You are free to believe what you want, provided you don't start trying to tell everyone that *they* should believe it too.
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
.... Assuming you can't stop in time or go around them.
If you can't stop in time or go around them then you are driving *TOO FAST* for the circumstances (NB this is not the same as speeding because you could be below the limit but on a slippery road or in situations where visibility is reduced)
Any computer controlled system *MUST* be able to adequately calculate the appropriate speed for the conditions and adjust it accordingly, otherwise it will be just as dangerous as drivers who think that 80mph is a safe speed on a foggy motorway...
Yes, you can get more onto a CD/ DVD/ whatever, yes they are easier to transport etc, but a 20 year old copy of the printed OED will still be usable whilst a 20 year old copy in an electronic format (remember the 1980's Domesday Book which was produced on 12" Laser disks and read by a BBC Master computer?) will have been surpassed by later technologies.
Convenience is all very well, but permanence should not be ignored.
Your whole rant^H^H^H^H self-righteous position seems to be based on the same mentality of the previous Government's "vetting scheme" where everyone is presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Tell me, do you require that anyone who comes and babysits for *your* children allows you full access to their computer so you can check through and ensure that they don't have any "questionable" images on it? No? So you admit that *YOU* are jeopardising *YOUR* children by failing to take adequate precautions!!!
"...whether they would be prepared to accept road pricing as long as there was no overall increase in the amount paid by motorists as a whole"
And when they were asked how they felt knowing that every journey they took would be tracked and probably linked ANPR cameras would be used to automatically assign speeding tickets to anyone who went from A to B faster than they were supposed to they said...?
Oh, of course they didn't say anything, because they were *NEVER* asked those questions!!
... firstly going to the Coalition's Your Freedom site http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/ and supporting the various proposals to throw this (and other laws such as the criminalisation of consensual BDSM) into the bin and, secondly, going to http://www.writetothem.com and making your MP aware of your objections to these stupid, ill-thought out and useless laws.
The use of square brackets in this context generally means that the editor has included the name to replace eg "him" or "they" etc in a piece excerpted from a longer article.
eg "I see this in papers and magazines as well [Skelband asked] Why are some pieces of quoted text in brackets?"
... so I can stare at my exact speed in small print on the GPS.
Why not just make sure your speedo (which should be legible and if it isn't, you shouldn't be driving) is at or below the limit because it probably reads 10% high already?
Oh, of course, I know why not, you're one of those people who thinks that it's a Speed Target instead of a Speed LIMIT.
The point you miss is that it is excessive speed *FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES*!
Which is more dangerous? Doing 80mph on an empty motorway or doing 70mph on the same motorway when it's crowded with traffic and covered in fog? The answer is (or should be) obvious, but which one gets you a fine and points on your licence and which one doesn't?
Putting in ANPR cameras will force people to stay under the limit, but it won't stop them driving like idiots.
The point is not that "the weight is secret", but what happens when (as is almost inevitable) you start getting charged for rubbish disposal by weight and someone decides to dump that old monitor or stack of bricks in your bin rather that theirs.
And if you think that's nonsense, I'd point out that for the past couple of months, someone has been sticking a couple of bin-bags of their rubbish outside *my* property. I have no idea why, I have no idea who, but if I was paying by weight you can be damn sure I'd be objecting!
Oh dear, it's the tired old "I have to stare at my speedo" argument.
FYI a speed limit is exactly that, a *LIMIT*, not a *TARGET*.
By all means Make Progress on open roads, but if you're in a situation where you need to watch for "traffic and pedestrians around you" simply driving to the "limit" shows a lack of awareness (and ability) to drive at an appropriate speed for the conditions.
In other words, "we're going to be watching all of you wherever you go and whenever you travel, just in case you're a terrorist. Meanwhile, we'll be looking at linking cameras at major junctions so we can check how fast you have traveled from A to B and if we think it's too fast, we can pay for the cameras by giving you a speeding ticket!"
No, because that means deleting bits before publication, however it can be repealed.
