Posts by Steve

Police poison speed debate with fuzzy figures

me again

@Ian Johnston

The same could be said about your comments; the difference is that those from safespeed are explained as opposed to simply claimed. The fact is that many cogent arguments have been put into the spotlight, rightly so, partly thanks to the safespeed campaign. Only disingenuous bigots would seek to discredit it. Prove me wrong by addressing the points I have raised!

@County Durham

YES, I have such a document FROM THE TRL – the data is very telling indeed. In terms of % change of accidents (from before and after installation), Speed cameras and RLCs are within the bottom 5 of 34 safety measures.

@ The Other Steve

“So, the widely reviled speed cameras not only really do reduce accidents (by 20%),”

That’s wrong for two reasons:

a) the ‘speed camera scheme’ as it is known, accounts for only 20% of the overall drop of KSI rate, not 20% absolutely.

b) Dr Mountain’s analysis did not account for ‘bias on selection’ – other safety measures implemented within the range of the speed camera site, but the credit for any apparent KSI drop always goes only to the camera. Camera sites can be defined to be up to 5km in length, so you would expect to see a few other safety measures in there too. Hence it is possible for cameras to be having a negative effect.

I wouldn’t call taking money from those who are otherwise careful as ‘profit’, especially when the resource is used to fund further misallocation of ineffective resource.

@ Nic,

“sh!t you are spreading”

Excuse me - you are accusing others of misinformation when we are only seeking to expose the misinformation spouted by those with the vested interests?

Your simple argument of “slower speeds cause less fatalities” overlooks the probability of the accident being caused in the first place. Incorrect limits can increase the risk of an accident occurring in the first place (see my previous comment) – which kinda tends towards balancing things out. The errant pedestrians and cyclists would soon be more aware of the dangers if drivers were forced to drive at 70 in all areas at all times, so would fatalities soon reduce?

PS, in over 10 years of holding my full UK licence, I have never faced being prosecuted for speeding!

@Tim: The real road safety message

Your comments are a diversion from the speed camera debate; the article is about speed cameras, not speed enforcement per se.

In an ideal world your point would be valid, unfortunately they aren’t.

Yes, we need speed limits (although perhaps not all the time for all roads); yes we need people to abide by them, but that does not mean the limits should keep being reduced; there is such a thing as too low too. To take limits below reasonable levels encourages drivers to exceed the speed limit, both deliberately and accidentally. This makes the actions of drivers unpredictable hence other road users cannot reliably predict the actions of drivers – that’s the real danger. Many dual carriageways with their new 30 limits are perfect examples, as are 40 limits through mile upon mile of motorway roadworks. About a third of all motorway accidents are sleep related (that’s more than exceeding the speed limit), so do we really want to make this worse by forcing drivers to drive in less stimulating conditions, for longer?

“We wouldn't accept that for any other area of law.”

Exactly! There is something really wrong with how this part of the law is being applied!

The real truth, plus more!

Gareth (Friday 24th October 2008 13:01 GMT) is correct.

For Fred (24th October 2008 12:35 GMT):

While it is true that 12% of all fatalities involve a driver in excess of the speed limit, the speed won’t be the only factor. There are an average of 2.4 contributing factors per fatality (source: dft_transstats_612594.pdf). So the driver who nearly killed me last month probably was in excess of the speed limit (well, he took a lamppost 90 meters down the road, from my side of the pavement – passing me with it in the process (not bad for a 40 limit), but I think the fact that he was arrested on scene with 95mg on his breath was the real reason for my everso near miss.

HOWEVER, use of the fatality figure in this instance is highly misleading.

Speed camera effectiveness is measured on the rate of KSI (killed or seriously injured) not just fatalities; indeed the installation policy was based on KSI rates. It follows that less than 12% of all KSIs involve a driver in excess of the speed limit. But hey, are we really surprised of this additional example of convenient interpretation of statistics by those pro-camera!

And for the inevitable speedophile comments (those truly obsessed with speed)

@Nic Posted Friday 24th October 2008 13:34 GMT:

How about

If your child was run over by someone NOT speeding (or otherwise offending) you should face jail for neglect for failing to ensure they are able to cross the roads. Let’s be honest, many, many, many more are killed by lawful drivers than those driving in an illegal manner. It’s funny how those anti anti-speed camera never mentions that huh!

“It doesn't take a genius to work out that you should operate them within the constraints of a speed limiting system and take great care”

I would bet money that you don’t know the real reason why that is. Only knowledge of that will let one understand how our road safety policy is failing (and it IS failing).

Steve B (safespeed member)

US woman shot by cast iron stove

@ Oliver Humpage

And what if the rear of the case was wedged up on (or near enough) a wall of the stove? There's the missing reactive force!

Elgato EyeTV DTT Deluxe 'world's smallest' USB TV tuner

TV license

I don't have a TV license, nor do I own a TV or have a TV card/dongle for my PC.

The BBC are threatening me for not paying their tax simply because I have an internet connection, regardless of whether I actually visit the BBC streaming web sites (now it seems like ITV and CH4 could go the same way).

With the introduction of these dongle tuners, I can foresee them further amending their exemption clause such that they can be allowed to tax PC owners (laptop or otherwise), regardless of whether they have internet access, simply because they could own a TV tuner dongle.

Make no mistake, they are already attempting to force us all into a position where it is impossible to not have to pay their fee/tax ('no subscription fee for Freeview' - makes me laugh); no doubt they will take this chance to further extend their anti-competitive behaviour!

Climate change blows out eco-boss's record bid

Person who stands to benefit from adoption of windfarms says...

... "windfarms are the way of the future"

Go figure!

I shouldn't knock him, Al Gore did very well by doing the same!

Scientology critics fight YouTube takedown notices

I would make a comment, but ...

...I fear it might be taken down, have my voice denied, be labelled as an SP, be made 'fair' game' and be sued ("deprived of property"), "injured", "destroyed" ...

Thank Hubb... God I never attended any of their auditing sessions, sessions where they try to discover my most intimate and sensitive information, otherwise they might be tempted to use it against me.

Yeah, Scientologists say it's a high crime for auditers to divulge such information (yes, they note every detail from auditing sessions into a file and lock it away, reassuring you that it's a high crime to divulge the information), but when a person is fair game, suddenly "any Scientologist" can do whatever they want with it "without any discipline of the Scientologist". Sweet!

Oops, time for me to go Anonymous!

