaxed uninsured criminals out of driving) is treating us as if we were stupid.

    I shouldn't mind, as I don't drive in rush hour, on major roads, or very far very often. I work mainly at home, and a mile down the (b) road, so it will cost me less. But the truth is something I appreciate. Heh... "the new terror laws won't be abused"... so why keep an 81 year old heckler out of your conference under them, you lying fu--wits.

    1. Re:Bastards! by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the UK. It's bullshit and no one cares enough any more.

      The government only does what people let it get away with.

      --
      I like muppets.
    2. Re:Bastards! by dow · · Score: 1

      Well they ain't getting away with this! Who's for rioting? Anyone? Riot?

      Of course as long as theres a law against Incitement to Riot I'm joking... Come the revolution they'll be first against the wall anyway.

  55. Exactly right by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You're trying to be sarcastic but you are correct. There is nowhere in the U.S. where speeding tickets are issued based on toll transponder data - some people have of course proposed it but the only thing American's like more than cars is speeding in them.

    Furthermore, did you not note that Exprestoll is a private company? Not being part of the government they care only about collecting tolls and not about issuing tickets.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  56. 10% + 2mph by grahamsz · · Score: 1

    The standard in the UK police is 10% + 2 mph, so you have to be doing 79 in a 70 to be ticketed or 35 in a 30.

    From what i've heard, some gatsos dont give you the 2mph but i believe laws only require that your in dash speedometer be accurate to 10% hence the slack.

    Of course i'm sure speedos are more accruate nowadays so they might try to reign that in.

    1. Re:10% + 2mph by the_xaqster · · Score: 1

      It all depends on how their month is going. I know a chap that was done for 31mph in a 30 limit.

      --
      I'm just here to regulate Funkyness
  57. The situation by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Also, getting done for doing too fast an average speed is far more important than getting unlucky for doing an instantaneous speed that is too fast at some random point in your trip.

    Only one problem with your theory - 1/4 a mile is too short not to get caught for passing someone.

    What if someone is going five under the limit. You try to pass them and they speed up, so you have to got a bit faster and it takes a bit longer to go around them - say 1/2 mile or more. Under the new system you are indeed getting a ticket.

    I also wonder if it will lead to refinement of the law that says exactly how many tickets per mile you can get. For instance, let's say you did pass that car and realize it was long enough to register you as speeding. Why not keep going then since you already have a ticket? If I travel fifty miles at ten over am I just going to get one ticket? Or perhaps the fine would increase with duration of the speeding.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:The situation by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      In the U.S. (or at least in Indiana; I assume it's similar elsewhere), it's illegal to pass anyone not going at least ten miles per hour under the speed limit, and there is no exception to the speed limit, even while passing.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    2. Re:The situation by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      On the other hand, maybe with even more resolution, the system could be refined to detect people who speed up when you try to pass them. I had someone do that to me the other night where I live (Lake County, California, USA) and then the fuckers put their brights on me once I got in front of them - in spite of the fact that they had pulled out in front of me going to slow to begin with. The speed limit there is 50 MPH, and they were going about 25 MPH when I got there.

      Anyone have plans for a small, vehicle-mounted HERF device?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:The situation by bnenning · · Score: 1

      In the U.S. (or at least in Indiana; I assume it's similar elsewhere), it's illegal to pass anyone not going at least ten miles per hour under the speed limit

      Do you have a source? That sounds ludicrous even by the standards of "traffic laws we want everyone to violate for revenue generation".

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    4. Re:The situation by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      "Anyone have plans for a small, vehicle-mounted HERF device?"

      No, but in cases like yours I've considered a pickup mounted .50 cal. . .
      I hate asshats like that, going 10 or 15 under then flooring it as you try to overtake. I ran one such ass into a guardrail because I ran out of dashed stripe and I saw headlights up ahead, when it was clear I wasn't going to make it b/c of his decision to speed up I merged over. Turns out the on-coming was a cop.
      I got hollered at for failure to yeild (should have slowed back down, let me off after I explained the situation), the other driver got cited for failure to yeild and told he got his just deserts as well :-)
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    5. Re:The situation by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      I was unable to find the source for the 10-MPH restriction, but that is what they taught our class in Driver's Ed. It may have been only a recommendation; they didn't go to very much trouble to separate their suggestions from legal requirements. However, there is no explicit exception to the speed limit while passing, and it would be rather foolish in most cases to try to pass someone at a speed differential of less than 10 MPH, unless you were on a very flat road, with other no traffic around for miles. You can look over the Indiana driving laws here

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    6. Re:The situation by bnenning · · Score: 1

      I was unable to find the source for the 10-MPH restriction, but that is what they taught our class in Driver's Ed. It may have been only a recommendation; they didn't go to very much trouble to separate their suggestions from legal requirements.

      I suspect that's the case. For drivers who are just starting out it's not bad advice.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    7. Re:The situation by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      What if someone is going five under the limit. You try to pass them and they speed up, so you have to got a bit faster and it takes a bit longer to go around them - say 1/2 mile or more. Under the new system you are indeed getting a ticket.

      Actually the new system helps this situation. You can floor it and pass the guy in 300m safely, and then slow right down for the next 100m. Under the old system, you are forced to micropass as you describe to avoid getting a ticket.

      This is inconsiderate to the guy you were passing -- but if he is the sort to speed up when passed, he deserves it.

    8. Re:The situation by KylePflug · · Score: 1
      What if someone is going five under the limit. You try to pass them and they speed up, so you have to got a bit faster and it takes a bit longer to go around them - say 1/2 mile or more. Under the new system you are indeed getting a ticket.


      The solution is to always pass in the oncoming lane. This will in fact convince the cameras that you are travelling at negative speeds and the would-be fine will instead be credited to your account.
  58. Priceless by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    1: Cameras, communications, hardware, and software -- (est.) $500/camera.
    2: Spray can of black paint -- $3.99.
    3: Afternoon out drinking beer with friends and spray painting over camera lens -- $50.
    4: Sticking it to the Man -- PRICELESS!

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Priceless by wraith0x29a · · Score: 1

      Fine for damaging speed camera - £1000.

      (unless they can claim you were interfering with the UK's ability to secure itself against terrorism in which case the sky's the limit).

      --
      ~ Better a freak than a sheep. ~
  59. Nah, bollocks by Cally · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Sorry, I'm a big Register fan, but they're wrong about this. It's not going to happen. Consider that the existing old-skool 'GATSOs' are now pretty universally revived and being deactivated (latest snippet was research demonstrating dangerous bunching on the M4 where they were introduced as a trial.) I drive past 2 or 3 on my daily commute, virtually always over the speed limit, and I've driven round the SE and London - been flashed once or twice but never fined, and these days I don't even get flashed.

    Bear in mind that Blair's ability to railroad through deeply unpopular legislation is seriously damaged after losing the "90 days" vote last week. The PLP are restive and not likely to rubberstamp deeply unpopular legislation.

    I've been had by the London congestion charge system many times, which is always a pain but overall I don't moan about it because it's a Good Thing to ration traffic in central london (for lots of reasons.) That argument won't wash outside of city centres though.

    --
    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
  60. A little difference by mangu · · Score: 1
    how about we put cameras in every home, in order to detect criminal activities?


    A home is a private place, a street is a public place. Shall I draw a diagram?

    1. Re:A little difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crimes aren't restricted to public places; shall I draw you a diagram...???

    2. Re:A little difference by oolon · · Score: 1

      And of course, if you have nothing to hide why would you possibly object? Only criminals have anything to fear. I suggest a large tv set in every room that can monitor us at all times.

      James

    3. Re:A little difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So far this distinction is true...
      The federal government adopted a plan today to enable unrestricted monitoring of homes and offices to prevent terrorist activities. Monitoring will be provided by a new undetectable camera developed by the FBI. Officials say the only people that should be worried about this legislation are terrorist and criminals. ...Seems like its only a matter of time :(

    4. Re:A little difference by mangu · · Score: 1
      Crimes aren't restricted to public places


      Crimes happen anywhere. But there's a difference between relative priorities. We (the so-called "normal" human beings) place an importance to our privacy that sets the need to be not-monitored in our homes higher than the need to avoid some crimes that could possibly happen. On the other hand, our behavior in public places is already monitored by Mrs. Grundy, so having a camera filming us in those circumstances will not make much difference in our personal sense of privacy.


      Are you happy with this diagram, or do you need further explanation?

    5. Re:A little difference by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A home is a private place, a street is a public place. Shall I draw a diagram?

      And if you have absolutely no privacy in public? Even if you walk past CCTV cameras, you are primarily observed, not tracked. In general, there is no record of you being there. I would certainly feel that a full record of my public movements would be an invasion of my privacy. Even big celebreties tend to get some privacy. Try these on for size, all "public" facts:

      Who bought condoms last week.
      Who slept where, either going away or coming over.
      Who went to Alcoholics Anonymous.
      Who went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 in cinema.
      Who went to a mosque last week.

      That's a lot of social, political, religious and other profiling for each and every citizen. In general, I place a big difference between being observed and being tracked, and what is being described here is a tracking system. Would you really like to have the government keep a huge file on everything and everyone? Move to DDR, ca. 1970 but don't bring that society here. We don't need nor want it.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:A little difference by mangu · · Score: 1
      I place a big difference between being observed and being tracked


      Where do you draw the line? What's the fundamental difference between a "paparazzo" that follows a celebrity and the late East Germany's police? Answer: the DDR could build a physical wall that kept its citizens within their borders.


      If you are in a public place, you must accept the fact that everything you do can be observed. Murder someone at the drugstore and you will have a security camera recording everything. Murder your wife at home and you can claim self-defense because she tried to cut your throat with a kitchen knife. Life is like that.


      In a free society, you can buy condoms and go to the mosque. So what? It's not like you are going to jail for that. The big problem is not having a record of trivial acts, the problem is having trivial acts turned into crimes by an arbitrary government. I'm all for free access to information, as long as my basic liberties are respected. I have no complaints about everyone knowing when I bought condoms, as long as everyone also knows when the country's president bought that sexy underwear for his boyfriend...

    7. Re:A little difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm all for free access to information, as long as my basic liberties are respected."

      Then, since we already have a government that *doesn't* respect our basic liberties, you will understand why we aren't all for free access to information...

    8. Re:A little difference by JWtW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Very insightful comment. However, "Mrs Grundy" is only prevalent in the smaller towns and nicer neighborhoods. The more dense the population, the harder it is for her to keep track.

      If you'll allow me to expand on this: (whoops--too late :-)
      Anyone that chooses to live in 'any' societal setting is subject to some form of scrutiny. Whether it's speeding/red-light/street cameras, "Mrs. Grundy", or the nice folks waiting for the next asteroid to come pick you up....SOMEBODY is watching you, and your actions are kept in an archive--somewhere.

      Now, to get to the meat of the topic. My problem with 'this' kind of scrutiny is that it is more profit-driven than it is safety/public interest driven. I'm sure that there are statistics that can quote 'lives saved', or 'terrorists thwarted', but all I hear on the news about these cameras is the amount of revenue generated for the city. I'm sure the city isn't the only one profiting either. Someone created the technology, and someone maitains the system. It's a win-win situation for the profiteers, but we ("...the so-called 'normal' human beings") lose.

      They accept our taxes to pay for the system, and they profit from the revenues generated.

    9. Re:A little difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      We (the so-called "normal" human beings) place an importance to our privacy that sets the need to be not-monitored in our homes higher than the need to avoid some crimes that could possibly happen.

      And some of us (less pretentious) folks "place an importance to our privacy that sets the need to be not-monitored [anywhere] higher than the need to avoid some crimes that could possibly happen."

      On the other hand, our behavior in public places is already monitored by Mrs. Grundy, so having a camera filming us in those circumstances will not make much difference in our personal sense of privacy.

      Yeah, because having a nosy neighbor is exactly like having hundreds (thousands!) of hours of video footage of you stored away in digital format. Having a person see you walk down the street is exactly like having a second-by-second record of where you are stored in some government computer.

      Forget the diagram, you're off the map.

    10. Re:A little difference by imdx80 · · Score: 1
      The latest plans put forward by labour is to allow council officials to enter anybodys house at any time to check whether the house is nicely decorated, has a nice garden, filled with nice electrical equipment and with a nice view and this will effect your council tax evaluation

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessio nid=PTQL4SD1HOROZQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/200 5/11/15/nct15.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/15/ixport altop.html

    11. Re:A little difference by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Who bought condoms last week.
      Who slept where, either going away or coming over.
      Who went to Alcoholics Anonymous.
      Who went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 in cinema.
      Who went to a mosque last week.


      In the case of the third of these, it may in fact be illegal to breach your privacy by monitoring that you have gone to the AA, as a result of the ruling in the Naomi Campbell privacy case against the Mirror newspaper. It was ruled that the mirror had no right to expose Campbell's medical problems to the public, by revealing that she was attaending a drug clinic.

      There is a clear distinction between public and private actions. It is certainly the case that you may engage in public actions in private, e.g. cabinet meetings. It is also the case that you may engage in private actions in public, e.g. having a relationship with someone.

      The police are entitled to investigate both your public and private actions during the normal course of their duties, namely upholding the law. It is very questionable to say that the normal course of their duty involves monitoring every facet of your daily life, both public and private that they can get their hands on, constitutes a normal course of their duty. In fact, it could be argued, that superflous monitoring of citizens is expressly outside the legal entitlement of law enforcement.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  61. overdoing it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just another example where the EU (the UK in particular) is trying to outdo the US in their fight for justice and the war on terror. Just wait; in a week they'll cite the fight on terrorism for this as well...

    In other news:

    Woman arrested under Terrorism laws for walking on bikepath:
    http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17909-18 29289,00.html
    (this is not a joke!)

  62. Variable speed limits by amembleton · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems that the reason why they want a camera every 400 yards is so that they can enforce variable speed limits. From the article: "400 yards along motorways, and a trial on the M42 near Birmingham will first be used to enforce variable speed limits".

    I last drove along the M42 just over a week ago, and there are plenty of new temporary speed limit signs, one above each lane. These were in use to slow the traffic down to help remove a traffic jam. It seems that all of this has been put in with the intention of these camera trials.

    Personally, I think this is a good idea. Variable speed limits might help to curb congestion, especially on the M42 which regularly gets jammed with traffic going to the NEC and the many motorways that connect to it. We have had variable speed limits in the UK for a while now, but everyone (including the police) ignores them.

    In the UK, driving is a privilage and not a right. You are issued with a licence which of course can be revoked by a court. A lot of speed limits do seem like BS, and the motorway speed limit IMHO ought to be 80, but if everyone is doing the same speed things might be safer.

    The only problem I have with this, is that they want to hold the records for two years. Why? This will probably get tied into our expensive ID cards. Might be time to migrate.

    1. Re:Variable speed limits by MooUK · · Score: 1

      If they're intending to use the records to help prove guilt (or innocence - and I argue that it would be very easy to prove innocence with this data instead of having to rely on alibis, in the cases where innocent people are charged), then they clearly have to keep the records long enough to deal with any relevant court cases. Any shorter would be too short.

    2. Re:Variable speed limits by MattBurke · · Score: 1

      The M42 has it half right. It's a very busy bit of road, and yet when it's busy traffic can still move fairly freely at a steady speed. Compare that to a few miles down the road on the M6 around the M5 junction. Nightmare.

