> You may pay the government but you don't compensate for the ill-health and deaths due to pollution Where do you think a large proportion of the funding for the NHS comes from? Surly you're not naieve enough to beleive that your NI contributions cover it?
> I would suggest there is a market for a healthy environment for our children So why don't you go and capitalise on it? If the market's there (I'm not convinced it is, but you seem to be), why is nobody catering to it? Why aren't YOU catering to it? Put your money where your mouth is. I wish you all the success in the world, and look forward to seeing your fuel-free Utopia featured in a future/. article. NOBODY is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to live in an area where there are cars. Nobody. If you live in an area where there are cars, you do so by choice - YOUR choice. If you don't like where you live, the solution is very simple - go live somewhere else.
The article you link to says: The US research showed that ozone causes the disease, but levels of ozone are usually higher in the countryside than in cities, as it is formed by sunlight
Looks like you need to go and live in a dark cave. Or is the sunlight my fault as well?
> I have my switched on cycling Its somewhat easier to stop on a cycle than a motorcycle (especially one doing the sort of speeds that the rider in question was:-). But then again, there is very little in common between the cycling experience and the motorcycling experience (except that both are at high risk from oter road users. Number one rule of surviving on a motorcycle - EVERYONE else on the road is an idiot).
> as its easier to call Uh, on my phone the difference is one button. The "on" button.
> the polis when somebody endangers my life in a way think they care about. Sorry to burst your bubble, but what makes you think the police care about somebody endangering your life? As an example: The speed limit on the road I live on is 30mph. Personally, I think it's too high (not because I live there, but because I don't see how you can drive down it at 30mph with any degree of safety. There are families with children that live down there). The local police have been asked, several times, to do something about people driving at high speeds (I estimate above 70mph) down that road. Usually late on Friday/Saturday evening (yes, there is a pronounced pattern to it). And the response was "there's not much we can do unless somebody gets killed". That's right. It's not a word-for-word quote, but it expresses the sentiment - and the word "killed" _is_ a direct quote.
> cell coverage can be large; many tens of miles in the obscure areas where demand is low Such as, perhaps, a non-urban dual carriageway between population centres? Like, say, the A14...
> See statewatch [statewatch.org]. Thanks for the link.
> BTW I dont think they'd bother to catch this particular motorbike; But it was you who first suggested they might try (using his phone).
> more insidious is they can use phone velocity to work out your speed down, say, the M5 over an afternoon There are easier (and more reliable) ways than using a phone signal. Ways that don't require you to have a mobile phone, don't require it to be switched on. Perhaps they could use cameras which recognise your number plate. Although Trafficmaster claim that their cameras do not retain the registration data, there's no reason why the same technology cannot be used to track your speed over distance. Such as, for instance the S.P.E.C.S. system. Isn't this where we came in?
> So after you've parked at your destination how do you move from your car? As a matter of fact, yesterday I went to two seperate meetings (both in London), did my weekly shop (in the Midlands) and browsed in a couple of record stores (elsewhere in the Midlands). At no point did I use a public pavement. Not once. And there's no way I could have done all of the above using public transport. (see my previous post for why)
Your original post said: > Building roads cost money, and I don't think it's fair that people that choose not to use a car should pay for them through their taxes I can't speak for Norway, but they don't pay for road construction and maintainance in the UK. All of that is funded from the revenue raised directly from motorists.
> The state should pay the cost of human rights but not sponsor luxuries. [Although in CIV that seemed a good way to keep the people happy:) ] I see the smily - but it's all about "votes" (OK, AFAIK, in CIV you don't get voted for - but you're shooting for a certain level of "popularity", right?)
> No, I'm from Norway where the situation is about the same Out of curiosity, what proportion of the cost of pump fuel is tax in Norway?
> And how much of that is actually used for roads and to sponsor public transportation (to keep the roads less crowded for those that pay) ? Last time I saw figures it was in the 20-30% bracket. The other 70-80% goes elsewhere in the economy (paying for Prescott's Jags no doubt)
> The fact that there still is need for a toll ring around London to limit traffic means that: 1. Driving into London still isn't expensive enough to stop people from doing it. and/or 2. Public transportation sux. and/or 3. Public transportation is too expensive.