Lies, damned lies and government statistics

ps Graham

I never accused anyone of being SCP staff; I merely asked if you were (yes there is a big difference). Claiming the words "Are you ..." are part of an accusation is yet more misrepresentation. This was a satirical question designed to highlight the similarity of behaviour between yourself and the SCP claims. The implication that you "must be" (your words) is entirely your own inference, and a fallacious one at that. I would have thought this was obvious; clearly I had overestimated you - my bad!

Go off and do your 'better things' - you couldn’t have handled this thing any worse!

.

Is ANYONE up for defending the SCP claims of the effectiveness of their speed cameras?

BBC article

I just read this and thought of this thread

“Speed camera torched in attack”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7569853.stm

I’m not going to allow myself to be diverted into a debate on the issues of speed camera vandalism by those less than ingenuous; what I would like to demonstrate is another subtle instance of RTTM, among other issues.

"In the past 20 years people have been killed on this corner so that's why it was put in - since then nobody has died.".

I can well believe the statement to be true; however, the bloke clearly implies that the camera is responsible for the subsequent fall in casualty rate. I hope we all now understand that the camera will only have been installed after a random, and more importantly: temporary increase of casualties (it’s most likely that none of these were due to drivers exceeding the speed limit [12th August 2008 09:01 GMT]), so it is a given that the accident rate will substantially fall again even without the camera.

The camera won’t have been there for long anyway, perhaps even only 1 year, so it’s not surprising that there are fewer events in the relatively shorter later timeframe (camera partnerships first formed in 2000).

Then there is the long-term national trend, where the overall national casualty rate was falling anyway (thanks to improvements in car design and post crash response and care)

I should also point out that that very same stretch of road has also benefited from other newly installed safety features: “Ilchester Road pedestrian crossing has been installed to provide a safe crossing for the northern pedestrian route across the A37. It involves a light controlled junction and is one measure that compliments the re-routing of HGV’s onto this route as part of an HGV Management Plan.” (www.somerset.gov.uk). This is another instance of ‘bias on selection’ – other unrelated safety features making the camera site (up to 5km long) more effective than the camera itself actually is. Funny how those other critical safety features weren’t mentioned at all, huh?

The end?

"Googlemaps does *NOT* give you an accurate impression of what the road is like"

Oh no, it just gives you a wonderfully clear overhead aerial photo so the strength of the bends can be measured without optical illusion or subjective bias. The fact that you’ve not even acknowledged my reasoning (1st para, 11th August 2008 12:59 GMT ), despite my subsequent prompt, leads me to conclude that you can’t justify your statement and hence don’t know what the road is actually like.

“If you want more proof”

Sorry, what was the other ‘proof’? Besides, your being in the area doesn’t prove you were at the point of interest.

"smear tactics..... discredit....."

Care to remind us exactly what your input has been throughout this thread? Your very first words within it were "I find it ironic that you refer to "Deception" and then say you're a member of the so-called "Safe Speed" site which is notorious for its own spin and using cherry-picked statistics to make its case."

Is that not a deliberate attempt from you to smear and discredit? Was this not your one and only intent in this thread? This was before I had first addressed you so you can’t blame my attitude towards you for your response. It wasn’t my presentation or attitude which you took issue with, indeed your first post made no mention of those (8th August 2008 19:43 GMT); it was merely because I am a safespeed member, nothing more.

“Trying to discredit me by asserting that I am being (in your opinion) "disingenuous"”

I didn’t just assert it, I justified it (3rd and 5th para, 11th August 2008 08:50 GMT). Your continued insistence to never get on topic only reinforced this.

You claim that my presentation and attitude are somehow wrong, that my arguments are ridiculous, fallacious, nonsense and spin, but you never ever explain how, you just keep saying that it is – is that not the very essence of disingenuous behaviour?

"As for the rest of your arguments, you attempted to discredit Anony mouse and myself with your implication that by disagreeing with you we must be "bigoted" "

Really? More smears on your part? I implied no such thing, only you did so (17th August 2008 21:46 GMT). Prove me wrong - can quote my offending text and explain the connection?

"you accused SCPs of being "EVIL" which is nonsense."

So why is it nonsense? I gave my reasoning (within that post: 8th August 2008 16:31 GMT) so you can't claim it is nonsense without some sort of supportive logic which counters mine - no?

"You also made the fallacious argument at the same time that cameras "cost lives" which is equally ridiculous"

Why is it ridiculous? I already gave my reasoning (same post): "misallocation of resource towards their own ineffective measures", so how is this not costing lives? How is the argument fallacious?

I suspect that you knew I was going to make you squirm by asking you those questions. It is pretty clear that, despite my previous prompting, you have no answer for them, so can anyone really be surprised that you’re now choosing to duck out of the debate? Prove me wrong!

This irrational, illogical and disingenuous behaviour is typical of those who dislike the safespeed campaign: usually those who don’t drive, or are SCP staff!

Back @ Graham Marsden

“not only stood at the *exact* point that the photograph in question was taken, but also ridden my motorbike along that road, so please also excuse me when I say that, unlike Anony mouse above, you clearly have *no* clue what you are talking about regarding the possibilities of speeding there unless you wish to have a very rapid encounter with an entirely unforgiving stone wall or an oncoming vehicle.”

It appears you wish to remain with your cherry-picking! It also looks like I have to repeat myself (see 1st para of 11th August 2008 12:59 GMT). I even gave the postcode of the actual location such that the reader could Googlemap it and form their own opinion, so much for ‘no clue’! Now if you care to answer the comments given within that post instead of saying “oh no it isn’t” in classic panto style then perhaps we can progress that issue – irrelevant as it is.

Actually, I fail to see why the reader should trust you given your clearly disingenuous behaviour, so I think the reader will forgive me for disbelieving your oh-so entirely coincidental choice of holiday location.

“As to "irony", I do entirely understand it, I also note that you don't seem to like it when it's used to point out that the arguments you use are as flawed and spun and silly as the ones that you are decrying.”

Yes you understand irony; the point was that you did it!

Exactly what about what was “flawed and spun and silly”? The RTTM argument? (you know, that thing we were debating until you tried to divert the debate). What I don’t like is your continued refusal to explain your claims and your attempt divert the debate – yet again!

I made the effort of explaining how illogical yours input was, also making further reference to the page in question (remember that graph I pointed out), yet you conveniently dismiss all these and make the same generic claim without any further substantive logic or evidence. And here it is: you are still remaining with your cherry picked example whilst avoiding the actual issue at hand – the exaggerated/fabricated claims of speed camera effectiveness. This nicely brings me onto the next point:

“The fact that you then accuse Anony mouse and myself of being "SCP staff" simply because we disagree with you shows the shallowness of your arguments.”

