But...

Aren't the devices in themselves anonymous, so in fact Tom Tom would have had to match the device with the account. Monitoring traffic flow does not require personal details, like the account, just the device, location and time/speed.

errr...

You don't get to access their "Live" services (part of which is theHD traffic service which collected this data) for free - you have a subscription account and the unit logs you in over GPRS every time you power it up.

You are missing the point

We are talking the country which invented the speed camera here. No intention of conviction whatsoever (those are delivered courtesy of the devices manufactured by GatsoMeter).

The police used the database to move their speed cameras to the places where they are likely to catch someone.

By the way, they do not necessarily need a Tom Tom here. They can get the same results by asking any of the mobile companies for a daily dump of the timing advance data from GSM basestations along major routes. It is anonymised already because the mobile at that point are not using the IMSI from the SIM and already have a TIMSI issued by the network. There is no IMEI data in that either.

Import that into any half-baked BI package, run a report and voila you have all the locations where speeding is prevalent for nearly everyone and not just people with TomTom GPSes (or GPS-es for that matter).

Luddish behaviour

My 'route advisor' is usually a post-it on the dashboard.

geez

Faster speeds equals louder noise, it is highly likely that your speedy road is running through a village? Hence why the 30mph zone was put up to give the locals a chance to cross the road without being killed and to get some sleep at night.

Most rural accidents don’t happen on the daily commute, so its no relevance whether you happened to see one or not.

Your posting is particular arrogant. You are basically saying you should be allowed to race around all the time at any speed and blame the people that actually have the misfortune of the road they live on becoming a GPS race track for getting in your way.

What you are really asking for is a relief road but this country doesn’t seem to have built any roads for decades and allowed minor roads to carry full A road traffic loads. You’ll notice how new build estates don’t take the traffic straight through the middle of them but are set off from the main road, it’s a shame that courtesy isn’t extended.

What do you expect?

Quote: Is there nobody supplying location aware devices that isn't screwing us over?!!!

Satellites are expensive, GIS is doubly so.

So the user either has to pay or be subjected to web 2.0 treatment. As paying has become rather unpopular the second is the default.

D.C.

Calm down, dear. Take the other pill.

If you know there is a likelyhood of being held up for a wee while then that's 'normal' traffic.

You make it sound like this stretch of road is ten miles long but it's nost likely a couple of hundred yards.

@AC

"blame the people that actually have the misfortune of the road they live on"

So they just accidentally decided to buy a house there? What?

If I buy a house that is built next to a motorway - I have decided to move there - and any noise/pollution problems are my own to deal with. It's exactly the same for people who decide to live in the countryside. You take the rough with the smooth.

Of course - the average person who can afford to live in the countryside also tends to have more connections/etc to arrange speed limits etc.

@ac

Faster speed doesn't mean huge differences in noise. Tractors are noisy at any speed, as are busses etc.

30mph isn't there to give anyone a quiet night's sleep. As you're talking rural roads, there's very little traffic anyway as a rule. The limit came about because someone generically looked at the type of road it was and said "Oh, they should all be (x) limit.". Or maybe even looked at it on a map and said "Oh, it should be (x) I think.". There's a lot more talk, but not much difference in scientific approach between those quotes and the reality.

I've no idea where you get the idea the original poster wants to zip around at any speed.. They seem (and statistics bear it out) that most people drive sensibly at a speed the road is safe at. This would be the reason that the law surrounding speeding has the 'grey area' where you get the speed classes seriously expanded upwards. Because it's not wildly unsafe, you just can't upset the "Anti-Speed lobby", because it'll be all over the press, and you'll have a PR nightmare. The racetracks are usually in inner city places on estates (statistically speaking).

100% behind you about the relief roads though.

Accident Cameras

If you place cameras where people have accidents then those are the places where the speed limit is too high, surely. How will cameras in places where the speed limit is too high make money?

It's the places where there are no accidents that you need the speed cameras. Wide streatches of road with good visibility and very few junctions and a low speed limit. You would think the police and road planners could work together to create such opportunities. How about 40mph speed limits on motorways?

@ Anton Ivanov

AFAIK Tom Tom service is paid via yearly subscriptions. This is just another example of corporate greed. Whether this data is used for good or bad should be discussed separately. But if you pay for a service, you'll probably resent having your data mined and sold to third parties.

@A/C 08:43

My post was giving an example of an artificially low speed limit. I certainly did not say people should be allowed to drive round at whatever speed they like.

A road that is big, wide (wide enough for 3 lanes as I originally mentioned), and a 60mph zone for decades that suddenly becomes a 40/30 zone. Not to mention that in that time cars have gained ABS and better tyres, so are actually *less* likely to have an accident.

It is *not* through a village, it is between two villages, approx 2 miles long. It does have a few buildings on one side, which are all set back from the road by quite some distance, most of them light industrial. On the other side are fields. That is it!

I live round the corner, so any serious accidents would be in my local rag, and believe me, there was certainly no problem with this road as a 60mph zone.

Oh, and BTW, this road isn't a minor road carrying A road traffic, is *IS* an A road!

Now go take you own arrogance somewhere else, and at least have the balls to not hide behind A/C.

@Jason

Sorry but you're talking crap.

Speed does not kill. It's inapropriate speed that kills.

If the police put the speed cameras where they can reduce accidents then there's no problem. But the police (in Britain at least) have also decided to put them where they can be used for tax collection.