It's actually 2 and 3. I've said elsewhere that I'd happily use public transport IF it were affordable, reliable, punctual, clean, safe and reasonably convenient. In the UK in general, it's none of the above. In central London it's actually better than most of the rest of the UK, but it can still be a very unpleasant experience. (I know, I commuted into the City by tube for several years)
> Why doesn't our so-called market economy cater for people like me... and lots of people I know Possibly because there isn't a market for it? If there is - which is what you're suggesting - then maybe you ought to found such a town yourself. Find yourself a patch of land with no roads and build a house - what's stopping you? And in time, maybe the "lots of people you know" will join you and your house becomes a village and then a town and maybe then a city. If there's such a demand for it you'd make a killing. Or maybe you know the real answer to your question.
> please don't drive your car down my street. But it's not your street - it's our street. So I have a right to use it too. And I pay the government a *lot* of money for the priviledge of driving on it. Most of that money DOESN'T get spent on that street, or on public transport - it goes elsewhere in the economy. If you want to walk where there are no cars, there are plenty of opportunites to do that - in the UK we have parks, we have countryside, we have beaches, we have National Trust sites. There are places it's deemed acceptable to drive - and I drive in some of them. There are places it's deemed unacceptable to drive - and I *don't* drive in any of them. One of the places it's deemed acceptable to drive is the street - that's what they're for. If they weren't intended to be driven on, they wouldn't have that wide stretch of tarmac in the middle.
> There's this economic concept There's this other econmic concept that when you increase the cost of transportation within an economy (such as the UK's outrageous fuel tax), you increase the cost of EVERYTHING in that economy (since everything needs to be transported to the point of sale).
> in the UK you have to get your number plates printed at your local auto parts store and they don't care if you really own the number Not any more. Although it's very recent, the regulation of manufacturing number plates has changed quite dramatically. Funnily enough, part of the reason for the new legislation includes "The introduction of cameras for enforcement purposes means that it is more important than ever for number plates to be legible". Part of the new regulations is that manufacturers must be licenced and must identify themselves on plates that they make. (Although how the filth will identify the manufacturer of an unmarked plate is beyond me...)
> shops you can walk to. I couldn't do my normal weekly shop without a car. I physically couldn't carry it (I only have two arms.) And heaven help me if I decide to buy anything out of the ordinary (have you ever tried to get a fridge on a bus?)
> Pffft, this is the country where you can be jailed for five years for losing your PGP provate key Actually, you can be jailed if you can't prove that you don't have a private key. In other words, you're assumed guilty unless you can prove different.
> I don't think it's fair that people that choose not to use a car should pay for them through their taxes. I don't think it's fair that people who choose to use a car should pay for pavements ("Sidewalks" to the Americans) through their taxes. But they do.
> A "less unfair (tm)" way would be to tax gas You're not from round these here parts, are you? Do you have any idea how much tax there already is on "gas" in the UK? Clue: it's about UK£4 (about US$6) a gallon. Something like 80% (yes, EIGHTY) of the pump price of fuel is tax. No, I don't think increasing that's going to win many votes - and that's what all this is about. It's not about improving air quality/public transport/whatever. It's about winning votes. And - given the last couple of years - NO politician in the UK is going to even THINK of increasing fuel taxation. Trust me on this.
> you can assume that pretty much everyone in the UK over the age has a cellphone switched on at all times,
No, you can't. I'm not sure which age you meant, but I know plenty of people who don't have cellphones. And (I'd never really though about it until just now) I'd say that more than 50% of them ride motorcycles. Although this may be skewed by my social circle being different to yours.
You certainly can't assume that any remaining phones are switched on at all times. There's no benefit to having one switched on whilst you're riding a bike (not unless it's set to vibrate and stuffed down your trousers:-) - what are you going to do - take your helmet off and answer it?. I know several people who switch them off whilst driving (I did before I had a hands-free setup). My own phone was switched off for a good portion of this afternoon (I was neither driving nor riding at them time)
There are plenty of other times when people's phones should be switched off (e.g. hospitals, meetings, cinemas) but those mentioned above are the most relevant.