No I didn’t, please don’t misrepresent my words (which ironically is what SCP staff are doing, as per the debate). My exact wording was “and your continued insistence to totally evade the underlying and fundamental point further demonstrates your bigotry! Are you SCP staff?”, so where exactly was the bit that connects it to our ‘disagreement’? I think the reader is smart enough to realise that you’re desperately grasping at straws – “shallowness” indeed! Of course people can feel free to disagree, but no-one can be surprised when I scrutinise their opinion (to see exactly how we disagree) and make an example of anyone who I can show to be acting disingenuously.

“but neither do I therefore subscribe to the "bigotry" that all cameras are thus seemingly the Devil incarnate.”

Neither do I. To apply that to my input would be a misrepresentation of my position. I have already explained my opinion in the matter (8th August 2008 16:31 GMT). Given that, would you say that the claims of SCP staff are ‘the Devil incarnate’? (Remember, this is the point of the article/thread).

“"Safe Speed" might have some good points to make, unfortunately the way they (and you) present them does their cause no benefit.”

“Might”? What about RTTM?

The Safespeed campaign makes some excellent arguments, such as what we’re meant to be discussing: RTTM (here’s a very relevant webpage for you: www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html ). The real problem here is that there are some who simply refuse to discuss the issues (for whatever disingenuous reason), then they try to divert the blame to safespeed/others for their refusal to discuss it. I suspect you don’t like the way my argument is presented simply because you cannot fault the actual argument at hand, the one demonstrating the SCP manipulation! (well look at your input so far – all cherry picked, all irrelevant, none substantiated [by means of reason or evidence]).

So are you going discuss the issue at hand: the difference between the claimed and the actual level of speed camera effectiveness, or will you instead continue to refuse to discuss it and try divert the topic - again?

@AC

"We need to look back at the real cause of the accidents. It is **NOT** always speed !"

Let me show some factual data to backup that statement (whilst remaining on topic). The ‘Contributory factors to road accidents’ (dft_transstats_612594.pdf) report corroborates the general argument that the effectiveness of speed cameras is significantly overstated. It shows the percentage of KSIs caused by exceeding the speed limit, the ONLY behaviour a speed camera can possibly change, is surprisingly small: “Exceeding speed limit was attributed to 3 per cent of cars involved in accidents” (page 11). That figure includes joyriders and those who improperly register their car; neither will get an FPN via a speed camera, yet these are the most dangerous driver groups of all.

I feel it is wrong for dawdlers to get such level of blame. They are well within their moral right to drive at speeds lower than the speed limit, so long as proper lane discipline is used. They may not even know they are doing it, speedos are allowed to overread by quite a lot (10% + 6.25mph). Of course you get the occasional ‘pace car’ (or cycle) who seeks to block people passing them; this of course leads to further poor behaviour.

I’m not convinced that mobile users are having a significant impact on the fatality rate. If they were then there should have been a significant drop in fatalities when the legislation banning hands-on use was enacted. There was no such drop. Furthermore, the contributory factors stats show there is no impact from mobile phone use.

@ Dave Bell and Mr Ropey

Gatsos can be set to differentiate between HGV and PLGs, this done by examining the signal return strength. Tuvelos can also differentiate by using inductive loops buried in the road at the sensor which guesstimates the weight of the vehicle.

Mr Ropey: there must be an operator who must check the details of each offending vehicle before the FPN is sent; this is the only safety net (short of well informed individuals fighting their case). However, when some SCP staff act link this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/7487966.stm

it makes you wonder how dirty their other unseen laundry is, not just their statistics.....

@Anony mouse

I was going to let you have the benefit of the doubt, but then I decided to Googlemap it [EX33 1LZ]. Are you kidding me? It is perfectly possible to exceed the current speed limit through there (assuming no obstacles of course); those bends are not sharp at all, not in terms of either angle or radius. A road not wide enough for two will still hold just one doing way in excess of the speed limit. I'm sure a nutcase could do 50 on Hobb's hill (and probably does just that during the small hours) - yes it would be risky, but possible. A 'blind left' makes for a not so blind right from the other direction; nor does it make for a slow left; nor does it not make for a hard brake just beforehand (which is kinda the point of that webpage).

This cherry picking (on Graham's and your part) is irrelevant anyway - I did also highlight what was mentioned regarding the setting of the speed limit on that road. Graham’s tactic has backfired, and your continued insistence to totally evade the underlying and fundamental point further demonstrates your bigotry! Are you SCP staff?

Are they merely testing the water?

We know the SCPs are spouting crap; we also know the government are standing by them and their crap. Could it be that the government are deliberately letting the SCPs spout their crap such that they can gauge the level of stupidity of the electorate? Getting away with something as well known, obvious and irrefutable as RTTM (and bias on selection), let alone getting continued public support for the policy based upon it, sets the bar for further unaccountability and cover-ups of self serving interests.

@Graham Marsden: spellcheck

got the better of me. Replace ingenuous with disingenuous, to correctly describe your response.

So much for 'cherry picking'

@ Graham Marsden

You don’t understand irony do you.

You say that Safespeed is notorious for cherry picking examples, so let’s review your own comment. I gave a string of arguments which address the point of the article; you responded directly to me by: not responding to the article, not responding to any of my comments, and - cherry picking - an example from the website, oh dear!

BTW, I strongly suspect it is possible to exceed the speed limit on that shown road. I think it safe to say that it’s very unlikely that you’re a driver yourself, hence you won’t be able to appreciate exactly what a dangerous driver behind a wheel is capable of.

More to the point: look at the graph shown with it, it suggests the threshold speed for action (indeed the speed limit itself) for that shown road is too high - well I never! If only you hadn't cherry picked an interpretation of the section you had cherry picked, your argument may not have made you look so silly.

Now, do you fancy staying on topic or should I continue showing you up for the ingenuous fool that people now suspect you are?

@ AC,

It seems ad hominem really does become those who simply will not allow themselves to consider (let alone accept) the arguments given.

@ the various morons who say “don't speed. It's that simple.”

You completely miss the point of the article. Yes if people didn’t do the crime they won’t pay the fine (mostly), but the point here is that the policy has been shifted towards unnecessarily unnaturally low limits and their subsequent enforcement BECAUSE of the deception perpetrated by those who gain from rolling out the enforcement – their lies. If our road safety policy was based on good science, then people would be less inclined to exceed the better suited speed limit, both accidentally and purposefully. But hey, don’t let the facts and reason get in the way of your trolling! In fact, no-one seems to have mentioned that the limits keep being lowered to ensure a revenue stream for the SCPs.