We need *EVERYONE* to visit the Government's "Your Freedom" site and support the following:
NB there are several variations on these, I've picked the ones which have the most votes, but if you search on Pornography or BDSM you can find others to support too (and several worth writing comments in opposition to)
Once you've done that, visit http://www.writetothem.com and find the contact details of your MP and make your points to them as well otherwise we risk the Your Freedom site becoming just another "fob them off" exercise so beloved of the last administration.
Whilst I agree that the higher the speed the more serious the accident, you are the one who is apparently missing the point that you should *not* drive faster than the speed at which you can stop in the distance visible to you. It doesn't matter *what* the limit is, you need to tailor your speed according to the conditions prevailing at the time.
Unfortunately when people have the attitude that because "speed limits are LAW" they assume wrongly that means that the speed indicated by the prevailing limit is a speed that it is safe to drive at rather than thinking intelligently about what they are doing.
There is a debating fallacy known as the False Dilemma where you present someone with two options 1) and 2) as if they're the only ones available and then imply that they have to pick between the two, ignoring the fact that the correct answer is "neither of the above".
Let me give you an example. Last night I came back to Portsmouth from London on the A3. As you leave London this piece of road seems to have speed cameras about every half mile and initially a limit of 40mph which then goes up to 50mph.
Now I'm sure those limits are all sensible and good when the road is chock full of traffic during the day time, but at 2am the road is virtually *EMPTY* and there is absolutely *NO DANGER* in Making Progress along it, but you cannot, simply because of all the bloody cameras.
So you have a choice: trundle along at 40mph or make progress (illegally, of course) then slow down when there's a camera.
Which do you do?
Firstly let me say that I have *NO PROBLEM* with cameras *WHERE THEY ARE ACTUALLY NEEDED*, but many of the rules on where they are placed are nonsense and bring the whole system into disrepute because all that happens is that drivers slow down for the camera, then speed up once they're past it.
Hiding them just makes the situation worse and still does *nothing* for dealing with people who drive in an irresponsible manner, using mobiles, failing to indicate or look before turning or changing lanes, tailgate, don't make proper observation at junctions and all the other things which *really* add to the dangers of being on the road.
I'm sure I've read a report which said that the radar-controlled signs that flash 30mph if you're approaching them too fast have been much more successful in reducing speeds, but I have been unable to track it down, so if anyone knows where I can find it, I'd be most grateful.
"...not that the government is doing them necessarily."
I think that's the point he's trying to make! Every time we hear of data being stolen or left on a laptop or sent on an unencrypted CD through the post shows a fundamental failure of understanding of basic security by Governments and Corporations.
And how many companies produce software which then require multiple patches to fix gaping holes in their security?
What is needed is a fundamental shift in attitude, rather than the "let's get the data or write the software and then fix the problems later."
As you say: "The right time to build up defenses is now, before an incident occurs", but at present too many stable doors are being locked and bolted long after the horse is over the horizon.
"... to prevent a given cell phone from receiving SMS messages and incoming calls. All that's needed is the target's phone number"
Great! Now how do I get the phone number of the annoying twat who is sitting in the Quiet Carriage on the train yakking at the top of their voice and ignoring the signs saying "NO MOBILE PHONES"...?
"but there is evidence that more and more police forces have to engage in fishing expeditions on anyone they like in the hope that they might be able to link them to an actual crime."
There, fixed it for you.
Of course he could have just said "I cannot give a precise reason for this, but THINK OF THE CHILDREN, OMG!!!!1111oneoneeleventyone!!"
'these officers are quite prepared to take their chances, on the basis that the number of times they will be caught out by being recorded is likely to be few and far between'
And even if they are caught out, very probably nothing will done about it or they will only be given a smack on the wrist and told not to do it again by their bosses.
This is why I fully support the idea of Police being made to have cameras attached to their person whenever they are dealing with the public because they will know that *WE* are watching *THEM*!
Or, more importantly, it would be risking the Safety Camera Partnership's Boss' livelihoods...
Unfortunately I can't find a reference for it at the moment, but I'm pretty sure I've seen a report saying that those Radar Controlled signs that flash 30mph if you approach them too fast are, apparently, more effective than Cameras for actually getting people to slow down because they're not an attempt to raise revenue, so they get more respect from road users.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019