> The record keeping proposal that the UK government wants is for seven years worth of 'traffic data', where traffic data includes where you are when you made or received a call, even an unsuccessful one. That's interesting information - do you have a URL or anywhere else I can find more? (This is another "Big Brother"[Orwell, not C4!] deal)
> I dont know if the companies log the track of cellphones while they are on, which is something they can do by recording their transition from cell to cell and the times ISTR (from where, I don't know - and please do correct me if I'm wrong) that a cell is about 10 square miles in area. If we assume that cells are rougly circular (they aren't but it's close enough) that gives a radius of maybe a couple of miles. I doubt you could get much in the way of useful speed information from that. Especially since cells don't have "hard" boundaries, since each cell generally overlaps with the next, and you have no more accurate information that which cell someone's in. Even if you could track this, it's be a *HUGE* volume of information. If my figures for cell sizes are correct, I've probably travelled through over a hundred hundred cells today - some of them several times. That's ONE individual for ONE day.
> and inferring things Any "inferring" would get the case thrown out if you had a defence lawyer any further up the evolutionary scale than a demented bee.
> you could say 'was going between these cells above a cetrtain speed'. You might be able to track cell transitions, but as I mention above, I doubt you'd get much useful speed information out of it.
Howevewr, this is an *AWFUL* lot of trouble to go to when they could just have used cameras that photograph the rear of the vehicle. (I suspect this did not go unnoticed by the (now semi-legendary!) rider in question:-). I'd rather the police use all those public resources that I (and, presumably, you) have paid for to catch rapists, murderers, muggers and the bas7ards that vandalised my car than one guy having fun - and causing nobody any real harm - on a motorcycle. In fact, I'd rather they go after the idiots who drive with cellphones switched on and glued to their ears - but that's a whole other story.
> Forced expensive insurance. And increased insurance means increased revenue from increased premium tax. More speeding tickets means higher insurance premiums which means increased revenue from increased premium tax. More stolen cars means more insurance claims means higher insurance premiums which means increased revenue from increased premium tax. More street-crime means more vandalised cars which means more insurance claims means higher insurance premiums which means increased revenue from increased premium tax. The Police are a government funded agency. More tax revenue means more money for the government means more money for the police.
Does this government make me feel like a victim instead of a citizen? What do you think...
The W&T clauses make it illegal to act based on information contained in such a transmission. So that would make it illegal to slow down because your radar detector went off. Which is odd, because speed traps are supposed to be located only in the area of "accident blackspots". If I'm in an area that the police consider to be an accident blackspot, I want to know about it - and probably slow down. But that would be illegal...
Except that you're not receiving the transmission, you're detecting its presence, which is a whole differnet thing, and UK courts have ruled that this is, in fact, legal.
Besides, I don't have a radar detector, I have an "EM Emissions Alarm" - which alerts me to excessive levels of potentially harmful electro magnetic radiation - allowing me to take whatever precautions I see fit to safeguard my health:-)
> The idea is that the button is locked down for the duarion of race meets (Where you are not allowed to display a plate, no don't know why). It's actually intended for trackdays (rather than race meets) - where you are not required to display a plate (since you're not on the public highway). Many trackday enthusiasts (myself included) prefer not to show off our plates whilst on track, since a camera may be (innocently) pointing our way. Some vehicle manufacturers may try to void a warranty, or insurers try to void insurance based on such a photograph. It's MUCH harder to do so without a plate.
Don't apologise! That "bit of paper" is actually the NIP. So if it took 2 months for it to be served, the couple in question is outside the 14-day rule so there is no case to answer.
> In Finland, if anyone sees your license plate number (e.g. if you drive on the road), they have the right to find out who you are and the municipality in which you live I would imagine that this would be very helpful for car thieves who are stealing exotic cars to order.
> they take a snap of the back of your car as you drive by I have a photograph, taken by a speed camera, of the front of my car. It was used by the police in a successful prosecution (in fairness, I was breaking the speed limit. 80mph on an empty dual carriageway with excellent driving conditions)
> A few weeks later The police are required to serve the NIP (Notice of Intent to Prosecute) within 14 days of the alleged offence.
> you get a photo in the post No. You only get the photo if you ask to see the evidence against you.