@AC

“The camera van will still only catch YOU when YOU are breaking the law.”

Incorrect. The camera will only catch you when you are exceeding the limit. Break the law in any other way and you’ll get away with it. You can even exceed the speed limit and get away with it if another particular law is broken (that’s why the most dangerous drivers are now getting away with it).

@ John Imrie and Scott Broukell

“Attach a large metal cone to the steering wheal … See how carefully drivers now drive.”

For one no driver would advocate those; also your language implies that you are not drivers. You are obviously cyclists who are out for a troll.

@ Greg

“You agree to them when you get your licence.”

No we didn’t! You obviously didn’t take a driving test (or you didn’t pass it).

@ JimC

“And the only way to change peoples habts will be to make the cameras more or less invisible”

Why does no-one ever suggest a review of the speed limits instead? Surely if so many people are breaking the law without posing risk or being inconsiderate, then the law must be fine tuned? (note, I support the principle of speed limits and their enforcement, but not when the setting of the limit is so unreasonable).

@ Lee

“It does not follow that RTM would actually occur on a particular blackspot.”

It does but you don’t have all the information. The site must have a significant (4KSI) and temporary (3 year baseline) increase in accidents for it to become a camera site, the camera policy dictates it. Hence it is not surprising that the KSI rate falls after the baseline – when the camera is conveniently installed!

And it is not a “tax on the stupid”. Many of the speed traps are hidden behind bushes signs and other street furniture. Sure there are signs warning drivers of their presence, but there are also many signs in areas where there is no enforcement, hence the signs have lost their value so people can be forgiven for not knowing about the enforcement.

The really sad thing is: no-one here knows the real reason why limits are so important (no, its not about the likelihood of a fatality when hit). If people understood why then they would also understand why I am tolerant of ‘speeding’ drivers.

PS, I’ve never been caught by any form of speed camera – ever!

Smeggy (member: safespeed.org.uk¬)

Getting back to the point:

RTTM (and ‘bias on selection’ to a lesser extent) is a well known phenomenon and has been for many years, yet the SCPs choose to gloss over these critical facts - is this not DECEPTION? (or are you telling me that not one of 2000 full time SCP staff have not ever heard of it, in the last 4 years?)

Furthermore, the SCPs are gaining an advantage (their revenue stream) by doing so – is this not FRAUD?

Furthermore, the SCPS are committing fraud at the cost of misallocation of resource towards their own ineffective measures resulting from their deception, hence costing lives – is this not EVIL?

THIS IS FAR WORSE THAN YOU REALISE – PLEASE READ

I have spent a long time doing in-depth research in to the area of the claimed effectiveness of speed cameras. Yes, RTTM takes up about half of the fall, but there are other separate and independent factors which are also never considered.

One of the long term-trend where non-local improvements (such as car design, post-crash response and care) have lead to casualty reductions. This has been analysed and accounts for about 1/5th of the drop.

A more significant factor is ‘bias on selection’ where one or more other local safety measures are introduced within a camera site (such as pedestrian crossings/barriers, junction re-engineering, cycle lanes – the list goes on), any of which are individually far more effective than the camera (I have document proving this). Although this effect has never been analysed, it would likely account for MORE than the remaining 3/10ths of the fall; this means the camera effectiveness IS LIKELY TO BE NEGATIVE (i.e. they cause accidents) but we would not know it due to the positive contributions from the other local measures. The RTTM analysis was done for urban areas only, so one can expect multiple improvements to be done within the defined range of urban camera sites. Indeed the SCPs often state that their camera will be ‘one of a range of measures taken at the site”.

Furthermore, the rural data was never released by the partnerships – and preliminary analysis showed that the RTTM figure for rural areas is even greater (this is mentioned in the appendix of the forth year report).

All these lies have caused a serious misallocation of road safety resource, that’s why road deaths (per unit distance travelled) are not falling. If only people took time to understand how we are being mislead.

Smeggy (member: safespeed.org.uk)

Windfall taxing big oil: how to make the gas crisis worse

Stupidity: them or us?

"Is it that those politicians, with their groups of extremely expensive and presumably highly intelligent advisors, are not intelligent enough to see that their plans are entirely counter-productive? Or is it that they know they are, but think that we the voters are too stupid to understand it ourselves? ®"

Given the RTTM debate on speed camera effectiveness (an example from El Reg:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/08/speed_camera_figures/ )

I tend towards the latter

Olympus SP-570 UZ 'superzoom' camera

People, calm down

This is not a professional camera, of course the image won't be great but don't turn your noses up at it. They fill a void which 'daddy cameras' do not cater for. What they boast is an all-in-one solution which is overall easy to use and has some great features (compared to proper cameras). I have a friend who owns the Rebel Xt who found it too cumbersome to keep changing lenses for different shots, this usually meant that he missed the shot - so what's the point of spending all that money for a shot you missed? So he brought himself a superzoom too, purely for the convenience and speed of setup. Yeah it was relatively crap, yet he was happy with his move - why? becasue he got his shots!

You’ll find the image quality for this camera (noise, chromatic aberration, barrelling etc) to be par the course for these cheaper pro-sumer units; those can mostly be fixed in post processing if need be anyway. Thanks to image stabilisation, the user can always drop the ISO to get decent photos – I only ever use ISO 50. Apart from the loose barrel I'm dead happy with my SP550, I can take it anywhere and can get some really natural shots of people. It does everything - not brilliantly but it does it.

Anyone who ever pays RRP is crazy.

My own review

This camera is old news.

I tried this camera many months ago (I also own the SP550, as well as the C750 so I know what to expect).

I like the SP range of cameras due to the pre-capture function. This camera has taken lots of pretty good quality photos, in quick succession, before you’ve even pressed the shutter. This function has given me many a good laugh!

One downfall of the 570 is the response of the zoom ring. It is not mechanically linked to the optics so it just 'feels' wrong, as well as a bit slow.

Why do Olympus insist of remaining with the painfully slow XD format? (low power means nothing if it is slow).

I like the format of the control on the 570, you can get to all the functions very quickly, but it is aimed at those who want to use these functions; others less geeky may not appreciate it.

RAW is absolutely useless on these cameras. The imager is too noisy (well it is small), even in ISO 50/64 mode the noise level is at least several bits in 8 bit mode anyway, so why bother with 12 bits? I found it is best to remain with jpeg to get rid of some of that noise.