      However at night it's the other way round. At 4am on a Sunday morning I am stuck driving 70mph alone on 3 lanes of completely empty road on the M42. Hit the M6 and I can get home at a brisker pace. I've passed or driven at the same speed as numerous police cars on there at 90ish at that time of the week and they've had no issue with it at all. Why should they?

      It's a shame they're replacing the human element with machines which are unable to consider context.

    3. Re:Variable speed limits by DaracMarjal · · Score: 1

      We have had variable speed limits in the UK for a while now, but everyone (including the police) ignores them.

      AFAIK, most variable speed limits are only advisory. If you see "40" on a matrix sigh with the flashy yellow lights, that's only an advisory speed unless it also has the red circular border around it.

      At the moment, the M42's speed limits are only advisory, but it looks like it's geared up to use CVSLs (Compulsory Variable Speed Limits) soon.

    4. Re:Variable speed limits by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think more use of variable speed limits is about the one good thing that might happen if this goes through. Having driven round the M25 variable speed limit section several times recently, they do work pretty well, and generally people do respect them, probably because roughly every other overhead gantry has speed cameras mounted on the back. Traffic slows but usually keeps moving at a useful rate, which is vastly better for progress, the environment and safety than 70mph vs. 0mph stop-start driving.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    5. Re:Variable speed limits by amembleton · · Score: 1

      The Highway Code states that the sign is a "Temporary maximum speed limit".

  63. Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recommend moving to Germany, it at least has a 'been there, done that, bought the swastika' attitude to the police-state

  64. Monitoring, by Evoluder · · Score: 1

    "Otherwise, checking a vehicle's tax and insurance status every 15 seconds or thereabouts would seem overkill."

    Unless they are looking into "road pricing" where you pay for the use of the roads, which I believe they are looking into doing?

  65. Oh, those European countries by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Funny
    Sweden: Land of meatballs, Volvos, and The Pirate Bay.

    Britain: Land of really stupid criminals who don't know enough to switch license plates before committing a crime with a car.

    Seems to me that Q knew what he was doing when he gave James Bond an Aston Martin with changeable license plates.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Oh, those European countries by makomk · · Score: 1

      It's funny you should say that. We have a problem with cloned plates in the UK - someone gets speeding tickets or congestion charge fines when they and their car were nowhere near where they were issued, and it turns out someone's illegally used their registration no on their own car. It's only going to get worse. The Govenment solution is to regulate registration plate makers...

  66. What privacy do you expect? by kwerle · · Score: 1

    OK, they're monitoring the movements of vehicles on public roads. Exactly what privacy do you think is being violated?

  67. Penalties are strange too by grahamsz · · Score: 1

    I'm always confused by the fact (which seems to hold true in many countries) that speeding fines are based on how many mph or kph you are over the limit.

    I'm of the mindset that 15mph over a 70mph limit is far less dangerous than 15mph over a 30mph limit - yet in some places they have the same penatly.

    1. Re:Penalties are strange too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I Michigan, at least, 5mph over the limit on the highway is a smaller fine without any points on your license. On a normal road, it's more money and 2 points on your license.

      Of course, this all depends on the city.

    2. Re:Penalties are strange too by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      Speed limits are based on the areas. Most police officers won't go after someone on the motor way/dual carriage way unless they're doing 90 mph. It's just not worth trying to catch them when it's difficult to prove it or even bother.

      Where as going 30-40 in a 20 zone (like around schools) is very dangerous and easy to catch and prove.

      But then you get the problem of which is worse, killing a little kid, or mowing down an old lady, maybe it's ramming into a lorry or a bus.. peoples opinions don't put all these crimes on an equal terms, so they make all the crimes have an equal fine in a bracket and simplely go "screw it".

      --
      I like muppets.
    3. Re:Penalties are strange too by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      If the speed limits are properly set according to engineering priciples, 15 over a 70 limit is about as dangerous than 15 over a 30 limit. 30 would be a prudent limit for a particularly narrow residential street. 70 would be a prudent limit for highways in suburban areas. The risk of crashing is higher at local road speeds, but a crash at highway speeds is much more likely to result in a fatality than a crash at local road speeds.

      Traffic jams are the most common source of accidents (per mile driven), but result in extremely few fatalities. The average speed of impact is under 5 mph, or just enough to cause a few thousand in bumper repairs on new cars (or zero in damage to an old clunker where you cannot notice the new dent in the rear fender).

    4. Re:Penalties are strange too by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      Hmm perhaps if you look at it from a raw engineering perspective. The difference in momentum should be the same, but i think the human cost is probably different.

      However in highway (vehicle - vehicle) crashes lets say that at 70mph the chance of a fatality is X and at 85 mph then the chance becomes X + a

      Now consider a local (vehicle- person) crash, again at 30 mph lets make that chance Y and at 45 mph the chance of a fatality Y + b

      I'm virtually certain that b > a

    5. Re:Penalties are strange too by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "If the speed limits are properly set according to engineering priciples, 15 over a 70 limit is about as dangerous than 15 over a 30 limit. "

      An engineer worth his creds would look at the multitude of parameters, such as visibility, surface composition, foot traffic, etc.

      120 km/h in a 100 km/h zone, which is a straight road, paved for high-speed driving, no school children crossing, no stop signal ahead, is certainly safer than 60 km/h in a 45 km/h zone through an area with schools or shopping centres, or with blind turns, poor pavement, etc.

      I will disregard your un-cited accident statistics.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    6. Re:Penalties are strange too by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "I'm virtually certain that b > a"

      Also consider: "What do you hit when you leave the road?"

      On a highway, you go into a ditch, a retaining wall, impact barrels, etc.

      On a residential road, you go into someone's garden -- or living room! (I have seen both, more than once).

      On a mountain road, you go off the mountain.

      On a bridge, you go into the water.

      There's more to the equation that the "engineer" is considering.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  68. Well, apart from the matter of evidence by Space+cowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... despite the UK's continual attempts to make it easier to incarcerate people without trial, it does require motive, means, and opportunity, not to mention some evidence of a crime, rather than a conversation to get arrested/charged. There is always the option of wrongful arrest, if the police try to take it too far...

    In general, though, I'm very disappointed. Christ, I thought geting rid of "lockemup, lockemALLup" Blunkett was a good thing. Looks like we swapped the frying pan for the fire :-(

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:Well, apart from the matter of evidence by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I never said a thing about being incarcerated just investigated. Which really could cause a great amount of grief.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Well, apart from the matter of evidence by Space+cowboy · · Score: 1

      If you've been talking to a known mass-murderer, don't you think the police ought to be talking to you ? However innocent the reasons, I'd expect the police to show an interest in any connection. At the very least, they'd get more info on what clothes (s)he was wearing, anything they said or did that seemed out of place, etc.

      If your neighbours are suspecting you of consorting with people like that, it's time to change neighbours, or stop doing it of course :-) Personally I'd dine out on the experience for the next 2 months, but that's just me...

      Simon

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
    3. Re:Well, apart from the matter of evidence by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Very different situation than the drug dealer I was talking about. Hey if you like the idea of you being tracked everywhere in your car so be it. I don't like it and will oppose it in the US as hard as I can. Different people have different views.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  69. Who needs privacy? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Hey, who needs privacy if it might catch a criminal.

    You dont have anything to hide do you?

    ( this is sarcasm )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  70. You've made some spelling mistakes by uujjj · · Score: 2, Funny

    Errr, hang on a second. I think you'll find that the US uses Imperial (as in British) units. Not the other way around. Well most of the time - there are of course the bastardised Imperial units the US uses like larger fl. oz, fewer fl. oz to the pint (and thus smaller gallons), and smaller tonnes.
    I think you meant bastardized and tons. When will these Brits learn to spell?

    1. Re:You've made some spelling mistakes by Malc · · Score: 1

      Ton, tonne? Now I'm the one confusing metric and Imperial. Doh!

    2. Re:You've made some spelling mistakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bastardized was the British spelling in the 1700s... we've moved on, maybe the US should too. Metrik 4 teh winn!

    3. Re:You've made some spelling mistakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, you were right. The U.S. does use a "smaller tonne": the ton.

    4. Re:You've made some spelling mistakes by Malc · · Score: 1

      At only 2000 lbs, it's smaller than both the metric tonne and the Imperal ton.

    5. Re:You've made some spelling mistakes by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      It's called a short ton. A long ton is nearly a tonne at 2240 lbs.
      Consult your local units.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
  71. Constable cnut says: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're driving along and see a Multinova
    Mount the kerb and run it over!

  72. Lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope they bring this to the US! I bet I could get $50 a pop for traffic camera's on ebay.

  73. safety belts laws by ZXSpectrum42 · · Score: 1

    i believe that this system will be usefull

    1) for checking about stolen vehicles
    2) to send tickets to everyone exciding the speed limit of 130 Km/h,
    3) checking for untaxed and uninsured vehicles.


    And generally for road safety reasons:

    1) Those who dont wear their safety belt going below 50 km/h shouldn't get a ticket
    2) for those that dont wear their safety belts ang speeding at 50-100km/h should not be punished too hard
    3) For people speeding above 100km/h not wearing their safety belts their car should be hold by the police for only two days, and not more.
    4) Finally the above should be known to public via advertisement in television.
    5) this is only for their safety belts, and thats because TV is the only medium that everybody watches and the message can get to the public.
    6) if someone wants to go over 250Km/h they can do so if they wear their safety belts

    All of the above should be enforced to everyone , even policemen and politicians

    IN AN INSANE WORLD, THE ANSWERS ARE INSANE

    --
    2+2 = 5 (for very large values of 2)
  74. Don't forget the pedants. by GWTPict · · Score: 1

    Well done that man! Saved me the trouble. Orf now for another G&T.

  75. Welcome to Airstrip One by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    That explains the new signage in Heathrow:
    "Welcome to Airstrip One"

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  76. Kilometers? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    When did the UK switch from using miles to kilometers??

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:Kilometers? by blueforce · · Score: 1

      I have family there. I've been there. I've never seen a single sign anywhere from Peterborough to the Isle of Wight that says anything about miles.

      Excuse my ignorance.

      Perhaps goons on slashdot could simply answer a question without displaying their own ignorance.

      --
      If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
    2. Re:Kilometers? by Pete+(big-pete) · · Score: 1

      I have family there. I've been there. I've never seen a single sign anywhere from Peterborough to the Isle of Wight that says anything about miles.

      Fair enough - you assumed that all the numbers posted on the roads were referring to kilometers (as they don't specify miles OR kilometers on road signs in the uk).

      Sorry, but that doesn't make it true - all road measurements in the UK are in miles, and have always been in miles. There is nothing explicitly saying "miles" or "mph" on the road signs because it's not needed, everyone just knows that it is so.

      -- Pete.

    3. Re:Kilometers? by welshie · · Score: 1

      There are explicitly signs that state that road signs in mainland UK are in mph, and give appropriate conversions to km/h for drivers of cars using international standard units. They can be found outside most ferry terminals. I have never seen any road signs in the UK explicitly stating that the default distance measurements for road signs are in statute miles. In fact, many motorway signs give the letter "m" after a number, which according to international convention, means metres, and it should read "mi" as an abbreviation to mean miles. I have seen, on British territory, speed limit road signs on public roads which explicitly state that the speed limit is in km/h. ( British Sovreign Base area, Akrotiri, Cyprus - outside the British controlled territory, there is no explicit signs stating that the speed limits are still in km/h there as well) It was fun in Ireland whilst they were changing to metric road signs, a project which took over 10 years. First, all new distance signs were labelled in km, and once the majority of distance signs were in km, there was a big bang changeover of speed limit signs. During the changeover, there were no obvious signs at ferry terminals stating what units were in use for speed or distance, so it was easy to assume "oh, that distance sign says km, so speed limits must be too", and then drive far too slowly.

    4. Re:Kilometers? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      When did the UK switch from using miles to kilometers??

      Shortly after the last civil servant who dealt with miles, furlongs, rods, yards ainches and ounces finally snapped and scampered around raving about "60 hands to the leauge and 23 in the inch", or some other such garbled conversions.

      He's getting better though. They're teaching him about metres now. He smiles whenever he converts from kilometres to centimetres.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    5. Re:Kilometers? by blueforce · · Score: 1

      I'm absolutely fascinated. It's one of those things I never give much thought but now that I know, I'm just truly fascinated.

      I suppose, being familiar with Canada and its use of the metric system for everything, and (however unfairly) identifying it as more similar to the UK, you're right - I just assumed that the UK used the metric system too. Over here, growing up, we're told that the U.S. is one of the last hold-outs on the imperial system and the whole world has converted to the metric system; we go to Canada and see the signs; I've never had any reason to assume that the UK *doesn't* use km. It just seemed so obvious that I (and I'll bet most people I know) never give it a second thought.

      Thanks.

      --
      If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
  77. Passive UK citizens... by xs650 · · Score: 1

    This just in...

    Passive UK citizens to passivily allow the the UK Police to build a network to monitor the movement of every vehicle in the U.K.

    Not that US citizens would act much differently these days.

  78. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent up

  79. I'm out of here by lebski · · Score: 1

    Screw it I'm moving to France, their economy is shot but at least they know how to riot.

  80. Excellent by ByteGuerrilla · · Score: 1

    I totally agree with this. It doesn't invade privacy, and it ought to do something about the sheer volume of idiots driving about these days. Bonus.

    --

    A block of code, sufficiently well-written, is indistinguishable from magick.

    1. Re:Excellent by wraith0x29a · · Score: 1

      I see hundreds of potentially dangerous violations of the traffic laws on my 20-minute-each-way commute each day but very few could be picked up automatically by this system.

      If they had trained human operatives viewing the cameras, linked to vastly increased amounts of traffic police who actually stopped and prosecuted these violators I may be less skeptical of what sounds to me like a self-financing civilian surveillence system.

      As has been said before on this page unless they install cameras on every urban street and country lane the most dangerous behaviour on the most dangerous roads will be completely missed by this system.

      --
      ~ Better a freak than a sheep. ~
  81. Nobody remembers the acquittal, just the arrest by crimethinker · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Please crawl out from under the rock where you've been living.

    At least here in the U.S., the arrest gets all the press. An acquittal NEVER gets nearly as much press. Case in point, recently nine women attending two fraternity parties near the University of Colorado were taken to the hospital for alcohol poisoning. It was front-page news for several days when two of the women apparently tested positive for GHB, a "date-rape" drug. One of the frats has actually had its local chapter closed down for the rest of the year, maybe permanently.

    Fast-forward several weeks, and guess what, the "quickie" test for GHB has a non-zero occurence of false positives. The more expensive, accurate, and time-consuming lab test came back negative on all nine women. Was it front page news for over a week that "frats didn't drug women after all"? I'll let you guess at the answer.

    I had a point somewhere in there. Oh yeah, I'd prefer not to be arrested just because I happened to come into casual contact with a criminal.

    -paul

    --
    Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
    1. Re:Nobody remembers the acquittal, just the arrest by Space+cowboy · · Score: 1

      I had a point somewhere in there. Oh yeah, I'd prefer not to be arrested just because I happened to come into casual contact with a criminal.