> The UK has fairly strict privacy laws, and is a signatory to the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) That's the same ECHR that gives you the right to NOT give evidence against yourself, right? It seems that as soon as you drive a vehicle you give up all those rights (which is why it's legal for the NIP to demand - under threat of prosecutuion - that you name the driver of the vehicle, even if its you). The UK government is signatory to the ECHR purely for the political milage, and has NO intention of passing those rights to the citizenry (which incluse me and, I assume, you)
> Interestingly enough, they can't take a photo of the car from the front for privacy reasons This, I'm afraid, is a complete fallacy. Take a drive down the A14. Or save yourself the trouble and check out Truvelo's website. Speed Cameras which photograph the front of your car. If you want to see such a camera, let me know and I'll go grab the GPS coords from my SatNav (Yes, I *DO* record the locations of each and every camera I see. My motivation for this action is road safety. The police are required to site speed cameras in the vicinity of accident blackspots. Therefore, if I know I'm near a camera, then I know I'm near such a blackspot and, as such, can excercise extra caution whilst driving in those locations. ANYBODY who tells me knowing the location of speed cameras (i.e. accident blackspots) is clearly either:
on drugs
from the inland revenue
Both of the above
> - never mind the fact that having a camera flash going off in your face would render you unable to drive safely for at least a few seconds. It would indeed. But not all speed cameras use flashes (infrared and image enhancement technologies have been quite common for several decades now). And surly the same argument applies to flashes in read view mirrors? Or flashes at the rear of drivers travelling in the opposite direction? (I've witnessed at least one accident where such a flash was a contributing factor).
IANAL but: > When they got the summons 2 months later If by "summons" you mean the NIP (Notice of Intent to Prosecute), then they got off because the police are required to serve the NIP within 14 days of the alleged offence - and 2 months is clearly longer than 14 days. And it's the NIP, not any subsequent summons, that threatens you with prosecution if you don't name to driver.
> yes, the uk police are that slow Only occasionally. I am aware of at least one case where the NIP was on the doormat within 72 hours of the alleged offence. (And no, it wasn't me - at least, not that time:-) Of course if it was the summons that arrived 2 months later then that's the court system rather than the police.
> It's actually one of the best in the world, by my reckoning Quite possibly. (Although, IMHO, Sydney has a much better public transport system). London probably has the best public transport network in the UK though. The problem with LT (and the reason I mentioned, as an example, Birmingham) is that it just-about-copes most of the time, but when it goes wrong it goes REALLY wrong. You're never 10 minutes late with the Underground - you're either more-or-less ontime or an hour or more late.
There's also the bizzare (and not-as-easy-as-most-people-think) ticketing structure. I lived in Willesden Green (border of zones 2 & 3) and worked on Threadneedle Street (Bank station - zone 1) for a long time. If the tubes (Jubilee Line) were out I could catch the bus to the office *BUT* had to pay extra to take longer, since the bus route from Willesden Green goes out into Zone 3 (Even though I was starting my journey in Zone 2 and ending it in Zone 1).
> with a network of rings and axes that provide excellent city coverage The problem is that there aren't enough rings. All-too-often if you live out in zone 3, you have to go right into the city then travel back out. (e.g. Willesden Green to Brent Cross - about 10minutes by car. I can't remember last time I did it by tube, but it's got to be at least 45 minues)
You're assuming the rider of the motorcycle: 1) Owns a cellphone 2) Has it with them 3) Has it switched on 4) Has a motorcycle registered in his/her name
I can't speak for the rider in question, but if any one of these conditions isn't met, then your technique isn't going to work. For instance, I never leave my phone switched on whilst I'm riding.
I'd also be surprised to learn that cellphone operators keep records that detailed and accurate for any length of time.
Not to mention the fact that I'd be more than a bit pi55ed off that the coppers were investing that much effort in tracking down a lone wheelie merchant when there's so much real crime on the streets.
Correction: The Timetabled journey time by train is 3hr23mins, but would have required me arriving 30 minutes early - so the effective journey time - i.e. the amount of time lost to travelling - would be about 4 hours. (the next service takes 3hr52min and would require me to be 45minutes late for my meeting, which is just unacceptable). Of course, if I'd taken the train, I _wouldn't_ have arrived 30 minutes early, but that's the gamble you take when you take the train.
Addendum: It actually took me 1hr 42mins (I timed it, sad but true!) door-to-door to make the journey. I arrived about 15minutes early, which is around what I aimed for. Not only quicker & cheaper than the train but MUCH more convenient!
Slashdot Mirror
> You may pay the government but you don't compensate for the ill-health and deaths due to pollution
/. article.
Where do you think a large proportion of the funding for the NHS comes from? Surly you're not naieve enough to beleive that your NI contributions cover it?