£390 is a bit steep. Even LCE charge a lot less than that. The last time I looked on Ebay I could get one from a reputable seller for it for not much over £200.

Note: 20x is the range of the zoom (from wide to tele), it is a 0.75x to 15x zoom.

My verdict, I remained with the 550 (and that has its own flaws).

El Reg tells you what the Highway Code can't

touchy subject for Ross perhaps?

"Average speed cameras do rock - there's a section on the way to Braintree and the traffic just flows freely as you don't get the 'tards doing the whole accelerate/over brake thing."

Of course you still do - at the entry point of the first camera; heck you even see people do it again at the second (they probably didn't spot the first one).

"It may well be, but given that plods cost an awful lot of money to employ, train and equip, wouldn't it be better to let average speed cameras do the easy job of reminding ppl there's a speed limit,"

Why does no-one ever consider the option of letting the plods recover their expenses via court proven cases of dangerous driving?

Cameras only remind people after the event, by then it’s too late!

"The fact that you don't agree with a speed restriction does not give you carte blanche to ignore it."

I agree, but what if the majority of drivers do it, in complete safety and consideration with others?

"write to either your local Traffic Management department at the local council"

You mean the people who have something to gain (albeit not directly) by applying such restrictions in the first place? (PS, I might add, I’ve started writing to MPs drawing their attention to the facts regarding true camera effectiveness).

"Grow some balls. I'm sorry, but if you do wrong (in this case speeding) and you know you;re doing wrong, then just suck it up if you get caught. Don't bleat about "human rights" or "natural speed limits". Just pay the f***ing fine ok?"

Grow some brains?

Your statement would have been technically correct if you had said 'if you do something illegal', not 'wrong'. We have reached the point where wrong != illegal. Besides, do authorities really consider the interests of the populous instead of their own little empire? I think not given the RTTM debate!

The concept of natural speed limits has already been proven (as I've already highlighted).

PS, I've never been caught, never had to pay the fine - so you can't accuse me of 'bleating'.

Some enlightenment for all you speedophiles (those truly obsessed with speed)

I'm obsessed with those obsessed with speed...

@ Sceptical Bastard

"Eh? WTF is a 'natural' speed? And who are you to decide what is reasonable?"

Actually there is already a system to derive a safe speed limit. It is done by removing a limit and measuring where the resultant 85th percentile (of vehicle speed) is – you see, it is a proven fact that those who drive at the 85% speed (remember, with no limit in place) are those least likely to be involved in an accident.

The flip side: should we really be leaving such decisions to those to gain from defining (as well as encouraging) criminal activity?

@ ShaggyDoggy

The point of cameras was supposed to be to make the roads safer – not vehicles slower; they actually only managed to make money.

@ EVERYONE

the claims of speed camera effectiveness has been PROVEN to be a gross exaggeration (by about a factor of 5), indeed that was the case 3-4 years ago (and even that analysis was optimistic, the overall figure could be negative). This has resulted with misallocation of resource – towards these ineffective measures.

The ‘Contributory factors to road accidents’ (dft_transstats_612594.pdf) report corroborates the general argument that the effectiveness of speed cameras is significantly overstated. It shows that the percentage of KSIs caused by exceeding the speed limit, the only behaviour a speed camera can possibly change, is surprisingly small: “Exceeding speed limit was attributed to 3 per cent of cars involved in accidents” (page 11), and that figure includes joyriders and those who just can't be bothered to learn to drive or register their car properly.

@ John Stirling

"That second graph is very enlightening, particularly the left hand scale. Quite clearly it is not possible for that trend to carry on indefinitely, otherwise sometime around 2030 accidents would start to cause people to rise from the dead each year."

Your understanding is incorrect. The graph uses an exponential scale - it can never reach 0 or go negative regardless of the curve shape. One would expect an exponential type decay for a working policy, hence the graph and the axis is quite correct.

"Unfortunately in the absence of a control group I guess we cannot be sure."

A control group is not needed, the illusion has already been proven using the Empirical Bayes method (the Four year report - appendix H).

Regardless, your comment only reinforces my point, how can the SCPs make such grandiose claims when we ‘cannot be sure’?

"well you shouldn't be speeding"

How predictable! Two people have mentioned this without actually commenting on the point of the article and my post.

To address the disingenuous statements: the problem is that the speed limit has been ratcheted down to what is now generally considered to be unreasonable or unnatural speeds. The end result is that the powers that be are making limits increasingly difficult to abide by, unintentionally or otherwise. One has to consider the possibility that speed limits are being lowered to ensure a steady revenue stream for the SCPs - well they've already repeatedly, knowingly committed the sin of capitalising on the RTTM effect (among other sins).

Is it really surprising the drivers don't respect limits which earn only disrespect?

@Vincent Curry

For the last few years, the number of deaths has remained static and the number of miles driven has not been increasing (in fact just recently it has started dropping due to prohibitive fuel costs).

This is a better (and more up to date) graph:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trend2005.gif

(The vertical scale is road deaths per million vehicle kilometres. The red line is actual data from Department for Transport. The yellow bar is a 'least squares fit' on the curve from 1950 until 1994 with the width of the bar representing 95% confidence intervals). Very telling, especially when considering the 2006 and 2007 data!

RTTM

Wow, yet another group who understands the illusion of regression to the mean. Isn't it amazing how all theses unpaid amateurs understand the effect and significance, but not one of the 2000 full time, paid SCP staff (spread across 40-50 partnerships) ever mention it, even though this effect (alone, yes there are other illusions which must be accounted for) knocks off ~80% of their magnitude of their claim. I don't think there can be any doubt that they know that RTTM exists and is very significant, they are knowingly giving misleading statements while obtaining an advantage (their revenue stream) - I believe that's fraud.

I await the usual ill thought through, fallacious (and irrelevant) responses of 'removing cameras will result with a free-for-all' and ''you shouldn't be speeding anyway'.

Smeggy out!

Jeremy Clarkson tilts at windmills

unfallible

(sp)

Drivers who pull close in behind trucks at the cameras are proof these things improve road safety!

Mine's the one hidden underneath another!

Prius hybrid to get rooftop solar panel

The end

“Useful …” against “false economy…” – meaning ‘not useful’; there’s your connection.

I can’t say I’m concerned with your comment if that’s the most significant gripe you have with my arguments; it’s not like your own arguments and behaviour commanded respect anyway!