      Unfortunately you seemed to have missed mine, which was that you don't get arrested for having a conversation, no matter whom it was with... The police may come and visit, and ask you what you were talking about (and frankly, if a mass-murderer is speaking to you, it's probably a good idea that they do, even if (s)he is just asking directions), but they're not going to arrest you on the basis of speaking to someone! It requires more than that.

      Simon
      (not living under any rocks, as far as I know...)

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
    2. Re:Nobody remembers the acquittal, just the arrest by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ...you don't get arrested for having a conversation, no matter whom it was with...

      On the contrary. That is exactly the excuse that has been offered to justify detaining thousands of people under anti-terrorism legislation since 11 September 2001. Of those people, fewer than half have ever even been charged with a terrorism-related offence, and AFAIK the total convictions under that legislation so far remain in single figures -- around 1/10,000th of those arrested under it. That's not good law, that's a police state.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re:Nobody remembers the acquittal, just the arrest by Space+cowboy · · Score: 1

      This is in the UK ? thousands of people ? Can you give me a link ?

      Simon

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
    4. Re:Nobody remembers the acquittal, just the arrest by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      I'll see if I can dig up a proper link, but various critical articles in the media a few weeks back (IIRC it was commentary after the 7 July bombings, or possibly after the old man was thrown out of the Labour Party conference) were citing something like 30,000 arrests, resulting in charging around half those people with any offence, many not terrorism related, and as I said only single figures (possibly low double figures these days) of convictions for terrorism-related offences.

      (PS: I found a couple of links by searching for "UK anti-terrorism legislation arrest statistics" on Google, which suggest I'm misremembering. However, they still list nearly 1,000 arrests, fewer than half resulting in a charge, and only around 20 convictions, so I stand by my argument even if the numbers were off.)

      (PPS: I wonder if the figures mentioned by Liberty in the aftermath of 11 September, cited here, were the sort of thing the articles I was thinking of were describing. They mention over 7,000 arrests, with a much smaller number of people charged and only a tiny fraction ever convicted.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    5. Re:Nobody remembers the acquittal, just the arrest by clare-ents · · Score: 1

      The most positive numbers are here, 895 arrests, 138 charges under the terrorism act.

      http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-an d-the-law/terrorism-act/

      Now, that's not too bad, what's more worring is the stop-and-search misuse, 2003-2004

      http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-12-21 .205366.h&s=search+terrorism+section#g205366.r0

      Roughly, 33000 searches under the terrorism act *that year* leading to 373 arrests.

      More worryingly, the record against protestors at the american nuclear air base.

      http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-12-13 .199416.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g199416.q0

      2254 stop-searches were conducted.

      How many people were charged and prosecuted?

      http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-11-20 .139088.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g139088.q0

      "I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.", translation "There's no chance I want the public to know."

      Fortunately this question gets asked every few months, and once the government made the mistake of answering it.

      http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-09-01 .183826.h&s=raf+fairford#g183826.q0

      Over a period of seven weeks, of the people searched under suspicion of being a terrorist six people were arrested for *drug* related offences, one for breach of the peace and one for criminal damage.

      You'll note the lack of terrorism related activity there.

      Fortunately, our now ex-home secretary, confirmed that there has been no abuse of the law.

      http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-03-21 .103483.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g103483.q0

      "The Terrorism Act 2000 is not being applied in the prevention of protests at RAF Fairford. Powers under this legislation are applied solely for the prevention and investigation of acts of terrorism."

      http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-05-13 .111793.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g111793.q0
      "We do not comment on operational counter-terrorist measures, but the Chief Constable, Gloucestershire Constabulary, has informed me that powers of stop and search under the Terrorism Act were used, for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind that could be used in connection with terrorism."

      http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-10-06 .130339.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g130339.q0

      "Lawful protests were not prevented at RAF Fairford during the recent conflict in Iraq as a result of use of the Terrorism Act 2000.

      The use of the stop and search powers under section 44 was authorised and confirmed according to statutory procedure for a designated area which included Fairford. They were therefore available to officers during the policing of the protests. Such powers are confirmed solely to enable officers to search for articles that could be used in connection with terrorism."

      Just for no UK citizens who aren't up to date on UK politics, David Blunkett is our ex-home secretary, who was sacked from the cabinet for fast tracking passpo

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
    6. Re:Nobody remembers the acquittal, just the arrest by UltimateRobotLover · · Score: 1

      In a country where you can get chased and shot in the head x times for walking out of a flat under surveilance, I wouldn't put anything past the police.

  82. So by Trogre · · Score: 0, Troll

    Who's up for a boycott of the EU since one member country, the UK is clearly doing evil things?

    I mean, that's what we do here, isn't it?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  83. Truth about TAX in UK by nottoogeeky · · Score: 1, Interesting

    UK is in a bad state right now. all this is, is an extra tax for us to pay! Debt in the UK is crazy!!! and you know why?.......because everyday wages don't actually pay for what the UK government takes away from you. I worked out, for about every £100 you earn, you only see around £15-£20. Why? What we call stealth taxes! wait...i can have 4 kids, sit on my ass all day, get a free house, free dental, free health and make £40,000 a yer. What the **** am i doing working really hard 12 hours a day? I can't even afford to run my car! UK SUX! Can i come to USA?

    1. Re:Truth about TAX in UK by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "wait...i can have 4 kids, sit on my ass all day, get a free house, free dental, free health and make £40,000 a yer."

      So you won't get with the program. Whose fault is that?

      "Can i come to USA?"

      I thought the USA was the laughing stock of the world, where everybody is fat and supports a government of morons and warmongers.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  84. better than jamming cell phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With so many cameras, why aren't there more vandals with high-powered light sources frying these things. Image a UV laser inside a binoculars chassis. Use one lens to look into the traffic camera, push the button, and the camera dies.

  85. I See You by rah1420 · · Score: 1

    Damon Knight already predicted universal access to the cameras in his short story I See You.

    Available as an ebook at the hyperlink. Good read.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
  86. So what by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Illegal and wrong are two different things.

    Of course there are no exceptions ot the speed limit - it's a hard and fast law. But the laws of physics and reality sometimes differ from that which is written. If someone is going at an unstable speed I am going to pass them, as long as I can do so safley.

    You seem to forget the point of the law is to reduce accidents. My not being near an unstable driver reduces the chance I will be in one. Therefore I am obeying the spirit of the law which in fact makes mer morally superior to someone who insists on obeying the law to the peril of traffic around them.

    The law is slowly coming around to a similar point of view as well - recently a number of states have seen laws making it illegal for someone to be in the left lane unless they are passing. Note that it's not legal to stay there even if you are going the speed limit, which in theory means no-one should pass them (and is exactly what many of those people are thinking in a passive-agressive sort of way). Because this behaviour leads to accidents it is banned, even though there's no reason it cannot be legal.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:So what by terrymr · · Score: 1


      Of course there are no exceptions ot the speed limit


      There is in Washington state when passing somebody on a road that has a single lane in each direction.

  87. Here is my idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is my idea. My idea rocks. Put GPS in all cars, get location, distance etc etc. If a car happens to pass a set point on a main road and there is no GPS signal for it, then use a camera to read the car,if its plate does not match the one on records, then tag that car and follow up the case from there. Why people can't think of simple solutions like that is beyond me. It is also easy to phase in over time with new cars coming out and people having to get their MOT's done again.

    Why they resort to putting forward ideas with no thinking is beyond me. Another half arsed UK idea that was sadly put in motion is the way the buses countdown timers of arrival work, that being in that they don't. GPS once again could save the day. The use it to track all police and most hospital vehicles down to the meter, so why not buses?

    Technology in the wrong hands is scary.

  88. Slashdot, YOU SUCK! (aka Texas tried this...) by arfonrg · · Score: 2

    I submitted the story about Texas trying to do this (almost this EXACT story) but with ACTIVE RFID and yesterday and it was REJECTED! WTF!?!

    If anyone cares, here's two write up on Texas' attempt from a both sides of the political aisle:

    http://journals.aol.com/republicanjen/RepublicanJe n/entries/1451
    http://www.houstondemocrats.com/archives/2005/04/n ow_this_worrie.html

    --
    Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  89. Now that might be good by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    If there were a camera system to detect obnoxious behavior, I would be all for it. Ticket someone pulling out in front just as you had happen? Great. Speeding up to prevent you from passing? Get them under the same road-rage laws that prevent people driving in the left lane unless they are passing. High-beaming you for no reason? Blow out thier tires with the roadside automated dart guns that provide instant enforcement.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  90. exactly what I don't like about law enforcement by jay2003 · · Score: 1

    From the Register article: don't seem to have needed any kind of Parliamentary approval to begin the deployment of what promises to be one the most pervasive surveillance systems on earth

    Law enforcement can not be trusted ever with broad powers. To initiate surveillance on every citizen of a country with a car and not think that parliment should need to approve the plan, demostrates how the police are always out to establish a police state. They do not see parliment as running the UK, only a hurdle to get in around in their dream of being able to monitor every citizen constantly.

    Speeding tickets are the least of the problems with this kind of intrusion into every citizen's life. Next, the police will claim they need to take all this data and use it find people whose travel patterns fit those of terrrorists. After they succeeded by claiming all of the critics are terrorist smapathizers, they'll continually expand the use of the data your every movement is used and analized to see if you are committing some crime or the other and the entire UK is a police state.

  91. is it turn britain into an open prison day?? by blackest_k · · Score: 1

    wtf is this turn britain into an open prison day
    theres people who get watched and they are called criminals and we have em in prison now it seems like the whole island will be an open prison. we will be given freedoms to an extent but we will be checked.

    Didn't we used to pity the soviet russians with thier limited freedoms and having to get permission to travel
    now here we have random searches checks on our movements stored for two years just in case. If I was a fuckin criminal i could understand it but I'm not your not and we are being treated as if we were. So fuckin what if you've got nothin to hide you've got nothing to fear, so great whats that make us then trustee's ??

    This countrys goin to crap, its bollocks and there's nowt to be done unless you want to become a criminal and take some action.
    and now I'm fucked i am inciting a terrorist act, bollocks.!!!

    1. Re:is it turn britain into an open prison day?? by nottoogeeky · · Score: 0

      Yeh, lets have a revolution and kick these *rseholes that take all our money for their own selfish needs and spend it on shit that we don't need. I want my life back damnit!!! I would like to afford a drink now and then, or travel in my car without having to pay out my pocket for a few miles.

  92. Wonderful by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    I for one am looking forward to a time where speeding, drink-driving, car theft and joy-riding will have fallen to minor levels. I predict maybe one or two instances of joy riding or street racing a year! In fact if I see a joy rider after this system is installed I think we should personally hold the person in charge of this project responsible.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Wonderful by nottoogeeky · · Score: 0

      yeh rite. The criminals in britain are the ones having the laugh. They don'g give a shit! They don't even pay their fines and dont mind doing a few months in prison. while all the time, its us working class that has to fork out the bills. screw this whole country

  93. Economics 101 by Agarax · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That margin is what we in the business world call 'profit'. Profit is something that all companies strive for as it allows you to do really nice things like R&D, paying more to your stockholders (like Granny's 401k), and expand into new markets.

    If you make enough profit you might even be able to give your employee's who brought you the profit another thing that is rather nice: a raise. This is the typical reward for brining in more profit and allows them to do nice things like take their kids to Disney Land. /sarcasm

    --
    Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
    1. Re:Economics 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for you! You must be of at least average intelligence!

    2. Re:Economics 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My God, really? Adverts? Those evil bastards. Why can't the work in a respectable business such as petrochemicals, bio-agriculture, defense, politics clothing manufacturer or intelectual property law?

      I mean really, adverts? What's next; raping babies?

  94. Great idea by nbahi15 · · Score: 1

    Really it is a logical use for technology. If you can read a license plate, which can be captured by any carbon based unit already, why shouldn't you automate the task of doing the police officers job? The question for me is not if this can happen, it is about limiting the use of the information to traffic related behavior. I think that allowing this to be introduced in the USA is OK, but it needs laws to limit the information to the cars behavior on the road, as opposed to being used as a tracking device, and limit the storing of the data until the violations are cleared.

    I am sure that this will be modded down, but I for one welcome our new traffic controlling overlords.

  95. Fight the ticket by PB_TPU_40 · · Score: 1

    Anyone who has ever gotten a ticket knows that the reason they bring it to you and have you sign it is to prove that you were infact driving the car at the time of the infraction. When you place cameras and have them do all the citing for traffic infractions, tickets become that much easier to fight.

    Lets use this as an example, its 3 am and you're sitting at a red light. No traffic is coming from either direction and then you notice in your rear view mirror someone closing in on you way too fast. You all the sudden hear their brakes lock up and they're obviously too close and still going too fast, what do you do? Personally I run the red light, no cross traffic, and I'm avoiding an accident. You bring that before a judge, the ticket will be dismissed. Reason being is there is no reason to subject yourself or property to injury or damage because of a traffic signal.

    The same can be said about speed limits, if you're passing someone on a two lane highway, find me one person that does it at the speed limit, more specificly find someone who has lived to tell about it. Do the math if you dont believe me. Example 65 mph zone, someone's doing 60 instead, that means you pass at 5 miles per hour. That means you close at about 7 feet per second. You need to account for the space behind the vehical your passing as well as the front, and lets say its a semi, total thats going to be about 95 feet. 95/7 =14 seconds. That means for almost a 1/4 of a minute you're in the oncoming lane, at 65 miles an hour you actually cover 1430 feet, over a quarter mile. I live in Pullman WA and often travel to seattle on highway 26. That distance is often pushing the limits of passing zones and sight limits. Personaly I prefer to minimize time in the oncoming lane and do what is necessary to protect myself and my passengers.

    Personally I feel that this is nothing but another form of big brother. This way they can watch us all the time, and try and railroad us in to what they want. The biggest kicker about all of this is they have to prove who was driving the vehicle, just because its your car, does not actually make you liable for the ticket because you could have lent it to your buddy joe. Again this is why it comes back to you signing the ticket when you get one.

    I have helped numerous friends fight tickets, and I have fought a few myself, I was the only one to actually end up paying, but as it was a wolfpack that busted me, there's no real hope at getting out of that, it was reduced by well over half however. I've seen other instances where you have no option but to run a red light, truck with heavy machinery, rapid light change, chase car can't see the light. You have two options, run the light and you just have to worry about people jumping the light, one you should always be careful just after a light change, or 2 slam the brakes, slide into the intersection most likely, and damage the $30,000 dollars worth of equipment in the back. Again, you drive your car, you are responsible for what happens, but you shouldn't let the traffic signs drive your car for you.

    pbtpu40

    --
    -PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
  96. I see by WindBourne · · Score: 1
    Unfortunatly, it is more likely that the money will be distributed around the various family members of government officials who 'happen' to own services companies who amazingly seem to always win those cushy government contracts...

    So America is becoming just like England.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  97. No localism by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately at the moment the UK is a very centralized government. The local officials have trivial or negligible powers. They are ordered from central government what to do, they only have discretion in how. The police are technically local, but de-facto centralized and entirely unelected. Judges are unelected. In fact, there are only 3 elected layers of government, and usually only 2 apply: parliament, councils (almost powerless) and city mayors (only in London at the moment). Because of our "first past the post" voting system, the central elections are entirely too blunt an instrument to register details of voter preferences. So in reality, democracy isn't going to dig the UK out of this hole. Probably the best solution would be to vote in the Conservatives and hope that their localist policies stretch far enough to help.