> I would suggest there is a market for a healthy environment for our children
So why don't you go and capitalise on it? If the market's there (I'm not convinced it is, but you seem to be), why is nobody catering to it? Why aren't YOU catering to it? Put your money where your mouth is. I wish you all the success in the world, and look forward to seeing your fuel-free Utopia featured in a future
NOBODY is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to live in an area where there are cars. Nobody. If you live in an area where there are cars, you do so by choice - YOUR choice. If you don't like where you live, the solution is very simple - go live somewhere else.
The article you link to says:
The US research showed that ozone causes the disease, but levels of ozone are usually higher in the countryside than in cities, as it is formed by sunlight
Looks like you need to go and live in a dark cave. Or is the sunlight my fault as well?
> I have my switched on cycling :-). But then again, there is very little in common between the cycling experience and the motorcycling experience (except that both are at high risk from oter road users. Number one rule of surviving on a motorcycle - EVERYONE else on the road is an idiot).
Its somewhat easier to stop on a cycle than a motorcycle (especially one doing the sort of speeds that the rider in question was
> as its easier to call
Uh, on my phone the difference is one button. The "on" button.
> the polis when somebody endangers my life in a way think they care about.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but what makes you think the police care about somebody endangering your life? As an example: The speed limit on the road I live on is 30mph. Personally, I think it's too high (not because I live there, but because I don't see how you can drive down it at 30mph with any degree of safety. There are families with children that live down there). The local police have been asked, several times, to do something about people driving at high speeds (I estimate above 70mph) down that road. Usually late on Friday/Saturday evening (yes, there is a pronounced pattern to it). And the response was "there's not much we can do unless somebody gets killed". That's right. It's not a word-for-word quote, but it expresses the sentiment - and the word "killed" _is_ a direct quote.
> cell coverage can be large; many tens of miles in the obscure areas where demand is low
Such as, perhaps, a non-urban dual carriageway between population centres? Like, say, the A14...
> See statewatch [statewatch.org].
Thanks for the link.
> BTW I dont think they'd bother to catch this particular motorbike;
But it was you who first suggested they might try (using his phone).
> more insidious is they can use phone velocity to work out your speed down, say, the M5 over an afternoon
There are easier (and more reliable) ways than using a phone signal. Ways that don't require you to have a mobile phone, don't require it to be switched on. Perhaps they could use cameras which recognise your number plate. Although Trafficmaster claim that their cameras do not retain the registration data, there's no reason why the same technology cannot be used to track your speed over distance. Such as, for instance the S.P.E.C.S. system. Isn't this where we came in?
> So after you've parked at your destination how do you move from your car?
:) ]
As a matter of fact, yesterday I went to two seperate meetings (both in London), did my weekly shop (in the Midlands) and browsed in a couple of record stores (elsewhere in the Midlands). At no point did I use a public pavement. Not once. And there's no way I could have done all of the above using public transport. (see my previous post for why)
Your original post said:
> Building roads cost money, and I don't think it's fair that people that choose not to use a car should pay for them through their taxes
I can't speak for Norway, but they don't pay for road construction and maintainance in the UK. All of that is funded from the revenue raised directly from motorists.
> The state should pay the cost of human rights but not sponsor luxuries. [Although in CIV that seemed a good way to keep the people happy
I see the smily - but it's all about "votes" (OK, AFAIK, in CIV you don't get voted for - but you're shooting for a certain level of "popularity", right?)
> No, I'm from Norway where the situation is about the same
Out of curiosity, what proportion of the cost of pump fuel is tax in Norway?
> And how much of that is actually used for roads and to sponsor public transportation (to keep the roads less crowded for those that pay) ?
Last time I saw figures it was in the 20-30% bracket. The other 70-80% goes elsewhere in the economy (paying for Prescott's Jags no doubt)
> The fact that there still is need for a toll ring around London to limit traffic means that:
1. Driving into London still isn't expensive enough to stop people from doing it. and/or
2. Public transportation sux. and/or
3. Public transportation is too expensive.
It's actually 2 and 3.