Unless your future comments sincerely add to the debate I will refrain from responding to you, so feel free to end with the inevitable silly parting shot.

It seems like this debate has concluded anyway.

For the hard of thinking.....

I'm not saying we should avoid such devices, I never have (that's a strawman fallacy); I AM saying we shouldn't be misallocating what could otherwise be a useful resource.

Back at Jimmy

It would be a strawman fallacy to say that I implied “solar cells should not be left in the sun because they degrade”, I said that it would be so if the cells are NOT IN USE (or at least not used at a decent power output). They will still degrade when left in the sun even if no power is taken from them.

“ New cars (whether hybrid like the Prius or pure electric like the Tesla) will need to be fitted with adequate spare charging capacity so that as much energy as possible is stored from the cells when the car is not in use.”

Agreed, but that makes the payback/CO2 footprint situation even worse. This requires a bigger, or more likely, a second battery must be used. Current lead acid devices last about 4 years before their capacity tails off.

“Unfortunately the Prius does not do this”

Exactly, it is a PR stunt!

The picture is bigger than simply saying “it must be demonstrated that car solar panel manufacture takes up less energy than they generate in their average lifespan.”. The panels will be utilised only when the car is being driven, if not then consideration must also be given to the resource needed to store the otherwise ‘unused’ energy.

The only real considerations are cost to customer and net oil use (which inherently includes CO2 footprint). I think we can now discount cost, especially as Toyota won’t charge the customer at the cost of the cell. Oil is debateable due to the resource (not just oil, which isn’t the only unsustainable ingredient) needed for the cell and multiple, relatively short lifetime batteries.

Again considering the bigger picture: the ‘other mandatory car features’ will save money by helping to prevent accidents, deaths and other health issues. This reduces police and hospital bills (and ultimately the cost to the taxpayer) and insurance costs.

The government would not lose money if we all used electric cars, they would continue to screw the motorist by rolling out a congestion charge, which is exactly what they’re already trying to do. I’m ambivalent about oil giants losing money; I would be much happier with no longer funding unstable and inhumane regimes.

Please note, I didn’t suggest we should have ‘fields’ of these things, I mentioned the issue merely for warning about large scale heat trapping.

I agree the concept of panels on cars could become useful when more advanced tech becomes available and cost effective, but today’s PR stunt is a false economy and is resulting with misallocation of resource.

I’m in the midst of taking legal advice from patent lawyers.

To Jimmy

1) Current estimates are 20-30 years for the latest generation quality cells, but I very much doubt Toyota would spend that much money on the latest and greatest tech (especially as it won’t be used optimally).

2) Yes some UV gets through (about 1/3 to ¼) but others (who I will no longer let bring me down to his level) seem to think that clouds being transparent to UV will make everything OK even though the UV accounts for less than 5% of the useful energy received at sea level.

As I already said, I don’t believe this additional panel will do much to reduce the CO2 footprint (if you believe we should be doing so).

The difference between solar panels and (non-dark) paint is that paint will re-radiate mostly at 3000-6000 K, not 300K (visible wavelengths, not IR).

3) I said ‘many people’ wash their car, not “everyone”; now everyone with a panel would have to (to aid towards optimal use) – which was my point ;c)

4) Airbags, seatbelts, fog lights, headlights are all useful (some in certain circumstances), they help prevent occupants (and other road users) from dying, so on average they all add significant value even though they don’t earn money. Car tax and this additional panel aren’t useful, don’t add value but yes: they do earn money - but not for you. Leaving the car in the sun more will completely kill the argument about the benefit to aircon (hot car). Also, doing so will also accelerate the decay of the cells and paintwork. When the car is not being driven and it’s not used to charge or power something at maximum possible panel power, what’s exactly is the point of keeping it in the sun when not in use? The engine will have already topped up the battery (it has to otherwise one risks not being able to start the car). All it will do give ~1W to power the alarm and battery and convert the other 99% of the energy to IR and heat.

Damn that is a good point; for me that completely kills the utilisation and payback aspects.

5) Expensive but efficient panels, accounting for non-optimal factors, will result with insignificant payback. Inexpensive but inefficient panels, again accounting for non-optimal factors, will result with insignificant payback. Either way it doesn’t work with today’s tech. If people want to make real use of the energy they provide then they should rip them from those cars and use them more optimally, like strategically placed/angled roofs, or better yet on motorised beds, not on cars.

Now I think of it, this is where the harm is. The false notion that these things are useful has resulted with misallocation of what would otherwise have been a useful energy resource. Regardless of panel efficiency, we should wait for panels to used on all houses before we even consider mounting them to cars; the latter also being at significantly greater risk of breakages through crashing or vandalism – or even being stolen!

Couple that with the fact that you’ll never utilise full possible power anywhere near the maximum possible time (when mounted onto the car), it’s a dead duck. In fact, it's likely that the use of it on a car as increased the CO2 footprint (negative 'net energy') - how ironic!

@ Mark

Well well, trying to divert again are we. Why don’t you give me the education that I asked for instead of acting so silly? I could apply your quote of 8th July 2008 14:37 right back at you (which would be correct when considering your statement about the UV).

If you still cannot state what portion of power is still received then all you had to say is that you don’t know instead of making your stance look even more desperate. Your second post is still cherry picking, there are yet other factors which you somehow missed. All these factors ADDED TOGETHER make a significant difference – something you still don’t seem to understand or accept.

“Therefore, measurements of how much solar energy that hit the ground in the UK may take such geometrical configurations into account.”

You say ‘may’, so don’t you know? Solar panel manufactures always state the output power assuming optimal usage, they leave the trivial utilisation calculations to the end-user – unless you believe they ship them stating a correction factor for each country <boggle>

Regardless, the earlier calculations I referred to had obviously assumed perpendicular incident light.

@ Jimmy

“So it'd take at least 10 years to earn your money back.”

Thanks for your calculations (at least someone seeks to justify their opinion). An additional problem is that the useful lifetime of solar cells is finite. Quality cells last about 20 years but the power output starts dropping off way before that; hence it may never pay for itself – even if your car keeps going.

“You can't argue with those kind of figures.”

Actually I can. The cost saving is offset, likely completely offset, by the amount you pay for it. The oil saving will be offset (by what amount I don’t know) by the resource (not just oil) used to extract/manufacture/transport it. Modern cells are indeed net energy producers, but only when used optimally. As I have already highlighted, in this application the usage is far from optimal.