  98. Whys is this so hard to understand? by arfonrg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

    --
    Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  99. How long... by riceboy50 · · Score: 1

    Until they are denounced for thought crime? Any predictions?

    --
    ~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
  100. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have heard from 2 different techs, that E-470 allows real-time state gov. access to their DB. At this time, it is used to track anybody who is running from the cops/stolen cars/etc. I would imagine that with patriot act, the feds also use it, but obviously, I have no knowledge about .

    How soon before the state gov. decides to create their own form of patriot act to allow access for other reasons.

  101. Privacy is relative and a privilege by darealpat · · Score: 1

    These measures that the government of the UK proposes may very well be a bit more intrusive, passive or not, that most people care for. We can feel this way because of certain rights and privileges that have been earned by blood. There are certain individuals that use these same rights to prepare themselves to do all manner of mischief, which include attempting to de-stabalize the elected government. While having one eye firmly planted on the hands that will be using and storing the collected information, the other eye should also be placed at those that use our freedoms to pursue their owm aims that are firmly diametrically oppossed to our free expression of our freedoms, including the right to live in a place where we can be unfraid of taking a train, bus or plane. As an aside, would it upset many of you to know that a group of people were tracked from a suspected "terrosist" safehouse to a bus station where they were held with incendiary devices using this or similar technology?

    --
    For every present, there is a past
  102. We apologise for the fault in the legislation... by Akardam · · Score: 1

    Those responsible have been sacked.

  103. One US organization is fighting this by speedlaw · · Score: 1

    This sort of garbage is creeping into the US. I attended, as an attorney and activist with the National Motorist's Association, a seminar at the Transportation Research Board in Washington a few years back. Present were many traffic engineers from England, who were excited about the photo enforcment (luckily US engineers are generally not) and didn't understand why we Yanks were so slow to adopt this wonderful technology. I advised them politely that we are "citizens", not "subjects", and inherently distrust our government (prophetic words those, but I digress). The ONLY nationwide organization fighting photo scameras is at www.motorists.org, the National Motorist's Association. I personally lobbied for many years to remove the 55 mph moron speed limits, but with Gatso, scameras for revenue, and black boxes in cars, we are far from finished. Red light cameras cause an increase in rear end collisions, and don't really "save lives", rather, they are about money. There ARE forces and highly paid lobbyists who are pushing speed scameras at every opportunity, waiting for a gullible town council or greedy state government. While we are told "its for the children", it's really for the State Treasury. www.motorists.org Think of us as the EFF for drivers..........

  104. Appalled by paintswithcolour · · Score: 1

    I'm British and I'm appalled.

    Not only at the sheer waste of money being thrown at this project but also the very concept itself. I fully agree that there is an appropriate time and place for speed cameras but the motorway, and particualarly every 400 yards, is not one of them.
    I cannot begin to concieve the sheer distraction of these would create. Drivers on a high speed section of road need to put their eyes on the cars around them not their speedometers.

  105. For fuck's sake, the Register did not write this!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    How hard is it to actually put the link to the original article, since it is THE CLOSEST THING TO THE SOURCE DOCUMENT???!!!

    Not only did the Register not write this, but a link (plus interpretation) to a link (plus interpretation) ad infinitum leads to an HTML version of the children's game, "Telephone". Do yourself a favor; read the original document first.

    The actual original article is here.

  106. Your cars are the problem, not the cameras. by the_REAL_sam · · Score: 1


    Where's the outrage coming from? Once you bought into license plates, registration, driver's licenses and credit checks, you already submitted a substantial portion of your privacy to "the man."

    The truth is you gave up more liberty by BUYING the car.

    Every car owning American is wearing the same slave's yolk: Working to pay for insurance, license, registration, maintenance, car payments, tickets, gasoline, oil, deductibles.

    Assume that's $530 a month x 12 = $6360 a year, and if you're earning $32k a year then it's 20% of your time and income.

    To pay that hefty fee you work, and they tax you another 15%-35%.

    Work time + tax time = 20% + 15%-35% = 35% - 55%.
    OF YOUR TIME AND MONEY.
    THAT is where your liberty went.
    YOUR CAR ATE IT.

    Throw in noise pollution, "the war on terror," and wasted urban space as second tier expenses. Your neighbors bear those with you, whether they own cars or not.

    If you've already "sold out" on all those levels, why would you be so upset about the incidental tagging of your car? That you cannot break the speed limit anymore? Is that "liberty" above all the others, which you already sold?

    --
    "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
    1. Re:Your cars are the problem, not the cameras. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cars arent that expensive. im driving a $1000 car which i pay $1400/yr in insurance for.
      my gas and maint. costs are way more than the car or the insurance.

    2. Re:Your cars are the problem, not the cameras. by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      >Where's the outrage coming from?

      The few who remember Europe before and during WWII. Especially those who belong to a class of people likely to be targetted for elimination.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  107. Anyone thought.... by InterestingX · · Score: 1

    ... of parking in front of one of these cameras with a TV and an old episode of "Dukes of Hazard?"

  108. It.s obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's obvious now that President Bush, with our approval, needs to bring freedom to the UK.

  109. Difference between the UK and Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the difference between the UK and Soviet Russia?

    In Soviet Russia they *told* you that you had no rights ...

  110. Whose problem? This is just a power play. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Speeding is a problem

    That is very debatable. The speed limits here in the UK are now so absurd in many places that the vast majority of motorists exceed the limit, yet no accidents ever result (literally; speed limits have been dropped on roads that haven't had even a minor injury accident in a decade).

    This is just another power play by Blair's dictatorship and his ever more draconian Home Secretaries, right along with ID cards for everyone, the National Identity Register, electronic strip searching on the way onto the London Underground, the RIP Act, detention without trial for as long as they can get away with, installing CCTV everywhere (yes, we're still the most spied-upon nation in the world), reversing the burden of proof and/or attempting to do away with jury trials for increasing numbers of cases...

    All of these things, of course, are "justified" by arguing that they increase national security, help to prevent crime, or otherwise benefit Joe Public. Unless he's in the wrong place at the wrong time, in which case he loses his benefits because some junior staffer in a government office mistyped one number out of 1,000 they entered that day into the master database. Or the ANPR system misreads a number plate, and sends him a fine for doing the physically impossible, which he then has to challenge in court after several weeks of concern, with no compensation for the time wasted or grief caused. Or his daughter's the one being rendered naked for the pervert watching the screens at the Underground station. Or he's late for the train, and since he ran through the screen he's obviously a terrorist so they shoot him dead. Or he's black, old, bald, young, or a registered member of an opposition political party, the biometric recognition doesn't work, and he's held for three months as a suspected terrorist on the whim of a senior politician, by which time he's lost his job, his home, and the trust of all his family and friends, not to mention the ability to challenge the statements of absolute fact issued by our political leaders (and I use the term loosely, since they didn't even win the popular vote in England, never mind an overall majority that might justify their absolute control of parliament, not that this particular abuse ever went before parliament) to justify all these Big Brother efforts.

    I used to think the tin foil hat brigade were eccentrics. In recent years, looking at the direction New Labour have taken our government, I think the sooner we have a written constitution and a constitutional court above parliament and answerable only to the public, the better.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by tomboy17 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Am I the only one who wishes the government in the U.S. would implement something like this?

      Don't get me wrong, I speed all the time under the current system, just like everyone else. But the two times in my life I've been pulled over I felt it was unfair -- why? because I knew lots of people (just like me) had gotten away with far worse hundreds of times. If the rates really are unreasonable, there will be a demand to change them once they're universally enforced.

      The traffic laws as they now exist are simply an excuse for police to pull over whoever they want to and harass them. Traffic laws are the most common contact citizens in the U.S. anyway have with the law, and the blatant unfairness in traffic laws leads to a general cynicism about the application of laws as a whole.

      I for one welcome the day when all our cars have sensors on them and speed limits get automatically enforced. But, far more important, I would love it if sensors on the road could detect tailgating and send tickets for that. That would make me very happy.

    2. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by Upaut · · Score: 1

      In recent years, looking at the direction New Labour have taken our government, I think the sooner we have a written constitution and a constitutional court above parliament and answerable only to the public, the better.

      Well, as an U.S born Brit (nationalized myself a couple of years ago), I can say that i saw there are hundreds, if not thousands, of reasons not to have a written constitution. Formost that any written document of supreme legislation can be reinterpreted by the corrupt, and supported with near religious zeolitism.

      I personally am now relocating to either New Zealand or Canada, where the wonder of Common Law meets Common Sence.

      Currently the freedom smells a bit better in British Colombia, but the weather is telling me to go New Zealand...

      --
      3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
    3. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to ya, but Canada has a constitution, too. Instituted in 1982, if I remember my history correctly. (There was also the British North America Act of 1867 which basically created Canada, but that was subsumed in the Constitution Act of 1982 so that Canada would have control over its own constitution rather than Britain as it was prior to 1982.) Not sure about New Zealand.

      Oh, and some provinces have these stupid cameras, too. Both in vans and in those traffic cameras. Only been dinged once by them, but hated them even before that. It's so obvious it's a cash grab by the way they hide the vans and where they hide the vans...

    4. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by nut · · Score: 3, Interesting
      New Zealand doesn't have a Constitution, it has a Treaty. I won't try to explain it, as someone else has done a much better job here. Basically NZ as a country has existed from this date - it may be the only colonial country where the aboriginal people did give their legal blessing to legal and political systems derived from Britain.

      Mind some people didn't stop fighting for quite a few years after this date, and even today there are outstanding issues...

      By and large, I'm proud to say, we have given to the hysteria of the Threat Of Terror less than many places, but we have at least one stain on our human rights record that derives from this.

      --
      Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
    5. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      Not to mention New Labour's plan of keeping a registrar of transsexuals. Which minority will come after that?

      New Labour: Putting the National back into Socialist!

    6. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Informative
      Tony Blair's government seems to think that Big Brother (1984 version) was way to moderate with surveyance, and would love to have people issued with passes that can be checked every 100m by Zigbee or Bluetooth or something.

      The British government has proposed a "National Corriculum" for Under 5 year olds and in a year when there are riots in Paris. (The Paris uprising in 1968 was because the teaching curriculum was too rigid).

      And if you don't support him, you must be an Al Quaida suporter. A member of his own party was arrested at the party conference for pointing out that Jack Straw is completely dishonest. He was charged under the Prevention of Terrorism act. However, they want the power to hold people for 90 days with no charge whatever, in case they notice that some other ministers are "economical with the truth".

      The words neurotic, obsesssive, compulsive, posessive, paranoid, manic, and several less polite ones come to mind.

      The only reason they are in power is because "her majesty's Loyal opposition"'s slogan is "we are the party of convictions" - most have several for corruption, libel, slander, purjury, and other things that normally bar you from high office.

      I suspect that the Robert Mugabe's complaints against Blair are fuelled by jelousy over the ease with which these controls are imposed (no need to deport inner city kids to remote Scottish islands, etc).

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    7. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In areas where speed cameras have been deployed speeding has been reduced and in those same areas the rate of fatal accidents have been reduced. This somewhat undermines the suggestion that speed limits do not have a beneficial effect.

    8. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conversly, there are many areas within the UK where they have introduced speed cameras, and the accident rates have soared.

    9. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by BridgeGarth · · Score: 1

      Or he didn't run, but the police go around asking people if they saw someone run. They say they did, so police claim eye-witnesses saw someone running who therefore must be a terrorist. It turns out that the police ran. The police jumped barriers. Still, I'm glad that couldn't happen.

    10. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by aug24 · · Score: 1
      Speeding is a problem
      That is very debatable. The speed limits here in the UK are now so absurd in many places that the vast majority of motorists exceed the limit, yet no accidents ever result (literally; speed limits have been dropped on roads that haven't had even a minor injury accident in a decade).

      That's because thousands and thousands of 30 and 40 limits aren't there for safety, they're there for noise reasons.

      I live next to an arterial road in Southampton and the noise level of the cars doing 45 is a fuck's sight higher than that of the few doing thirty.

      Basically, remember that safety is not the whole picture when setting speed limits.

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    11. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by jeremyp · · Score: 1
      In areas where speed cameras have been deployed speeding has been reduced and in those same areas the rate of fatal accidents have been reduced. This somewhat undermines the suggestion that speed limits do not have a beneficial effect.
      That is a statistical artefact known as regression to the mean. If you have a couple of years of higher than average accidents on a stretch of road, it could mean that it is dangerous or it could just be bad luck. In either case, if you put a speed camera in, the chances are that the following year there will be fewer accidents.
      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    12. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What you say is true, but to be brutally honest, I have little sympathy if someone moves into a house next to a road and then complains about noise. That house was probably available significantly cheaper than others like it but away from roads, and it's not like it's hard to spot a road outside. Personally, I'd love to buy my own home, but since I can't afford one that I want, I have to accept renting for now. These are voluntary choices.

      Having said that, where local conditions would be worsened through noise, for example because raising the speed limit is being proposed (not that there's any mechanism to actually do that any more anyway) or because new developments are likely to increase the volume of traffic or change its nature (e.g., more heavy trucks using the road) then adjusting a speed limit to compensate is fair enough.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    13. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Blockquoth the AC:

      In areas where speed cameras have been deployed speeding has been reduced and in those same areas the rate of fatal accidents have been reduced. This somewhat undermines the suggestion that speed limits do not have a beneficial effect.

      Others have already mentioned that this isn't even true, and where it is, it's often a result of careful timing by the government in installing the camera to take advantage of regression to the mean. Look at the figures more than a year or two after installation and then see what you find.

      Moreover, it's often the case that installing a speed camera affects local traffic patterns. Fewer cars passing the camera = less risk of accidents on that road, but ignores the fact that more cars will be travelling on alternative routes, where the accident rate frequently does go up.

      I'm afraid your argument isn't very clever, Mr AC. It's government propaganda, page 1, and it's been debunked into oblivion by the pro-car groups for years now.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    14. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by aug24 · · Score: 1

      It's not that the speed limit has changed, it's public perception of what speed it is 'acceptable' to do in a thirty zone. Year on year, the speed of vehicles passing my place has increased since I've been there. As it got louder, I added double glazing and then noise reduction materials in the loft for the noise coming through the roof, and each has only brought the noise back to what it originally was. It's amazing how noise penetrates. I don't think there's much else I can do and the cars (at night in the main) are still going past faster and faster except when the cops do speed/vehicle checks. It's a thirty zone, but it's got great visibility so the motorbikes do up to sixty or seventy.

      As a result I'd love to see this system implemented, cos creeping lack of consideration for others is still lack of consideration! I don't think for a minute that those who speed in urban areas are doing because they don't give a shit, only because their focus is on 'safe' speeds, not considerate speeds.

      The 'cheaper housing' argument hardly applies as I don't get a refund from the people I purchased it from as the noise gets louder! ;-) (Whether or not you or anyone else can afford a mortgage is completely irrelevent.)

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    15. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1
      Speeding is a problem That is very debatable. The speed limits here in the UK are now so absurd in many places that the vast majority of motorists exceed the limit, yet no accidents ever result (literally; speed limits have been dropped on roads that haven't had even a minor injury accident in a decade).