I've said elsewhere that I'd happily use public transport IF it were affordable, reliable, punctual, clean, safe and reasonably convenient. In the UK in general, it's none of the above. In central London it's actually better than most of the rest of the UK, but it can still be a very unpleasant experience. (I know, I commuted into the City by tube for several years)
> Why doesn't our so-called market economy cater for people like me ... and lots of people I know
Possibly because there isn't a market for it? If there is - which is what you're suggesting - then maybe you ought to found such a town yourself. Find yourself a patch of land with no roads and build a house - what's stopping you? And in time, maybe the "lots of people you know" will join you and your house becomes a village and then a town and maybe then a city. If there's such a demand for it you'd make a killing. Or maybe you know the real answer to your question.
> please don't drive your car down my street.
But it's not your street - it's our street. So I have a right to use it too. And I pay the government a *lot* of money for the priviledge of driving on it. Most of that money DOESN'T get spent on that street, or on public transport - it goes elsewhere in the economy. If you want to walk where there are no cars, there are plenty of opportunites to do that - in the UK we have parks, we have countryside, we have beaches, we have National Trust sites. There are places it's deemed acceptable to drive - and I drive in some of them. There are places it's deemed unacceptable to drive - and I *don't* drive in any of them. One of the places it's deemed acceptable to drive is the street - that's what they're for. If they weren't intended to be driven on, they wouldn't have that wide stretch of tarmac in the middle.
> There's this economic concept
There's this other econmic concept that when you increase the cost of transportation within an economy (such as the UK's outrageous fuel tax), you increase the cost of EVERYTHING in that economy (since everything needs to be transported to the point of sale).
> in the UK you have to get your number plates printed at your local auto parts store and they don't care if you really own the number
Not any more. Although it's very recent, the regulation of manufacturing number plates has changed quite dramatically. Funnily enough, part of the reason for the new legislation includes "The introduction of cameras for enforcement purposes means that it is more important than ever for number plates to be legible". Part of the new regulations is that manufacturers must be licenced and must identify themselves on plates that they make. (Although how the filth will identify the manufacturer of an unmarked plate is beyond me...)
> shops you can walk to .
I couldn't do my normal weekly shop without a car. I physically couldn't carry it (I only have two arms.) And heaven help me if I decide to buy anything out of the ordinary (have you ever tried to get a fridge on a bus?)
> Pffft, this is the country where you can be jailed for five years for losing your PGP provate key
Actually, you can be jailed if you can't prove that you don't have a private key. In other words, you're assumed guilty unless you can prove different.
I'd lay money on it that MPs are covered too.
> that air conditioning is rarely helpful, and never necessary.
You weren't there today, were you? I was...
> I don't think it's fair that people that choose not to use a car should pay for them through their taxes.
I don't think it's fair that people who choose to use a car should pay for pavements ("Sidewalks" to the Americans) through their taxes. But they do.
> A "less unfair (tm)" way would be to tax gas
You're not from round these here parts, are you? Do you have any idea how much tax there already is on "gas" in the UK? Clue: it's about UK£4 (about US$6) a gallon. Something like 80% (yes, EIGHTY) of the pump price of fuel is tax. No, I don't think increasing that's going to win many votes - and that's what all this is about. It's not about improving air quality/public transport/whatever. It's about winning votes. And - given the last couple of years - NO politician in the UK is going to even THINK of increasing fuel taxation. Trust me on this.
> Such as driving slower, and hence increasing the duration of your exposure to these dangerous emissions :) :)
Or finding an alternative route
> you can assume that pretty much everyone in the UK over the age has a cellphone switched on at all times,
:-) - what are you going to do - take your helmet off and answer it?. I know several people who switch them off whilst driving (I did before I had a hands-free setup). My own phone was switched off for a good portion of this afternoon (I was neither driving nor riding at them time)
:-). I'd rather the police use all those public resources that I (and, presumably, you) have paid for to catch rapists, murderers, muggers and the bas7ards that vandalised my car than one guy having fun - and causing nobody any real harm - on a motorcycle. In fact, I'd rather they go after the idiots who drive with cellphones switched on and glued to their ears - but that's a whole other story.
No, you can't. I'm not sure which age you meant, but I know plenty of people who don't have cellphones. And (I'd never really though about it until just now) I'd say that more than 50% of them ride motorcycles. Although this may be skewed by my social circle being different to yours.
You certainly can't assume that any remaining phones are switched on at all times. There's no benefit to having one switched on whilst you're riding a bike (not unless it's set to vibrate and stuffed down your trousers
There are plenty of other times when people's phones should be switched off (e.g. hospitals, meetings, cinemas) but those mentioned above are the most relevant.