RE greenhouse effect: apart from the fact that you seemed to have assumed that all paintwork will reflect back (or course it won’t) - that’s exactly how it works. Today’s inefficient solar are indeed excellent radiators of heat – at different (much longer) wavelengths than what is received. The received light passes straight through our atmosphere (apart from the UV, something which still hasn’t clicked with Jimmy), but the re-emitted IR doesn’t pass straight back through.

I’ve had sections of my white Toyota totally blackened out during prolonged wet phases (yeah, that was funny to see); saying that my panels are usually a shade of brown. Your dirt could be absorbing all the red and blue wavelengths (even some of the green) leaving the green to bounce off your dark green paintwork and you wouldn’t know it. Why do so many people regularly wash their cars when our ever recurring, cleansing rains are so good at the job!

“i wonder what our world would be like if all cars had to be sold with solar cells incorporated into their bonnets and roofs (and somehow hybridised or pure electric engines)? Would it be so bad?”

Of course not, but as I said before, it is a bit pointless when considering that power/resource saving is the aim of the game (based on today’s cells). Now there IS a legitimate use for such panels, but seeing as I’ve seen no mention of it anywhere I might go off and patent it (don't think I'm kidding, I've spent today writing one [for a different field]).

Let's discuss the panel, not the mileage

@ Mark:

Ah the old fallacy of tu quoque mixed with ad hominem. If you cannot stand by your statement then please don't act disingenuously. Don’t forget that I mentioned several factors, not just that one which you have again cherry picked...

@ Jimmy:

You are right about the dark cars, but that's a diversion and doesn't take away from my point - which is amplified if we're to consider all cars and vast fields with these things (as they currently are).

"the actual surface area of 24 million cars is enough to collect a silly amount of energy."

Yes, it does seem a little silly when that energy is distributed among 24 million cars!

“no one seems to mind the extras that are added on for such luxuries as metallic paint work, go faster stripes, airbags, airconditioning”

At least one gets something desirable and/or useful (the luxuries), I can’t say the same for the panel.

Rain does not shift the dirt from my car (yes I made the mistake of buying a white car, anyone who owns one will tell you that rain doesn't do jack).

Yes, someone has to start these things off, but let's start with something useful, not a PR stunt which claims to be something which it isn't. The more times the environmentalists cry wolf, the less likely society will believe them when there actually is a real problem – that’s what will kill the planet!

Oh yes, it wasn't me who stated 10% in term of air con usage - I actually stated that the whole concept was flawed from the start (hot roof anyone?)

clouds and 2@s

@ Mark:

"clouds are transparent at UV ranges. It hardly ever blanks out the majority of sunlight either. We don't get huge deep nimbus clouds for long in the UK."

So tell us exactly what average percentage of power we can get when on a typically cloudy day compared to direct sunlight. UV isn't the only component of the received light (in fact in terms of energy it is a small portion of it), just as that wasn't the only factor that I had pointed out.

@ Frank Bough:

"Fitting a 50W panel into the roof of a Prius won't do anyone any harm, "

You miss the point, that might be correct but it won't do much use either - which is the original point: it's a PR stunt.

"and will help cool the interior "

How exactly does a 1kW hot roof keep the car cool? (while the solution to that might be obvious, it will result with the panel's lifetime being severely reduced).

PS: be careful about quoting drag coefficient, it is not a proper measure of drag.

@ Jimmy

To reiterate some points I made earlier which the pro-panel people seem to have missed:

- The sun is never directly overhead, or more correctly, never perpendicular to the panels. This means that a 1msquare panel will not get 1msquare of sunshine. This gets worse the further away from midday it is.

- Clouds and rain (especially in old Blighty but obviously isn't so much of a problem in the US).

- A quick glance outside shows that all cars of carparks in sight get direct sunlight for about 50% of the day - that's buildings for you.

- Then you have to keep the panels clean. Any buildup of dirt will reflect/absorb the light.

So Jimmy, you can divide your result by at least 4. So what will the return of investment of the fancy monocrystaline 20% efficient panels be now? (and it will still get mighty hot in the car, you won’t get anywhere near as much power from the panels to run the aircon to keep the car as cool as having a simple reflective roof – think of a fridge with the door kept open).

Make no mistake, this IS a PR stunt. Don’t get me wrong, I support the usage of elegant and non-particulate emitting solutions which electric based methods can deliver, but we are nowhere near that point; please don’t pretend that we are.

And for the ultimate irony: solar panels are a greenhouse device!

Instead of reflecting the sunlight straight back into space thereby bypassing any CO2 insulation, these simply absorb it and turns the great majority of it directly into heat which is trapped, so killing us all – that is if you subscribe to the notion that ending all human activity will prevent climate change (which high profile ‘green’ companies are implying).

Flame, because it has always been part of the cycle of life.

Some other spanners thrown in the works....

These solar panels will be fixed - they cannot be angled to be perpendicular to the sun (unless you want to add a heck of a lot more drag), so you can forget the additional 2.8MJ (as per Nigel's comment above), you'll barely get half of that.

Then there are shadows from trees and buildings (as well as from our obligatory clouds).

Then there's the additional weight and drag of the panels (probably not so significant but they add up).

All these factors together make me wonder if it is really worth it.

Then there's the fact they are 90% inefficient, that being turned into heat - put one of those on your roof and you'll need more power than the panel will provide to run the air con just to keep the car cool !!!

The war on photographers - you're all al Qaeda suspects now

"police state"

I'm not one for shouting "police state" at the top of my voice every time I hear such stories, but I can't help but tend towards that way when officers remain unaccountable for their incorrect actions; yet we the public are becoming evermore guilty until proven innocent.

I wonder what will happen if wireless cameras are mass produced such that the photos/stream can be broadcast live on the internet for literally anyone to record –where there’s no film/card to confiscate….

Do you know how much of your porn is extreme?

the '16 year old' issue

Can someon clarify:

I can legally f*** a 16-17 year old - out of wedlock ...

but if I take a photo of me doing so I become a paedophile ?!?

Tory trash talk fails to halt bin bugging plans

@ Liam

I agree, the main parties are all self-serving idiots, which is why I don't vote for any of them.

What we really need is an overhaul of the government such that we can vote (after a national debate) on individual policies, not on an ideology which is subject to change without notice (is there a party that offers that?). Opposing parties (and their inevitable catfights and cross party bribing) would become redundant - beautiful!

Quite right to get pissy 2

Well b,

I can only assume you're happy to pay two additional lots of taxes for a service that has become substantially worse and unfair, let alone poorly managed - yes?