      3,500 killed each year is obviously not enough, then? Speed limits are a blanket and fairly ineffective road safety control, I'll give you that - but given the woeful standard of driving in the UK (and it's worse everywhere else, apparently!), they have to be aimed at the lowest common denominator, such as the half-blind grandad, the chav who passed his test that morning or the harassed mother with three screaming kids in the back. Now everyone THINKS they're better than that, including the aforesaid grandad, chav and mum, but they're not. The speed lobby think that people can be trusted to decide whether they're an above average driver or not, which is quite laughable as 99% of people will put themselves into that category and ignore any unenforced limits.

      For everyone else's sake, leave home earlier or, if you really, really like speed, book a track day.

      --
      When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    16. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I do understand your argument, and on the face of it I agree that it has merit, too. The thing is, driving psychology is a funny thing, and history and research tell us that speed limits don't really work at all when set according to current policy, and can actually be counter-productive if set too low.

      For example, you get roads with very low speed limits, which drivers routinely exceed by a large margin. If the limit is raised by 10mph to something more realistic, it's not unusual for the average speed to fall, because most drivers will prefer to stick to a limit they perceive as reasonable rather than break the law but only by a few mph. This isn't a hypothetical, unlike the claims made by those who say a motorway limit of 80mph would "obviously" mean everyone driving at 90mph when they do 80 now. This is based on measuring what actually happens when the change is made.

      Similarly funny things happen with the currently faddish 20mph limits in the UK. If the road is genuinely only safe to travel at 20mph, the vast majority of drivers will reduce their speed to that level anyway, even without a 20mph limit. This is common on narrow back streets full of parked cars and such. OTOH, when major roads are shut down to 20mph for a mile or more, because there is a school somewhere within a half-mile radius, drivers will either ignore the speed limit when there aren't zillions of kids around at going home time, or drive so slowly that they actually lose focus and don't concentrate as much because it's too "easy" to hold their attention. The latter is far more dangerous, because an alert and aware driver travelling at 30mph is less of a hazard to children coming out of school than an inattentive driver doing 20mph.

      This is why the whole "speed kills" argument is daft. Reducing speeds, or speed limits, does not automatically equate to lower casualty rates. If we really care about saving lives rather than Whitehall PR, we should be setting all speed limits at a level where they are a realistic balance between making progress and safe and considerate driving, and then enforcing those limits against those who are genuinely dangerous and inconsiderate.

      Incidentally, my opposition to this is much more a principle thing than a desire to speed myself. I know my WRX could easily beat the chavs with large exhausts and LEDs off the lights, and I'm confident that as an experienced and well-trained driver (far more than just lessons to pass a test) I could handle my vehicle safely at much higher speeds than I'm ever likely to drive on a British road, so I have nothing to prove by speeding like a nutter around town. As you say, that is what we have track days for. ;-)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    17. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      In your case, I'd say the situation falls clearly under my "getting worse" provision, and using the speed limit (and enforcing it) to maintain reasonable standards for locals is fine with me.

      My objection isn't to people in your position, it's to people who move into houses on the side of major roads, and then start campaigning to have the speed limit reduced for their own convenience. That just says "I'm more important than the N drivers who use this major road every day", and it's a self-inflicted problem.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    18. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by AGMW · · Score: 1
      I would love it if sensors on the road could detect tailgating and send tickets for that

      It can't really be beyond the wit of man to have cameras on bridges that can measure the gap between vehicles, and be able to send the tailgaters tickets. This would actually be excellent. On an empty motorway, you can go as fast as you like (I guess there should be some upper limit?), but if it is crowded you need to be, say, 4 seconds from the vehicle in front.

      From my extensive research (having been driving for 20 years - and boy am I tired!), I'd say this would actually improve traffic flow too when the motorways are busy - much like the M25 variable speed limit does!

      So, there's a way to actually make the motorways safer, to increase traffic flow at busy times (probably), and ticket the morons who tailgate. Surely everyone would be happy about that - er, except less revenue generated!

      Obviously, there'd need to be some safeguards for people who have someone hop in front in their lane just before the camera, etc, but it can't be that hard!

      The problem with speed cameras (other than speed not actually being the problem) is that the speed limits are wrong. Some are too high, and some are too low. Most should change depending on the time of day - 10 MPH outside a school at school start/stop time, say 20 during the rest of the day, probably 30 when the school is shut! Because MOST speed limits are STUPID people ignore them. Set them sensibly, and there's a chance people might start to adhere to them!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    19. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by aug24 · · Score: 1

      Understood. The (secondary) point I was making is that it is getting worse without the speed limit changing or anything - just public perception, and that that needs to be reversed. This could justify the scheme going national for me.

      J.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    20. Re:Whose problem? This is just a power play. by woolio · · Score: 1
      The British government has proposed a "National Corriculum"

      (emphasis mine)

      Does the British Government know how to spell?
  111. This will cost money (not make money) by henni16 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think that this will probably cost them money.
    If you know that you will be "caught" and have to pay everytime you speed, you probably won't do it if you really don't have to.
    So my guess is that they will spend a lot of money to install such a system and afterwards will lose lots of money because of less people speeding.
    I think it is more likely that the system will be used to create a giant toll system.

    1. Re:This will cost money (not make money) by yoink23 · · Score: 1
      afterwards will lose lots of money because of less people speeding.
      If people don't speed, healthcare costs in general will shoot down. That's mostly the point of having speed limits in the first place. I mean, the government doesn't care if people die as long as it doesn't cost them money (which it does).
      --
      This too shall pass.
    2. Re:This will cost money (not make money) by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      If you know that you will be "caught" and have to pay everytime you speed, you probably won't do it if you really don't have to.

      That'd be great if speed limits were set with safety in mind, instead of revenue.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  112. Just forget Canada by FFFish · · Score: 1

    Just you dummies forget about Canada. This shit is all coming down on your watch. Why the hell would we want you here, where you'd just let it happen again? You made your bed, you sleep in it. Don't come over here and mess up mine.

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  113. That's what the search is for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't need to be arrested to be searched. All that's required is probable cause, such as.. say.. stopping to talk to a drug dealer.

    I'm sure your neighbours and boss will understand when you tell them "No, they didn't arrest me, they couldn't find any evidence"

  114. Well, it's the UK by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

    You need to understand the situation here. People make the distinction between observation and control.

    Observation is ok. The UK has pretty much gotten over the idea of no real public privacy. With CCTV for example, it is generally believed that the positives outweigh the negatives, and the public has a non-paranoid idea of what can or can't be done. Post-reality tv, the idea of being watched or monitored, or to sign some sort of register doesn't creep the average person out anymore.

    What puts the media on alarm is whenever someone acts on such information. Hence the whole debate over ID cards - it is generally considered that the privacy concerns aren't a big thing, since the government and private organisations have most of such info anyway. What concerns people is the potential use of the cards to control the giving of services. E.g. evil government can use this to stop people from being able to use libraries, and stuff like that. It's thoughtcrime that scares people, not Big Brother.

    Taking this in mind, this policy will probably be passed with no problems. A matter of national mentality.

  115. Privacy? Not in the UK where I live. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
    But schemes like this do not intrude into our homes.

    Unless your home happens to be covered by a CCTV camera, which the operator uses to spy on your wife while she's changing. Not that there have ever been any cases of that happening, of course.

    We still have privacy.

    Unless you ever go out shopping, drive anywhere, use the Internet, use the phone, or fail to complete various statutory notifications, that is.

    In fact, we have state-protected privacy with laws like the Data Protection Act.

    Sure, and we have freedom of information legislation, too. Strangely, both that and the DPA have exemptions for things where they'd really count, though.

    Credit reference agencies have no obligation to seek your permission before obtaining and holding potentially very significant information about you, for example, and while you theoretically have rights to challenge it, the agencies have a captive market, so their "customer" service is terrible, and as anyone who's been brave enough to get a copy of their credit record can testify, the accuracy of the information is highly suspect as well.

    Ever ask your doctor if you can see your medical records? He doesn't have to show them to you. He's exempt.

    The government, both central and increasingly local, dodges freedom of information requests on technicalities all the time. We'll gloss over the fact that 3x the usual volume of records were destroyed in the days immediately before the FOIA came into effect; I'm sure that was just a coincidence.

    And then these people have the nerve to criticise a former civil servant who publishes memoirs exposing the actions of our representatives in the run up to a war of dubious legality, described from first hand knowledge, in contradiction of explicit statements given by the representatives at the time that this wasn't happening.

    It's about time we started impeaching senior government figures. <rhetorical>Do we still have the death penalty for treachery in this country?</rhetorical>

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  116. A new law also introduced by lemsip · · Score: 1

    To accompany the new vehicle monitoring network, the British government is also introducing a law whereby you have to park in front of each camera for 90 days in order to be identified and tracked.

  117. British traffic cops get away with that by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    You'd think so, wouldn't you. Curiously enough a British traffic cop recently got away with something pretty close to that (slightly faster, on a 70MPH limit road). Also over 80MPH in an urban 30MPH zone. He claimed he was testing the capabilities of a new vehicle.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  118. speeding solution by Filthysock · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't the government invest in a system that uses gps to give you a realtime indication of the speedlimit is? It could even give warning beeps when exceeding it. If the speed limits are truly there to save lives, investing a fortune to make people paranoid about the limits doesn't seem the right way to go. Using technology to help them know what the limit is would be better.

  119. British politicians don't drive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the US we've tried automatic speed monitoring schemes before but they were always discontinued as soon as the pols found out there was no way to exempt them from getting speeding tickets.

  120. Oh no! by MoonPost · · Score: 1

    I had this idea years ago :( Thought it would be too expensive cover the whole country and it would be against the human rights...

  121. One more time... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
    Okay, now it's time to repeat the mantra that everyone forgets:

    Driving a car on a public highway is a public act, and thus, one has absolutely no expectation of privacy doing it.

    Furthermore, driving is a PRIVILEGE and NOT a right.

    There.

    1. Re:One more time... by n6kuy · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. I think I've seen somewhere the argument that driving actually is a right.
      The argument goes that if you meet all the qualifications for obtaining a license to drive, then you cannot be denied a license arbitrarily, making it a right and not a mere privilege (which can be given or revoked at any time for any reason or no reason).

      Whatever.

      --
      If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
    2. Re:One more time... by joe_n_bloe · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So why is it that citizens can't stalk one another while we pay governments to stalk every single one of us?

      "Driving is a privilege" is no more sensible than "walking around outside is a privilege." How about "appearing in a public place without having every minute detail of your appearance and habits scanned and logged forever along with the same information about everyone else in a location and medium unknown and inaccessible to you ... is a privilege."

  122. Or if you happen to live in Italy, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It can be used to track CIA agents.

  123. Next poll by PMuse · · Score: 1
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
    1. Ipsos Custodes
    2. the opposition party
    3. the 4th estate
    4. free market forces
    5. our $sys$RIAA overlords
    6. Juvenal's women
    7. Cowboy Neal

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    1. Re:Next poll by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      8. The NRA.

      Oh, we're talking about the UK. Never mind, then.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  124. This clearly isn't about speeding. by edunbar93 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This isn't about catching speeders. It's about tracking your each and every move, for ever and ever. I'd be nervous about this if they were keeping records for two *weeks*, nevermind two *years*. What they really want is to be able to say "Where is license plate #27D726" at any given moment in time, so that they can put "the bad guys" away. The definition of "the bad guys" can easily change with the wind, and they'll have the security net to find and catch all the homosexuals, johns, pot-smokers, poker players, or any other evil-criminal-du-jour. Stupid laws that have made criminals of everyone have been passed before, and will pass in the future. This is just stupid.

    --
    "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
  125. The Brits have more Patriot Action than we do! by joe_n_bloe · · Score: 1

    Who needs checkpoints at the borders and airports when you can have them every 1/4 mile!

    Or 1/3 km, or whatever.

    Anyway, along with secret RFID tags in flu and childhood vaccines, this is something we here in the States should really look into.

  126. Brazil by sremick · · Score: 3, Funny

    "I hearby inform you under powers entrusted to me under section 47, paragraph 7 of council order numbr 438476, that Mister Buttle, Archibald residing at 412 North Tower Shangri-La Towers has been invited to assist the Ministry of Information with certain inquiries, and that he is liable to certain financial obligations as specified in council order RV/CZ/907/X. Sign here, please. Thank you. That is your receipt for your husband, and here is my receipt for your receipt."

  127. Pyramid Scheme! by ajpr · · Score: 1

    For the first time in the UK, money made from breaking the law (in this case speeding) was used by local police to buy resources to fine more people breaking the law. So they basically fine people and then use the fines to get more fines. They brought out speed cameras, mobile (gun sized) speed cameras, clock based speed cameras. Obviously you can see where this has lead, so what's next? Issuing fines for accelerating too fast, breaking too harshly, etc. So it occured to me that this kind of thing is like a pyramid scheme, that we've all been opted into and there's only one winner. And I'm sure that pyramid schemes are illegal in the UK...

  128. Dear English Bretheren by n6kuy · · Score: 1

    Are you feeling a bit subjugated and trod-upon these days?
    It's time to read this.

    --
    If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
  129. Obligatory by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new all-seeing traffic overlords.

  130. Next, barriers for automatic enforcement by Animats · · Score: 1
    "For the ultimate in heavy-duty security, the Barriers & Bollards RB800 Series Road Blocker is unsurpassed." There's a whole industry in the UK making various types of pop-up vehicle barriers.

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if, two years from now, if your number plates aren't readable, your car doesn't look like the proper model for the plates, or something in your dossier indicates you're suspicious, you'll be physically prevented from entering Central London. Traffic lights and arrows will divert you to an inspection lane. Vehicles that don't comply will be brought to a very abrubt stop.

  131. Why are cameras indestructable? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    that's a lot of cameras.

    why can't people on foot adjust them if they become a problem?

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  132. Re:The irony by symbolic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Very rarely will they mention the waste that is so pervasive in our public services.

    It might be interesting to note that (at least in the US) the public has been clamoring for the privitization of certain government services, thinking it would save money. The joke's on them. Many private companies, once they get their hand on the public teat, won't let go, and milk it for all they can. This is where these astronomically-prised ambulance rides come in. I can't seem to figure it out, but people in government that are responsible for spending money (never mind wisely, because that clearly doesn't happen), think this is OK. The government just can't seem to get away from this mindset that has them paying several times what a normal person with half a brain would end up paying for the same thing.

  133. Huh! by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    There is in Washington state when passing somebody on a road that has a single lane in each direction.

    Well thank goodness somebody has some sense! I'll remember that next time I'm in Washington. Heck, that might be a good reason to MOVE to Washington.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  134. It's aimed at speeding, full stop by igb · · Score: 1
    People driving at 71mph on a motorway are highly likely to be driving their own car, with real number plates, to the house held in their name to which the speeding notice can be sent.

    Criminals will have a far higher chance of driving cars that are on false plates, or aren't theirs, or which are registered to fictitious addresses, or are stolen. It's like the congestion charge: it's a tax on the middle classes, because the methods and consequences of evasion have the wrong risk/reward profile for them.

    ian

  135. This is not about speed limits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While people note that there may be some hidden motivation behind and "side uses" for this system that go beyond enforcing speed limits, much of the discussion seems to focus on the expected "unreasonable" enforcement of speed limits. I guess they must have expected this public reaction - the general public will focus on the implications this will have for their (moderate, everyday) speeding, while others - considering themselves law-abiding citizens and careful drivers - can point their fingers at them and discredit the opponents of the system as speeders. What a truly brilliant public relations move. Two years data retention period?