> The record keeping proposal that the UK government wants is for seven years worth of 'traffic data', where traffic data includes where you are when you made or received a call, even an unsuccessful one.
That's interesting information - do you have a URL or anywhere else I can find more? (This is another "Big Brother"[Orwell, not C4!] deal)
> I dont know if the companies log the track of cellphones while they are on, which is something they can do by recording their transition from cell to cell and the times
ISTR (from where, I don't know - and please do correct me if I'm wrong) that a cell is about 10 square miles in area. If we assume that cells are rougly circular (they aren't but it's close enough) that gives a radius of maybe a couple of miles. I doubt you could get much in the way of useful speed information from that. Especially since cells don't have "hard" boundaries, since each cell generally overlaps with the next, and you have no more accurate information that which cell someone's in. Even if you could track this, it's be a *HUGE* volume of information. If my figures for cell sizes are correct, I've probably travelled through over a hundred hundred cells today - some of them several times. That's ONE individual for ONE day.
> and inferring things
Any "inferring" would get the case thrown out if you had a defence lawyer any further up the evolutionary scale than a demented bee.
> you could say 'was going between these cells above a cetrtain speed'.
You might be able to track cell transitions, but as I mention above, I doubt you'd get much useful speed information out of it.
Howevewr, this is an *AWFUL* lot of trouble to go to when they could just have used cameras that photograph the rear of the vehicle. (I suspect this did not go unnoticed by the (now semi-legendary!) rider in question
> Forced expensive insurance.
And increased insurance means increased revenue from increased premium tax.
More speeding tickets means higher insurance premiums which means increased revenue from increased premium tax.
More stolen cars means more insurance claims means higher insurance premiums which means increased revenue from increased premium tax.
More street-crime means more vandalised cars which means more insurance claims means higher insurance premiums which means increased revenue from increased premium tax.
The Police are a government funded agency. More tax revenue means more money for the government means more money for the police.
Does this government make me feel like a victim instead of a citizen? What do you think...
> we already have the absurd situation that it is free to drive out of Wales over the bridges, but not in
:)
A smarter arrangement would be to let you in for free then charge you to get out
The W&T clauses make it illegal to act based on information contained in such a transmission. So that would make it illegal to slow down because your radar detector went off. Which is odd, because speed traps are supposed to be located only in the area of "accident blackspots". If I'm in an area that the police consider to be an accident blackspot, I want to know about it - and probably slow down. But that would be illegal...
:-)
Except that you're not receiving the transmission, you're detecting its presence, which is a whole differnet thing, and UK courts have ruled that this is, in fact, legal.
Besides, I don't have a radar detector, I have an "EM Emissions Alarm" - which alerts me to excessive levels of potentially harmful electro magnetic radiation - allowing me to take whatever precautions I see fit to safeguard my health
> The idea is that the button is locked down for the duarion of race meets (Where you are not allowed to display a plate, no don't know why).
It's actually intended for trackdays (rather than race meets) - where you are not required to display a plate (since you're not on the public highway). Many trackday enthusiasts (myself included) prefer not to show off our plates whilst on track, since a camera may be (innocently) pointing our way. Some vehicle manufacturers may try to void a warranty, or insurers try to void insurance based on such a photograph. It's MUCH harder to do so without a plate.
Don't apologise!
That "bit of paper" is actually the NIP. So if it took 2 months for it to be served, the couple in question is outside the 14-day rule so there is no case to answer.
> "shutter" device that fits on top of license plate
You mean something like the Flip Tip?
> In Finland, if anyone sees your license plate number (e.g. if you drive on the road), they have the right to find out who you are and the municipality in which you live
I would imagine that this would be very helpful for car thieves who are stealing exotic cars to order.
I have a photograph, taken by a speed camera, of the front of my car. It was used by the police in a successful prosecution (in fairness, I was breaking the speed limit. 80mph on an empty dual carriageway with excellent driving conditions)
> A few weeks later
The police are required to serve the NIP (Notice of Intent to Prosecute) within 14 days of the alleged offence.
> you get a photo in the post
No. You only get the photo if you ask to see the evidence against you.