Tax creep...

Our income taxes used to pay for regular collections.

Then poll/council tax was introduced to fund for the service (telegraph.co.uk: "At present the £125 of the average council tax bill goes to cover the cost of rubbish collection and disposal"), but the income tax didn't reduce.

Council taxes inexorably increased.

Now we have to pay again - again, for the same service, yet our council tax still goes up.

On top of that the collection rate substantially reduced (bi monthly, about to be made monthly), so the cost of the service is substantially reduced.

Then you have the 'two finger' rule where a binman will refuse to take the bin if they cannot move it using two fingers, even though they have 8 available per man.

Then there is the closed lid rule where failure to abide can get you a criminal record.

Then we have the 7:30am rule where putting out rubbish earlier than that on the day of collection will see you fined (I know people that leave for work at 6:00am, WTF should they do?)

God help you if you accidentally put the wrong sort of rubbish into the wrong bin, even if the council mixes it all up anyway.

Furthermore, it has been stated that a bin with a damaged chip will not be emptied.

As someone touched on above, a law will be / has been snuck in such that the bins have to be padlocked.

To those who voted these f***ers in: do you still believe you won? Don’t you instead feel like we are the laughing stock of the world?

Did you know that throwing paper/cardboard in a landfill acts as a carbon sink? (and a renewable one at that) - that is, if you believe we can really can ‘stop/curb/tackle climate change’!

Brits get iTunes movie downloads, rentals

DVD vs H264

@ TimM

DVDs are encoded with mpeg2. Mpeg4 H264 is far superior for the same filesize. I have the same films on original DVD and smaller file H264 720P - in comparison the DVD looks like a pirate copy.

Upscalers do nothing for quality (epsecially if there is subsequent pixel sharing in the display device).

@ Scott Mckenzie

I agree for the most part. Films that are encoded in 1080p rarely have better resolution than those in 720P (excluding animations), but they do appear smoother (less jaggies) when viewed close up; however, most people won't be able to see the difference when viewed from any nominal kind of distance.

IMO, H264 on DL-DVD is enough. The only reason why the two blue disks came out was to help prevent people 'backing up' their movies.

Me? I'll stick with iMule for now :c)

French FNARRista speed-cam bomber scores own goal

@ Steve Wallis

A recent DfT transport statistics report (612594) stated that just 5% of all UK road accident fatalities had one or more drivers involved exceeding the speed limit (and some of those are likely to have been within the trigger threshold of cameras anyway) - and that figure includes joyriders and the unregistered 'untouchables'. Furthermore, there are a statistical average of 2.4 contributory factors per fatality, so it is likely that many of those accidents may not have happened if one of the other factors had not come into play, even though the drivers were above the limit.

"What's that got to do with speed cameras?"

Nothing! I think it is you who needs to have a reality check.

@ dodgyedgy

"it means that people regularly break the law"

But did they set out to break the law, or even the spirit of the law? If not them some rather searching questions about that have to be asked. Remember, the law is meant to protect us; the loathing this one has instead attracted can only lead to disrespect for it. Disrespect for speed limits is a very bad thing!

"Also - The ones most likely to die after being knocked down by speeding drivers are children, so i have NO sympathy for anyone who speeds. In fact IMO the law isnt strong enough in dealing with people like this."

What about those who die after being knocked down by drivers within the speed limit? I could so easily say that I have no sympathy for the neglectful guardians of those children and that the law isnt strong enough in dealing with people like that (in fact there is no such law).

Do you care to tell us the ratio of those killed by a driver exceeding the speed limit against those killed by a driver within the speed limit? (1:20 I believe) From that I think we can deduce that the priorities of our current road safety policy are wrong.

PS, I'm not a camera hater (as you so ad hominemly put it), I'm a hater of their abuse. I suspect the majority of 'camera haters' as you put it, wouldn't have a problem with them if they were used reasonably.

@ Red Bren

"I am a pedestrian, cyclist and biker. I hope you don't think that not driving a car automatically invalidates my opinion?"

Of course not, but my considerable experience in these discussions has highlighed a distinct correlation between those who have opinions regarding the actions of the group they are not a part of, and greatly ignorant or just outright disengenuous behaviour. Let's see what happens.

"However if that is the law, then it should be enforced by the most efficient means possible or challenged democratically, not by vigilante actions."

Firstly: so how do we democratically challenge these unreasonably low limits? Elections isn't a valid answer because we only get to vote for an ideology (the definition of which subject to change without notice). Voting on the basis of a single issue makes one nothnig less than a fanatic!

Secondly: I tend to agree with you regarding vigilante actions, but one has to reconsider that law when a large part of the population commends, or at least can't bring themselves up to condemn, those actions.

Thirdly: cameras are a piss poor way of enforcing limits, let alone ensuring safety and consideration (which is supposedly the reason for the limit) ......

"However they do it with ruthless, tireless ... efficiency "

This statement is wrong. Cameras have been replacing (or at the very least: displacing) trafpol. As a result an underclass of drivers has emerged: those who drive unregistered or with false documents. These people do so deliberately to evade prosecution from such automated enforcement - they have become untouchable and drive at any speed they like. I don't think there is any doubt that this group is anything but low risk and are over-represented within crash/fatality stats! Could anyone disagree that this could go some way to explaining our loss of downward fatality trend?

@ Dominic Tristram

This law is meant to keep us predictable and conscientious, not to define arbitrary boundaries which inherently need enforcement - you are defending a law which currently directly encourages 'criminal' behaviour.

My point being: the limits MUST BE REASONABLE (something you completely glossed over). No-one wants to be a law breaker, yet many are (both deliberately and accidentally) - and so do in complete safety. Thus the law (as it is used) is an ass!

Speed limits ARE important, as is their enforcement; our problem is that they have been systematically abused, to generate easy revenue (for the SCPs), in the name of safety - at the cost of lives lost.

I guess you are another who will bury their head in the sand regarding the very telling UK fatality trend!

@Red Bren

I guess you are one of these people who fell 'hook, line and sinker' for the SCP's fallacious claims of camera effectiveness (look up RTTM and bias on selection). The simple fact is that limits are coming down to below reasonable levels and are being more strictly enforced, yet the UK has lost the downward trend of yearly road fatalities. We know cameras have been replacing real trafpol. We also know that one of these catch and immediately stop all manner of dangerous driving and the other detects only 1 specific type of technical infringement. Go figure!

Hopefully Karma will catch up with you (unless you don't drive - which would explain a lot).