  136. Just Speed? by billysailing · · Score: 1

    Here in Oz, the concentration on speed has lead to an interesting situation on many of the roads. You can do what you want, as long as you dont speed. The drivers here have the worst lane discipline EVER! People crawl along at 5 or so k's under the very low speed limits in fear of being caught and never look in their mirrors. My girlie is soon going to take lessons here and I'm really interested to see what she is going to be taught in comparison to the UK (where I got my licence..) Makes the gov's previous plan of putting a GPS inside each car seem better... at least you can just put a lump of lead above the black box...

  137. Uninstallation cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try to image how much it's going to cost to UNINSTALL this system?

    Let's everybody pitch in and help! On your next day off, go out and help the community for a change by uninstalling any of these devices you find in your local neighbourhood.

    "Everybody get together, come on love your brother, let's all get together right now.."

  138. Umm by jtrainor · · Score: 1

    I think this shows where the priorities of the UK government is. Millions of pounds to collect even more money from the citizens, but not one pence to solve the chav problem.

  139. Re:Slashdot, YOU SUCK! (aka Texas tried this...) by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 1

    Um... Read the FAQ and quit foaming.

    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
  140. Re:The irony by cornjchob · · Score: 1

    It might be interesting to note that (at least in the US) the public has been clamoring for the privitization of certain government services, thinking it would save money. The joke's on them.

    Who has more incentive to operate smoothly, efficiently and effectively--the government or a private company? A large part of answering that rests on whom has more competition--and if the government is subsidizing an entire field, they don't have much competition at all. Privatizing in itself does little--it's competition that keeps things going. Also, people in other people's pockets will always exist, public or private. But privatization is, on the whole, a much better way to run things.

    The rest of your post seems willynilly and I have no idea what you're talking about, but the begining was hogwash.

    --
    We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
  141. Why the UK and calls themselves Free democracies? by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

    Considering the usual disregard by Tony Blair for the popular opinion or even his own party, the awful antiterrorist laws, among many other totalitatian measures, Why the citizens let their goverment officials get away with it? Why they vote for being more enslaved (sp?)? Why the brits or the americans feel that they have the right to impose "freedom" on other nations? They -well, we- need more men like Feingold, McCain or Robin Cook (RIP) in Senates/Parliaments/Goverment; men that believe in ideals, not in party lines/discipline, and less Cambells, Scarletts, Cheneys, Blairs, Fox* or Albrigths

    *Vicente Fox -president of Mexico, if Blair is Bush's poodle, he is Bush's overzised Chihuahua

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  142. Re:How else do you expect them to pay for the syst by mikrorechner · · Score: 1
    Now grant it, the 1/4 mile distance will limit some of the speeds, but in theory, someone could hit 100+ mph and slow back down to 5 mph before they hit the next scanner, thus the overall time spent going the 1/4 mile could still be same time spent for going that distance as it would if you simply went the speed limit.
    Yeah, you could really stick it to the man that way... but somehow, this would contradict the reason for speeding, which is going somewhere fast(er), isn't it?
    --
    "Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-my-own-Grandpa." - Dr Hubert Farnsworth
  143. Not sure about that... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Actually the new system helps this situation. You can floor it and pass the guy in 300m safely, and then slow right down for the next 100m.

    But doesn't that lead to the problem of the guy you just passed passing you in turn, since you have to slow down way below the limit to be going slow enough not to trigger a ticket? And so on and so forth?

    Perhaps that's why the guy in front was going so slow in the first place. :-)

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  144. Dust/mud is your friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to travel on a three mile dirt road before reaching the freeway every day. By the time I get on the freeway you can't tell what colour my car is let alone read the number plate. And when it rains, the dust is replaced by thick mud which is even more opaque. As you can imagine I've stopped bothering to wash my car.

    Now I remember reading that urban 4x4 owners would spray mud on their 4x4s just to pretend they'd been offroading them that weekend. Are these cans of instant mud a circumvention device?

    Anyone know if the hoary old trick of spraying hairspray on number plates to defeat speed trap cameras works with these new cameras?

    1. Re:Dust/mud is your friend by wraith0x29a · · Score: 1

      IANAL but as far as I know it's already an offense to have an obscured number plate. Expect ASBOs to get drivers like yourself to clean their plates when they hit a non-dirt road.

      The CCTV cameras don't use a flash so hairspray is unlikely to work either.

      The next logical step once this new system is 'accepted' is RFID tagging of cars anyway and once that is 'accepted', why not RFID tagging of citizens, oops, sorry, this is the UK subjects?

      --
      ~ Better a freak than a sheep. ~
  145. goon by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    Thanks for being so safety concious on your trips to my country.

    Here's a tip : "What do those numbers on that sign mean ?"

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:goon by blueforce · · Score: 1

      Well... I suppose my being safety concious or conscious, however brits misspell it, is really a moot point since I never drive anywhere. I can't get the hang of driving on the wrong side of the road.

      I walked, rode the tube in London, rode around with my cousins, took a train, or rode a bus. At no point was anyone in danger of me not realizing that the next town was 40% farther away than I assumed.

      --
      If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
    2. Re:goon by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      I was thinking about that.
      Blimey. I bet he thinks Britain is *really* small and we all drive *really* slowly!

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  146. See it in context by Budenny · · Score: 1
    Speeding is not the issue at all with this. The UK does need to do something about speeding - it kills more children and pedestrians than other EU countries in road accidents. However, this will not help that problem. The most dangerous places are not the expressways, but quiet country villages and the trunk roads between towns. The dangerous drivers are young, and male, and the people most at risk are children and the old.

    If this was all about limiting speeds in places where speeding impairs quality of life, most people would applaud. It cannot be. But, you have to see it in context. In the last 5-10 years there has been a very significant shift in civil liberties in the UK. If you add universal car surveillance to the list, the picture is quite remarkable.

    Consider: (1) the ASBO. A judge can issue an order forbidding someone to do something, which may or may not be unlawful in itself, whereupon to do it, for that person, becomes a criminal offence. ASBOs have famously been granted forbidding a teenager from being sarcastic (he replied that he was being ironic), and forbidding a lady from attempting suicide. People have been banned from certain areas, from associating with named others, from wearing certain clothes. There is no limit on what may be forbidden, other than the reasonableness of the authorities, and if a previously unlawful act is subject to an ASBO, the effect is often that, for this person, the penalty has been increased by decree.

    (2) We then have extensive powers for the authorities to split up families, take children into care, by the use of the Family Courts, which meet in secret, and from whose decisions there is no appeal. It is an offence to reveal the fact that you have appeared before the Family Court. The justification is child protection.

    (3) We then have the various preventive detention measures. As a foreigner, you can be held without trial for years. We are seeing attempts to prolong holding periods, not simply without trial, but without charging.

    (4) Finally, we have the proposed mental health legislation, which would make it impossible to refuse treatment for mental illness, and would permit 'intervention' on 'children at risk' in 'dysfunctional' families, where there was a pattern of criminal behaviour. The justification is public protection from the violently insane or psychopathic - or those suffering from personality disorders, and the protection of children from growing up criminal. As the former Home Secretary said, why wait till a crime has been committed? Protect the public first!

    The uneasiness people feel in the UK is not about any one of these measures. Each one may be reasonable in itself. The problem is not with the present government, which does not seem bent on abusing the measures. The problem is if you add them all up, and suppose some demagogic authoritarian regime elected in future, and there are no safeguards. With minimal new legislation or involvement of the judiciary, such a regime could incarcerate dissidents in mental hospitals, drug them or shock them, split up their families, forbid them to publish or broadcast, even own and read certain materials, track their every move.....

    Europe has been down this route. The UK seems not to have learned. It is not who is in power now that matters, its who may be in ten years time. Of course, we don't want the Underground to be bombed again, and most people basically trust the security services. But is this really the answer?

  147. Alternative to speeding tickets by XNormal · · Score: 1

    Instead of reporting specific incidents where a vehicle exceeds a speed limit collect statistical data and hand it over to the insurance companies.

    Owners of vehicles which consistently drive faster than the traffic around them (regardless of the speed limit) or consistently keep a shorter than average distance from the vehicle ahead will have to pay more because they are more likely to be involved in accidents.

    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
    1. Re:Alternative to speeding tickets by radja · · Score: 1

      we need speed limits, because drivers will not adjust to slower roadusers voluntarily. most drivers think 50 km/h is slow. it's not. run as fast as you can into a brick wall, headfirst. that was well below 50 km/h, and very painful (possibly lethal).

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
  148. Impeach that war criminal Blair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ah go on.

  149. Speeding doesn't kill, stupid driving does by hyph-n · · Score: 1
    So, let me get this straight. @ 3am on a 4-line motorway, with no traffic in sight, I can get done for doing 100mph in my car (which is a sports saloon & is *designed* to be safe & high speed).... mmmm... So what about when I'm doing 60mph in pouring rain, in the inside lane (lights on, being safe) & there is fucking big lorry 6 feet from my bumper... how will that be caught by this ??

    This is the fundimental problem with 'speed' cameras - they are dumb! - and you can't build 'Stupid driving' cameras, oh wait, there is a way to do that.... yep, it's a new invention... just out... they are called TRAFFIC POLICE... yep, apparently they can be trained to have common-sense & spot stupid drivers.... (so I've heard).

    As for the privacy implications... well i think that is obvious... stupid stupid stupid...

    btw, it's not technically speeding that kills, I mean if it was then all of the formula one drivers would be DEAD by now.... no (& this is going to get a bit technical now) it actually STOPPING *very* quickly that usually does it...

    1. Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid driving does by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      I can get done for doing 100mph in my car (which is a sports saloon & is *designed* to be safe & high speed)

      If you belive this, then you are clearly one of these stupid drivers you so despise. A sports saloon will crumple into paper in a 100mph accident, just like any other vehicle that isn't an 80 ton tank.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    2. Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid driving does by hyph-n · · Score: 1
      i'm not expecting to survive hitting a brick wall @ 100mph, but certainly the stopping distance at 100mph would be shorter than a lot of small & old cars at 70mph....

      The point I was making is that if *no one else* is on the road, on a clear dry night, on a 4 lane motorway, in a 'performance car'... then that is different from doing 70mph on a wet road travelling 10 feet behind another car in a knackered old car with crappy tyres & no ABS .... According to the Law, they are both the same. According to common sense, they are completely different.

      have u ever driven above 70mph in your life? -- probably yes... Why? - because u thought it was safe to do so....(?)

      btw, the weight of a vehicle is no reflection of its crash resistence -- My car has an NCAP rating of 4 out of 5... what does yours have?

    3. Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid driving does by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      have u ever driven above 70mph in your life? -- probably yes... Why? - because u thought it was safe to do so....(?)

      Never. I've never had call or reason to go above this speed. I'm one of those people you see plodding along in the left lane, with the truck in front of me getting ever further ahead.

      As a point of note here, it's worth remembering that speed doesn't kill. Speed squared kills. At 70mph the car by KE=1/2 m*v^2 has four times the kinetic energy of a car travelling at 35 mph. A (30+10) mph head on collision has over four times the energy of a (10 + 10) mph collision.

      My car has an NCAP rating of 4 out of 5... what does yours have?
      NCAP ratings quite simply do not apply when travelling at 100mph. Car manufacturers like to boast their 0-60mph ratings at the fact that their cars can potentially travel at 220mph or whatever. The reality is any vehicle must be pushed quite appreciably in order to hit 100mph, and once it has reached such a speed it is outside virtually every tolerance it was designed to operate in. When you are at this speed, you are not in control of the vehicle, except to tenaciously move onward in an exceptionally straight line.

      And as to wet roads, in France at least, I know that the motorway speed limit is reduced when the road is wet from 130kmph to 110kmph.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    4. Re:Speeding doesn't kill, stupid driving does by hyph-n · · Score: 1
      ok ok ok - i know you are right about the speed thing... from a maths point of view.... and that if anything happens at 100mph then i'm fucked.... i'll drive slower..

      ... but at least we seem to agree that other factors can have an influence on what speed you should be driving at... such as the weather. -- which does prove one of the points that i have ... the speed that you should be driving at is a fluid thing, dependant of weather & traffic conditions, rather than (as it is in the UK) a static, fixed thing.

      have to say though, if you get paranoid about watching the precise speed that you are driving at, there is a danger (if you are a new driver) that while making sure that you don't go above 70mph, you miss the fact that a lorry has just suddenly stopped in front of you...!

      i think you have the impression that i've always drive at 100mph.... not true, i too often drive *within* the speed limit, especially with the price of petrol as it is....

      notice that you have steered well clear of the privacy thing that i raised -- would be interested to hear your comments on that... (or perhaps we should call it quits & move onto another /. topic! ;-)

  150. In Soviet Russia.. by welshie · · Score: 1

    The number plates watch you.

    The politicians and other high-ranking Party members get their own lanes on the road.

    To be perfectly honest, why the hell would the life of a politician be any more worthwhile protecting than the life of a lawyer? Hell, if Tony Blair is worth protecting from an invasion of his privacy, so am I, and so is every man, woman, child and their dog in the country.

  151. Who watches the watchers by scotbot · · Score: 2, Informative

    They were also conveniently not working the day of the London tube and bus bombings on 7/7. They even tried that scam the day Jean Charles de Menezes was gunned down at point blank after calmly walking through the ticket barriers, stopping to buy a newspaper and entering and sitting down in the tube train. Then it was leaked that the cameras were working fine, with their evidence not corrobating the police's version of events.

  152. It's not the speeding as such... by smoker2 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    it's the people who are speeding that matters. Can you guarantee that everyone breaking the speed limit has the ability to handle the vehicle properly ? Driving involves quite a lot of common sense, and sadly, these days I see less and less of it.

    I am a professional driver, and see this every day. The motorways are full of people who are too scared to use the outside lane when neccessary, but who drive in the centre lane almost obsessively. Consequently, when they come up behind a slower moving vehicle in the centre lane, they brake, causing following traffic to either, brake hard themselves, or, swerve into the outside lane, regardless of the traffic situation. This is what causes pile-ups. I drive for miles on virtually empty motorways sometimes and there are still lines of cars in the centre lane, usually only 20 or 30 feet behind each other. There is another problem with this - when I have to overtake a vehicle in the left hand lane, I have to 'break into' this line of cars somehow. This is difficult when they are only 20 feet apart, so I have to pull out much sooner, and stake my claim before they pull alongside.

    I could go on for hours about the bad things that are happening on the roads, but speeding is the least of my worries. My truck has a tachograph, so anytime the police wants to stop me, they can tell instantly whether I've been speeding or not. Why should the car drivers be exempt from this ? Bad driving is the real issue, and nothing much is being done about it. I am fed up with seeing females negotiating junctions with their right hand holding a phone to their left ear and their left hand on the right hand side of the steering wheel. Sometimes the right hand has a piece of food in it as well ! No-one can argue that that behaviour is safe, either for them or others.