> The UK has fairly strict privacy laws, and is a signatory to the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights)
That's the same ECHR that gives you the right to NOT give evidence against yourself, right? It seems that as soon as you drive a vehicle you give up all those rights (which is why it's legal for the NIP to demand - under threat of prosecutuion - that you name the driver of the vehicle, even if its you). The UK government is signatory to the ECHR purely for the political milage, and has NO intention of passing those rights to the citizenry (which incluse me and, I assume, you)
> Interestingly enough, they can't take a photo of the car from the front for privacy reasons
This, I'm afraid, is a complete fallacy. Take a drive down the A14. Or save yourself the trouble and check out Truvelo's website. Speed Cameras which photograph the front of your car.
If you want to see such a camera, let me know and I'll go grab the GPS coords from my SatNav (Yes, I *DO* record the locations of each and every camera I see. My motivation for this action is road safety. The police are required to site speed cameras in the vicinity of accident blackspots. Therefore, if I know I'm near a camera, then I know I'm near such a blackspot and, as such, can excercise extra caution whilst driving in those locations. ANYBODY who tells me knowing the location of speed cameras (i.e. accident blackspots) is clearly either:
- on drugs
- from the inland revenue
- Both of the above
> - never mind the fact that having a camera flash going off in your face would render you unable to drive safely for at least a few seconds.It would indeed. But not all speed cameras use flashes (infrared and image enhancement technologies have been quite common for several decades now). And surly the same argument applies to flashes in read view mirrors? Or flashes at the rear of drivers travelling in the opposite direction? (I've witnessed at least one accident where such a flash was a contributing factor).
IANAL but:
:-)
> When they got the summons 2 months later
If by "summons" you mean the NIP (Notice of Intent to Prosecute), then they got off because the police are required to serve the NIP within 14 days of the alleged offence - and 2 months is clearly longer than 14 days.
And it's the NIP, not any subsequent summons, that threatens you with prosecution if you don't name to driver.
> yes, the uk police are that slow
Only occasionally. I am aware of at least one case where the NIP was on the doormat within 72 hours of the alleged offence. (And no, it wasn't me - at least, not that time
Of course if it was the summons that arrived 2 months later then that's the court system rather than the police.
> It's actually one of the best in the world, by my reckoning
Quite possibly. (Although, IMHO, Sydney has a much better public transport system). London probably has the best public transport network in the UK though.
The problem with LT (and the reason I mentioned, as an example, Birmingham) is that it just-about-copes most of the time, but when it goes wrong it goes REALLY wrong. You're never 10 minutes late with the Underground - you're either more-or-less ontime or an hour or more late.
There's also the bizzare (and not-as-easy-as-most-people-think) ticketing structure. I lived in Willesden Green (border of zones 2 & 3) and worked on Threadneedle Street (Bank station - zone 1) for a long time. If the tubes (Jubilee Line) were out I could catch the bus to the office *BUT* had to pay extra to take longer, since the bus route from Willesden Green goes out into Zone 3 (Even though I was starting my journey in Zone 2 and ending it in Zone 1).
> with a network of rings and axes that provide excellent city coverage
The problem is that there aren't enough rings. All-too-often if you live out in zone 3, you have to go right into the city then travel back out.
(e.g. Willesden Green to Brent Cross - about 10minutes by car. I can't remember last time I did it by tube, but it's got to be at least 45 minues)
You're assuming the rider of the motorcycle:
1) Owns a cellphone
2) Has it with them
3) Has it switched on
4) Has a motorcycle registered in his/her name
I can't speak for the rider in question, but if any one of these conditions isn't met, then your technique isn't going to work. For instance, I never leave my phone switched on whilst I'm riding.
I'd also be surprised to learn that cellphone operators keep records that detailed and accurate for any length of time.
Not to mention the fact that I'd be more than a bit pi55ed off that the coppers were investing that much effort in tracking down a lone wheelie merchant when there's so much real crime on the streets.
Correction: The Timetabled journey time by train is 3hr23mins, but would have required me arriving 30 minutes early - so the effective journey time - i.e. the amount of time lost to travelling - would be about 4 hours. (the next service takes 3hr52min and would require me to be 45minutes late for my meeting, which is just unacceptable). Of course, if I'd taken the train, I _wouldn't_ have arrived 30 minutes early, but that's the gamble you take when you take the train.
Addendum: It actually took me 1hr 42mins (I timed it, sad but true!) door-to-door to make the journey. I arrived about 15minutes early, which is around what I aimed for. Not only quicker & cheaper than the train but MUCH more convenient!