@AC

Sorry, but he's talking sense. Yes reducing accidents may be a nobler aim, but the police are there to catch criminals. If you break the speed limit then you are a criminal.

Yes the speed limit is a fairly arbitrary value, but it's not an injust law (or morally suspect) so you have to stick to it. If you don't like it, campaign against it. If you break the law, live with the consequences.

If it's a choice between giving fines to people who break the law and upping the tax in any other way, I know which I'd opt for.

@Graham Marsden

It's a particularly poor argument, which is why the speed limit isn't the only consideration - the Police can nick you for speeding, but they can also nick you for dangerous driving etc even if you are under the speed limit.

It's also an argument that undermines a lot of others here re: speed limits being a tax. What you're advocating there is speed limits that can and do change at arbitrary times of the day (i.e. when the conditions change). Do you think that more or less people would get FPNs for speeding as a result? :)

Speed limits are there for one simple reason - motorists are expected (and required by law) to take responsibility for driving safely. To give motorists a rough guide speed restrictions are implemented. It helps improve road safety because you don't get driver A thinking "well, it's lovely and sunny, the roads are dry, I've got ABS, I'll do 110mph" whilst driver B a few miles up ahead thinks "well, it's a bit bright - I'm struggling to see for the sun at times, my brakes are legal, but they aren't ABS, and I'm not really familiar with the road, I'll do 50mph".

Driver A comes up behind driver B at a net speed of 60mph, only sees him late due to corners etc and inadvertantly puts him off the road.

If you lower driver A to 60mph (national speed limit in the UK on single lane) you reduce the net speed of A to 20mph, giving him plenty of time to realise there's a slower moving car in front.

Nobody is saying that if you drive at 75mph on a 70mph road you will immediately die/kill somebody. A limit has been set that is considered reasonable in most (although not all) situations. It's *your* responsibility as a motorist to drive safely within that limit. If you want to ignore it you are free to do so. There are of course consequences. As an adult you should accept that and act accordingly. Having it both ways is for the kids.

@Ross 7

Yes, I know the Police can nick you for Dangerous Driving, hence my example pointing out that whilst doing 70mph on a rainy, windy, unlit dual carriageway etc might be legal in terms of the speed limit, but could definitely be classed as "inappropriate speed for the conditions" viz:

* * * * *

What is 'Dangerous driving'?

A person drives dangerously when:

* the way they drive falls far below the minimum acceptable standard expected of a competent and careful driver; and

* it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_driving/

* * * * *

But that doesn't mean that pointing out the difference between "breaking the speed limit" and "using inappropriate speed for the conditions" is a poor argument.

"What you're advocating there is speed limits that can and do change at arbitrary times of the day (i.e. when the conditions change). "

You mean like the "Active Traffic Management" that happens on the M25 and other motorways where speed limits can and do change at arbitrary times of the day (i.e. when the conditions change)!

"It's *your* responsibility as a motorist to drive safely within that limit. If you want to ignore it you are free to do so. There are of course consequences. As an adult you should accept that and act accordingly. Having it both ways is for the kids."

As an adult and, more relevantly, as a member of the IAM, I am well aware of my responsibilities on the road and the requirement to use the road safely and one of the simplest ways to fail an IAM test is to act in a way that causes another road user to have to change their driving or riding plan.

However blithely (or blindly) sticking to limits whilst ignoring other factors is not the mark of an Advanced Road User either. If you're in a 60 limit, following a car doing 52mph and you want to make progress by passing them, you pick a clear piece of road and complete your overtake in a safe and timely manner, but whilst you're doing this you do *not* want to be looking down at your speedo to ensure you don't go over the limit since you're a) not watching the road ahead and b) if you stick to the limit that will increase the "danger time" you're spending in the opposite lane meaning you're increasing the risk of encountering an on-coming vehicle.

Therefore, to effect a safe and timely overtake, you may have to "break the law" by exceeding the speed limit, but you do that in the knowledge that you have done so in a way that will not cause a hazard to another road user.

Spot on Graham

Speed cameras take no account of driving style and conditions. They are are purely

if speed>limit then driver.fine(£60)

At least with a speed trap there is a real policeman about, so someone driving like an idiot (tail gating), but below the limit, might actually get caught, but usually it is a speed camera and not a real person able to use judgement. The yellow automatic boxes are far more cost effective.

I'd be quite in favour of magic boxes which could tackle inconsiderate/incompetent drivers who tail gate, never indicate or leave their rear fog lights turned on for a month after a slight mist (preventing anyone behind from seeing their brake lights coming on).

And before anyone says this is sour grapes, I haven't been caught speeding in 20 years, and I don't hold a grudge that long!

what's new

Google and Facepalm have been doing it for years - and idiots still use them 'cos they're 'free'. Luckily people are starting to realise that it is their personal information that is the product being sold in these relationships.

@ Anonymous data?

I assume you never park your car at your home then?

Amonymised or not

The problem is how they 'may' have anonymised the data. If they have streamed all the data per user and 'redacted' your name/serial number/whatever then you can still be identified by the journeys you take. There will be a limit to the number of people going to/from your house every day. It is only if they have stripped off the ident AND the precise start and end timings plus mixed the tracks in some random fashion that it becomes unfeasible to try to isolate individuals.

Worryingly that can be either a very simple process (give it to a techie who uses the kit and has something to hide) or so complex that it doesn't happen (given to a bean-counter who lives with his mum with a 3.7 minutes walk to the office).