    In the end, there are too many cars on the road, driven by very basically qualified people. No one forced them into this situation. The free market sold these people cars and the idea of freedom, so they can't really complain that they need a car to get to work, the shops, whatever. It's down to their buying habits that turned villages into dormitories for workers who have to drive 50 miles to work everyday. Either people find alternative ways to work (internet based etc) or live closer to the place of employment.

    How long can the country as a whole be held to ransom by the car ? The government can't ban cars outright, but they can make it as difficult (read expensive) as possible to own and operate one.

    As a disclaimer, I must add that I ride a GSX1100 suzuki, and so speeding is a virtual certainty, but even then, it is so much harder to find adequate space in which to do so, because of the unpredictability of the other traffic. But as a motorcyclist, I know with painful certainty what a mistake at speed will mean. I have in the past fallen off and hit the road at over 60 mph, and it's not fun believe me. So, hands up all those car drivers who have intimate knowledge of the surface of the road. Apart from motorcyclists / cyclists, there aren't any hands showing. This is where it has gone wrong. Every driver should be aware of the road surface in front of them, the temperature, how wet the road is, what white lines feel like as you go over them. That's where true control comes from, being aware of your surroundings.

    Instead, they have the heating up high, the sound turned up, and sit in the middle lane eating and talking on their phones, and hope that no-one gets in their way until they get to work.

    I for one won't miss their departure from the environment, and sad to say, they deserve everything they get in the mean time.

    1. Re:It's not the speeding as such... by Geeky · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd just like to add to this that the government seems hell bent on making driving expensive, but this is not out of any concern for the environment or as a backdoor ban on driving; they want us driving and paying through the nose for it.

      Otherwise how do you explain new housing estates being built with no public transport links and no local shops - only a Tesco superstore five or ten miles away? Or how do you explain business parks built with no public transport access?

      My company relocated from a town centre office block which was five minutes walk from a train station and had a bus stop right outside. We had been there for years and many employees had relocated to within walking distance. Our new office is on a business park, about 15 miles away, so walking is out of the question. The nearest train station is about a 40 minute walk away. Bus links are non existant. Previously I could walk to work in about half an hour. It now takes me the same to drive, but public transport would take almost three times as long (20 min walk to station, 20 minutes on train, 40 minutes to walk to office). Rather than walk five minutes to a sandwich shop at lunchtime, the nearest supermarket is a five mile round trip.

      One other kicker; it costs more to sit on a cattle truck of a train than to sit in the comfort of my car.

      The reason for our move? It was much cheaper. Not for the building, but for the taxes. In other words, the company got a massive tax break to relocate to a location that forced the employees to commute by car. Perhaps you could explain to me how the free market was involved in that?

      I guess I still deserve everything I get though, for not being willing to take a massive pay cut to stay in the old town or spend tens of thousands to relocate (and incidentally, there is next to no housing near the new business park anyway).

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    2. Re:It's not the speeding as such... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am fed up with seeing females negotiating junctions with their right hand holding a phone to their left ear and their left hand on the right hand side of the steering wheel.

      Your whole argument was so well written and insightful right up to this point. Why did you have to blemish a perfectly good comment by singling out women drivers. It only weakens your entire comment, which was otherwise very well put.

      I've seen plenty of drivers talking on their phones. About 50% of them were women. I've also seen people driving dangerously or too fast. About 90% of them were men.

      BUT. I've seen a lot of drivers who drive carefully, curtiously and pragmatically. These constitute about 90% of the drivers on the road. Otherwise you'd never get anywhere with all the collisions.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    3. Re:It's not the speeding as such... by dusty123 · · Score: 1

      That's also my opinion.

      To my mind, one of the reasons for bad driving are rigid traffic rules. If people are confronted with rigid and dogmatic rules, they simply stop thinking and start loosing their personal responsibility. When there is a 50mph sign, people will go this speed, regardless if there is ice on the road or not.

      One of the best drivers were (were, things change there too) found in Italy, which was a hell for everyone not used to the traffic. Although it was horrific to drive there, the accident statistics were far better than in the U.S. Having a good feeling and paying attention to the surrounding can never be replaced by dogmatic traffic rules.

    4. Re:It's not the speeding as such... by Lifewish · · Score: 1

      Surely the problem there is the idiots on the road, not the speed at which they drive? If so, why should we penalise the good drivers so harshly?

      You'll probably be pleased to know that, at least in the UK, driving whilst holding a mobile phone is illegal. So next time you see some muppet doing that, you would probably be justified in calling the cops!

      --
      For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
    5. Re:It's not the speeding as such... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > I've seen plenty [...] 50% of them were women
      > I've also seen [...] About 90% of them were men.
      > I've seen [...] These constitute about 90%

      With all this statistical analysis you do, do you ever have a chance to pay attention to the road?

    6. Re:It's not the speeding as such... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      With all this statistical analysis you do, do you ever have a chance to pay attention to the road?

      About 67% of the time!

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    7. Re:It's not the speeding as such... by dswan69 · · Score: 1

      "Can you guarantee that everyone breaking the speed limit has the ability to handle the vehicle properly"

      Can we guarantee that everyone travelling at the speed limit has the ability to handle the vehicle properly?

      How has the speed limit been determined? Is it for a specific combination of vehicle weight, brake power and reflex speed? What if my brakes are much better? What if my vehicle is much heavier? What if I happen to not be particularly observant or alert (a common problem with excessively low speed limits)?

      I notice when I drive a car for a while instead of using my motorcycle or bicycle I do become progressively less aware of the details of the road and what is going around my vehicle. Any vehicle with a plush suspension is pretty much designed to distance the driver from the road - I hate cars with soft suspension, but most people seem to love them (these people also love automatic transmission).

    8. Re:It's not the speeding as such... by leprechaun92 · · Score: 0

      And breaking the law yourself...
      Where o where will this madness end.

    9. Re:It's not the speeding as such... by JhohannaVH · · Score: 1

      Hey there Smoker.... I just want to thank you for posting this most insightful note. I don't think it matters where in the world we live, we all have to deal with the twits on the roads. It is a real adventure in San Diego... I believe we have some of the worst drivers I've ever seen. Yes, on my way to work this morning, I saw a man driving a big huge dump truck. What was he doing? Text messaging AND eating!!! I love the ones that read the paper too while driving. I just want to shoot them with a paintball gun. *sigh* But what can we do, except try to drive to avoid them. Unfortunately, that gets you pulled over bigtime, I got nailed for a 'speeding' ticket, when I hadn't even gotten on the freeway just yet! *argh* And it was because I drove agressively to avoid getting hit. I'm fighting it in court, though.

      I completetly agree with your assessment of the average Joe Driver. And it's scary. I, for one, am a good driver... or as good as I know how to be. That includes maintaining safe (and gas-saving) speeds most of the time, but I know how to drive very aggressively and defensively. And with a Jaguar Vanden Plas, it's just so easy. I firmly believe that the best of British engineering is in my car, and that she will save my life and hers. And she has. She has not yet failed me... even when I tried to push her to see how she'd behave on hot/slick/wet/flooded streets. *smile* It's just sad to know that every day so many people are killed or maimed by such idiots, yet nothing has been done to stop it. The police turn a blind eye, and go after the easy money targets - the pretty girl driving the hot British car! Bastards. :(

      Jho

      --
      Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
  153. Thin end of the wedge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    To anyone suggesting such powers do not get abused I'd offer the old gentlement ejected from the Labour (the current UK government) conference for mumbling the word "nonsense" in Jack Straw's (Home Secretary) general direction when he was talking about Iraq. The chap was throw out very heavily handily and held by the police under prevention of terrorism laws. There may have been apologies afterwards but this happened. If recent legislation changes had been made he could have been detained for 90 days. Far fetched, yes, but this happened. Period.

    To anyone suggesting we're innocent until proven guilty there was a news report last night of a chap fined for parking in a bus lane in a company van. No problem yet but he hasn't worked for the company for nine months, the company has written to Transport For London (TFL) to confirm this, and the culprit has owned up. Despite this TFL won't see sense and the guy will face bailiffs to recover the debt unless someone comes to their senses in the next week or so.

    To anyone suggesting there's no erosion of liberty in the UK I'd offer the demonstration against the war in Iraq. Although this took place a senior minister tried to prevent this happening on the basis of not be able to secure public safety.

    Liberty doesn't disappear overnight but one day at a time. And we've had several days already with the prospect of many more to come (id cards, etc.)

  154. You Are A Bad Driver by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

    When i drove through nottingham on the M1 there is an average speed check, and it keeps you on edge all the time, the road was of minor importance like wise other cars, my speed was my primary consern as it was with other drivers, you can see this from cars "wandering" onto the lane divisions.

    Bottom line then is that you, and the rest, are bad drivers. You cannot control your cars at the required speed. You seem to have a compulsion to go faster than is legal for the road you are on, and you are by your own admission not paying diligent attention to road and other cars.

    If you cannot competantly do something so simple as drive at a continuous speed, why should you even be on the road?

    Drive slower. It's easy!

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  155. Re:The irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who has more incentive to operate smoothly, efficiently and effectively--the government or a private company?

    Neither. Once granted the contract to operate, the private company has both the monopoly previously granted to the government and the additional incentive to cut costs without reducing prices, in order to increase profits. Believing that it is any other way is simply niave.

    But privatization is, on the whole, a much better way to run things.

    Tell that to the people who regularly use Britians railways, or the customers who use the London Underground. Both prime examples of how privatisation simply resulted in a monopoly power land-grab by companies with no experience in running these types of company and no interest in anything but bleeding their new-found monopoly contracts for every last penny they could wring from them. "Non-essential" systems are usually the first to suffer; which includes regular and proper maintainance.

  156. Missing the point by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

    Here is the irony and wrongness of this entire argument. Highways, statistically speaking are the safest roadways. In Germany highways are extremely safe, and there are many stretches where there are NO speed limits. So speed is not the issue.

    What is the issue are country roads. People often drive too fast on a country road underestimate a curve and plow into a tree. This is a proven statistic, and the authorities in Switzerland, and Germany want to increase camera's on the roads, not the highways!

    If you put lots and lots of camera's on the highway it's a revenue stream plain and simple.

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    1. Re:Missing the point by somersault · · Score: 1

      definitely agreed about the highways vs back roads argument.. and I would think that having speed cameras on the highways will only encourage people to seek out country roads where they can speed (I know I find it a lot more fun driving round a country road than a highway, though if a road is very windy then you will not generally be breaking the speed limit.. well, maybe by 10mph or so. From El Reg: "unless the Times has got the spacing wrong, having one every quarter of a mile on motorways quite clearly means they'll be used to enforce speed limits as well" I'm thinking that some people could use these cameras to measure quarter-mile run times, hehe.. Start at one camera, go as fast as you can to the next, and get a nice official letter stating how fast you were going and at what time, in the post. May be a bit expensive though :p

      --
      which is totally what she said
  157. Civil Liberties? by m4ttbrian · · Score: 1

    My step-father is a policeman in South East England, they have this exact same technology in place in their policing district. It scans the number plates of all road users coming into a certain roundabout, its clear as day. How does this affect your civil liberties? How does this differ from a man in a reflective jacket sitting on a stool and noting your number plate? The truth is that this system works, I have heard it has flagged up stolen cars from as far as Scotland entering the area. Sensationalist journalism rears it's ugly head once more.

  158. Environmental argument by innit · · Score: 1

    The UK government plays an environmental card as part of its arsenal of reasons as to why we shouldn't exceed 50/70mph (depending on the road). It used to be true that most cars were most fuel-efficient when they were driven at 56mph.

    However, this is no longer true. Cars that are manufactured primarily for the European market (so you're talking VW, Audi, Seat, Skoda, Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, Fiat, etc.) are these days tuned so that they are most efficient when driven at between 80 and 90mph, which is roughly the speed limit on the vast majority of motorways and highways on the continent.

    So the government can cunt off with their environmental argument, frankly.

  159. I'm not sure they could. by KitesWorld · · Score: 1

    There was a suggestion to use transponders in that way in order to switch to a pay-by-the-mile taxation system a while back, and the political fallout was enormous, due to security issues. ID fraud is problematic enough, without someone duping your transponder signal.

    Cameras, on the other hand, leave a trace. The image can be compared against the car registered with that number, which means you can eliminate false positives to a large degree. That in turn means that you can reimplement the system optically with minimal chance of fraud.

  160. Build proper biclycle lanes by gaizka · · Score: 1

    I'd love to use my biclycle in London but I find it very dangerous because of the cars. Cities in Holland have better built lanes for biclycle only, and it is very safe. That is what cities like London should do, build a proper network of biclycle lanes (not the existing dodgy ones). Biclycles are healthy for the ones who ride them and the most environmental friendly.

  161. Re:The irony by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

    It depends on what you're privatising.

    In the UK privatising the railways has been an unmitigated disaster - it's a monopoly, and private companies with a monopoly will be far less efficient than a government run company (who are at least accountable to the electorate).

    So much so that part of the railways was put back into state hands as it was about to go bankcrupt (not to mention the safety record had gone down the toilet - people had died. It should have been done sooner.).

    Private hospitals for example don't provide emergency or chronic care - only NHS hospitals do that.. there's no money in looking after such things, so they don't (in fact it's damned near impossible to get private health insurance for anything other than curable diseases that you don't have already, so coughs and colds are OK but anything else you're stuffed).

  162. A police technical architect once told me... by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1

    that this system was something that "in principle" the police could pull together very easily. He went on to say, that of course, he was just a techy, he didn't get involved in politics, etc. This was a couple of years ago at a conference about public services and XML in Manchester.

    At the time I thought he had his tin-foil hat on a bit too tight, but now I see he genuinely was giving us a hint of things to come.

    It's so sad the changes that have been made in the name of the "War on Terror". A never ending war it will be - at what point do you declare "That's it! All terrorists have gone away!" so liberties sacrificed in its name will not return until we can wrest back some sanity into our political process. Let's hope we don't let it slide too far.

  163. Is anyone being "cleared" by the extra cameras? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have a VERY large prison population in the US. I often wonder just how many of theose people really earned place there by commiting a crime. Recent examples of police purjury here make one shudder.

    Has the increased surveilance in the UK made it any easier to establish
    ones whereabouts and get cleared of suspicion?

    I am not often an optimist, but isnt that at least one protection the
    common person can appreciate?

  164. You're right, it's the wrong target by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    I agree with much of what you wrote there. Personally, I think it's long past time we simplified our traffic laws to about three offences: dangerous driving, inconsiderate driving, and failure to meet prerequisites (driving licence, tax, MOT, etc. as applicable). If a driver's behaviour isn't dangerous or inconsiderate, and the driver isn't dodging the regulations that apply to everyone else, why is the behaviour criminal?

    Note that there is no problem with allowing the courts discretion to impose a wide range of penalties for these generic offences, as is the case with manslaughter, for example: drive intimidatingly around a learner, get a slap on the wrist; tailgate for extended periods at 100mph on the motorway, get banned for being in danger of causing a fatal accident.

    Under such a simplified system, hopefully cases would only be brought against those who were genuinely not behaving properly on the roads, and when they were, the penalty could fit the circumstances, not some government playbook.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  165. Duh Duh Duh, Duhduhduh, Duh Duh Duh, Duhduhduh by indytx · · Score: 1
    Brazil, where hearts were entertained in June

    We stood beneath an amber moon,

    And softly murmured 'Some day soon'

    We kissed and clung together

    Then, tomorrow was another day

    The morning found me miles away

    With still a million things to say. . . .

    --
    Make love, not reality television.
  166. Surveillance by a380 · · Score: 1

    The more surveillance data there is, the less time anyone has to look at it all... If the government is taking away your right to be a criminal, then that's fine by me.

  167. Re:Slashdot, YOU SUCK! (aka Texas tried this...) by JourneymanMereel · · Score: 1

    Or maybe Slashdot already posted this story...

    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/02/23 51243.

    Wanna know where I got that link? From the houstondemocrats.com link in your post!

    --
    Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
  168. sad sad sad by geekcomputing · · Score: 0

    you had to ask your self , what is worse? an occassional terrorist blowing up something or the terror that our 'governments' are causing by spying , filming, watching and just generally acting 'big brother' like on its citizens. honestly, im far more concerned about the government spying and going all 1984 on the world rather than a few people w/ bombs. solution to terrorists. everyone pack a gun like a 40 cal or a 45. terrorst comes up, pop, terrorist dead. no need for cameras, spies, illegal arrests.... nope.. just 1 dead terrorist.

  169. Truck drivers are no saints by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The amount of times I've seen one truck trying to overtake another
    (usually going uphill! Wtf?!) on a 2 lane road so causing hundreds of
    metres of car traffic building up behind I've lost count of. What
    exactly is the point of overtaking another truck if you're only going
    0.5 mph faster? I mean really , what is the point? If I was of a paranoid
    nature I'd say the truckers did it on purpose just to piss off the car
    drivers.

    1. Re:Truck drivers are no saints by fuzznutz · · Score: 1
      The amount of times I've seen one truck trying to overtake another (usually going uphill! Wtf?!) on a 2 lane road so causing hundreds of metres of car traffic building up behind I've lost count of. What exactly is the point of overtaking another truck if you're only going 0.5 mph faster?

      AMEN Brother!!!!

      I drive 24 miles to work, each way, every day. I usually spend about 4 or 5 of it driving behind some fscking trucker who pulls over in front of me just as I am about to pass him, only to spend the next five miles trying to pass another truck.

      What's worse is that trucks have to drive 10mph slower than cars in my state. Usually by the time I get around the truck, my blood pressure is in the rafters.
    2. Re:Truck drivers are no saints by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "Usually by the time I get around the truck, my blood pressure is in the rafters. "

      Same here. There should be some traffic law that says if you
      haven't passed after X mseconds you must immediately pull back
      in behind. Course it'll never happen but we can dream...

  170. Big Brother 2005 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has nothing to do with taxation, speeding or anything to do with road travel. This in hand with a more intrusive rail "security" system is just another step into the control grid of the tyrannical goverment. The government is slowly closing it's net on personal freedom, soon the internet will heavily monitored and if you don't think it's possible please look at the "security" measures brought in for IPv6 and other new protocols that will soon be forced in use through legislation worldwide. Also look at China.

  171. Mod parent up! by shatteredsilicon · · Score: 1

    Dude! I like the way you're thinking! :-D

    1. Re:Mod parent up! by MooUK · · Score: 1

      The same applies to most large things administered by a small number of people. ISPs and network admins are another good example. They might be theoretically CAPABLE of watching everything you do using the network, but practically they can't. And almost certainly don't really want to either. The only time they'd be likely to bother watching you carefully is if you'd done something big to attract their attention.

  172. The rules are simple: Don't get caught! by shatteredsilicon · · Score: 1

    Where there is no police, there is no speed limit. Any driver that tells you they never speed is lying to you, regardless of whether their speeding is intentional or accidental.

  173. Non-concealed Carry by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    My understanding is that most states allow you to walk down the street with a handgun holstered on your hip in broad view. The trouble comes when you try to hide it. And, since there's not always reciprocity in the laws, it's possible to have a concealed carry license in Ohio and get arrested in several other states on a routine traffic stop.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
    1. Re:Non-concealed Carry by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that most states allow you to walk down the street with a handgun holstered on your hip in broad view.

      Really? I haven't checked into the laws of other states, but this would surprise me, at least for the east coast states and california. In fact, Arizona's the only place where I've actually seen people walking around like this.

    2. Re:Non-concealed Carry by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      That's because municipality and even state cops like to detain or arrest people nationwide when they see people anywhere with holstered guns. This unconstitutional and violent behavior is what's "chilling" the right to keep and bear arms, as you've observed.

      There are 3 major metro areas in the US now that have dared to (as said above) unconstitutionally ban guns altogether ... Washington DC, Chicago and now San Franciso. Many smaller metro areas have invoked bans to some degree. In my city (Toledo OH) anyone who has a holstered weapon is arrested on sight by any law enforcement. Allegedly there's a municipal ban on carrying. All this is of course horseshit, but unless we actually shoot the cops and politicians who enact these gestapo tactics, nothing will really improve.

      Somebody has to make the point that "home rule" doesn't mean that the law of the land (i.e. the US Constitution) can be over-ruled. Too bad we have so many judges legislating from their benches. Perhaps we should shoot them first?

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    3. Re:Non-concealed Carry by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Has San Francisco actually passed the ban? I think I saw an article saying they were working on it, but it hadn't yet been enacted.

      We actually have a few places here in Phoenix where you can't carry a weapon, namely Mill Avenue in Tempe. Of course, horseback cops will give you a ticket for jaywalking there, so you really have to watch yourself on that street.

  174. Privitization by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1
    Who has more incentive to operate smoothly, efficiently and effectively--the government or a private company? A large part of answering that rests on whom has more competition--and if the government is subsidizing an entire field, they don't have much competition at all. Privatizing in itself does little--it's competition that keeps things going. Also, people in other people's pockets will always exist, public or private. But privatization is, on the whole, a much better way to run things.
    For one, privitization seldom involves competition. Generally one company is assigned. Therefore, we have a monopoly. And, well, companies don't exist to provide services; they exist to make a profit. I don't know about you, but I prefer everything essential to remain in the hands of the government, who's willing to throw money at a problem to be sure that my electricity stays on, that my mail gets delivered, that the roads are safe, rather than subsidizing a company who sees no problems with providing service at or below minimums because it's cheaper. Theoretically, they ought to be bound by contracts but a) wording a contract to avoid loopholes is extremely difficult and b) most companies see fines and penalties as just part of the cost of doing business. Even if there were competition in privitization, who's going to be able to stick around longer? A company which provides all of the services for $15 million? Or the other company which fiddles with records and shorts service and comes out only costing $5 million until the erroneous bookkeeping is found? And how much damage will be done by the time things are found out?

    As for real-life examples, how well did privitization of electricity go in California?

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
    1. Re:Privitization by dswan69 · · Score: 1

      Or look at Telkom in South Africa - poor quality service, slow roll-out of lines and extremely high prices. These thieves pull in a billion dollars in profit every year.

    2. Re:Privitization by cornjchob · · Score: 1

      As for real-life examples, how well did privitization of electricity go in California?

      I live in Pennsylvania, and our privatization went off quite well in 2000. The 70 or so companies are regulated by the Public Utilities Comission and need to be certified before they can operate, so it's not completely deregulated, but perhaps equilibrium is the most practical way. Unfortunately, half of your electricity bill is from the local utilities who actually deliver the power--but better than nothing.

      As far as the government ensuring safe roads--where do you live? Here (south eastern PA), the roads are /awful/--no one knows how to manage money. Point being, the government is just as susceptible to corruption as a private company--and given the heirarchial upward movements of those who master that art and what they control, I think it's much more dangerous. You contract a company or three to do garbage, a company to fix the roads, a company to manage water, a seperate company for every service, and you have a nice, smooth decentralized power. You have a government doing all of the aforementioned services, and power becomes more centralized. If the president of Le Garbage Company decides he wants to cook some books, oh well--no garbage for a week, but at least the roads are still driveable when he's arrested. If the Mayor of Subsidyville wants to cook some books, everything suffers. Partitioning of power and competition are really the best ways to manage localities. The government is huge and extremely powerful--which is why it needs to be in charge of the military. Other than defense, its size gets in the way and it can't keep up. All bad.

      --
      We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
  175. it's called the 2nd amendment... by airdrummer · · Score: 0

    and as a _citizen_ i have the constitutional right to self-defense. but then u sorry _subjects_ don't have a constitution, now, do u?;-)

    "it sez raht there in the connnnnnnn-stitution
      it's really a-ok to have a reh-volution
      when the leaders that u choose
      really don't fit the shoes"
    --brewer&shipley

  176. Why not take the ultimate step now? by trydk · · Score: 1

    Is this really what we, the people, want? A society where the police and the government monitors our every little move in the hopes to stave off some crime? Should we not be concerned about the potential abuse or overzealous use of such systems?

    If extensive monitoring is really the goal, why not implant a small RFID tag into everybody at birth (and retrofit the rest of the population) and have corresponding readers everywhere? Especially at every entrance to offices, shops and private homes.

    Such a system would enable the police to know the whereabouts of everybody at any time and would thus really help stop crime.

    A Police Officer, "We would like to question you about the untimely death of Justine Aphtermath as you were in her house with three other suspects on the evening of her murder."

    Another Police Officer, "You are under arrest for suspected terrorism, sir, as you were in the same apartment as three known Al Qaeida sympathizers for three hours last Saturday evening!"

    A letter from The Police: You are hereby fined £100 for littering on Meander Close, Friday 4 November 2005 at 2101 hours. The act was caught on CCTV and your ID scanned by the reader.

    Another letter from The Police: Our scanners showed you were a front seat passenger in the Trabant, license number AA 00, owned by Mr. Phastcar, when the car last Thursday on three separate occasions exceeded the speed limits. As it is an offence not to prevent drivers from speeding, you are hereby fined three times £50.

    Helpful Police Officer on the phone, "Mr. Abercrombie gone missing -- just a moment, Mrs. Abercrombie, while I check our system ... Ah, did you perchance check Miss Phinnaggle's apartment?"

    The list is endless and the advantages obvious, so why not take the ultimate step now?

  177. Not *every* vehicle... by Yer+Mom · · Score: 1

    SPECS cameras take photos of the front of the vehicle. Motorcycles don't have front plates...

    --
    Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?
  178. Well gun crime seems like a high price to pay for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, we don't have anywhere near the amount of gun crime or murders that you guys do. As I understand it Canada is the same.

    Do you ever consider that someone might see you with a gun, in a moment of confusion and assume you are the "bad guy". Who is the "bad guy" in such a situation?

    Its blatantly obvious to us in countries with stricter gun laws that, it is a good thing!

  179. pointing a gun at someone is not defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, we don't have anywhere near the amount of gun crime or murders that you guys do. As I understand it Canada is the same. If you dont allow guns in the first place, you have no need to defend yourself against them.

    Self defense is a karate class, not pointing a gun at peoples heads.

    Its blatantly obvious to us in countries with stricter gun laws that, it is a good thing!

    Anyway, all that revolution stuff in your constitution is good in theory, but do you really think you could pull it off?

    I am not trying to defend our political system, because I think it is pretty crap, but at least we dont have everyone shooting each other.....

  180. Re:Well gun crime seems like a high price to pay f by bluGill · · Score: 1

    And it is blatantly obvious to us in countries with looser gun laws that restricting the honest from having guns does nothing to help them, and might hurt.

    Criminals can get guns. The AK-47 was designed so that any BC blacksmith can repair it. (though it would be expensive, they didn't know how to work with iron like we do now). You can make one yourself with hand tools. In fact people do - though you need some skill. (I'm not sure how you drill the barrel for instance)

    All gun laws do it keep guns out of the hands of the honest. There is no evidence that they have any effect on crime. (in fact studies that don't claim everything is lost in statistical noise show a decrease in crimes against people, when people own guns)

  181. DOH! Okay, I apologize Slashdot. by arfonrg · · Score: 1

    I didn't even see that little "SLASHDOT" in that article. My mistake.

    But, that original OFFTOPIC rating was still BS. It was more ontopic than most of the posts in that thread.

    --
    Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  182. Re:The irony by dswan69 · · Score: 1

    As you say it relies on the existence of competition. It is easy to privatise an airline because multiple companies making use of the skies and airport facilities is fairly easy to implement, but if you want to privatise water supply, electricity supply, telecommunications and railways you have to insure that the basic infrastructure remains the property of the general public. We can't exactly have competitors laying competing railway lines everywhere.

    Privatising healthcare and such is pretty much guaranteed to raise, not lower prices, because medical services are a basic requirement and there really is no need to actually compete with your neighbours. Your customers can hardly shop around for the best value-for-money hospital and ambulance service.

    And things get very dangerous if you privatise the police or prison services. US forfeiture laws effectively gave narc squads a profit motive and there has been rampant abuse of those laws - the main problem is that the law doesn't require a conviction to steal an accused's property, but imagine what would happen if the police earned income based on number of arrests and on number of convictions. Planting evidence and framing would become an integral part of basic training.

  183. clearly you don't drive in England by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you know that the speed camera setups there clearly show on the road (we're talking painted-on, all the way from left to right, white lines with hatching in between the start and finish lines so that they're clearly visible before you get there if you're paying attention) where your car has to be in order for the speed camera to take its picture?

    By your reasoning, only braindead idiots could still get a ticket from a camera setup like that. People get distracted by other things, they forget, etc. You wouldn't believe how far over the speed limit some of them would let you go without taking a picture just so that they didn't fill up more than once a day or so.

  184. Spooky by eutychus_awakes · · Score: 1

    I just glanced at this article title on the right sidebar, and it showed that there were 666 comments. Spooky, considering it is an article about vehicle tracking. Hmmmmm.

    --
    This sig is a test. If this had been an actual sig, you would be reading something quite a bit wittier than this now.
  185. Vague general laws by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    *wry grin* I suspect it's a bit like how her ein the Columbus, OH area, it's been ruled that it's not illegal for women to be topless in any area where men are allowed to be topless. Sure, it's not technically illegal, but there's a good chance of being cited for a public disturbance if you're not real careful about how you go about it.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  186. Re:The irony by cornjchob · · Score: 1

    Privatising healthcare and such is pretty much guaranteed to raise, not lower prices, because medical services are a basic requirement and there really is no need to actually compete with your neighbours. Your customers can hardly shop around for the best value-for-money hospital and ambulance service.

    Actually, that's not entirely accurate. When you get picked up in an ambulance here (South Eastern part of Pennsylvania in the US), they ask what hospital you want to go to. Granted, I live within 20 minutes of at least 3 hospitals, probably 7-10 within 40 minutes, so it's quite practical. There's a /lot/ of competition between medical practices here--commercials (TV and radio), tons of billboards, newspapers, etc. I think it's much more the fault of insurance companies in regards to high prices: there's so much potential for lawsuits they're trying extra hard to cover their asses. Not that insurance companies are fair at all, but all of the extra litigation certainly wasn't going to lower their rates. My old doctor had said she paid something like between $1-200,000 per year for insurance. Ridiculous.

    Can you gimme some links to US forfeiture laws? I didn't know we had any privatization in police, except bounty hunters. I'm curious.

    --
    We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
  187. Just don't speed! by Weezul · · Score: 1

    Just quit speeding! If people don't speed, cops don't get paid, cameras don't get maintained, etc. Just watch how fast the cameras come down if you can get 95% of the speeders to quit in your city!

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell