Yet again...

The decision by Oxfordshire to switch off their speed cameras has reignited the debate about just how effective - or otherwise - they are. I've posted before about the fact that if speed cameras were doing what they are apparently designed to do - reduce the number of motorists exceeding the posted speed limit - the amount they generate in fines would reduce and slowly dwindle to zero. But this doesn't happen, quite the reverse in fact. On the other hand there are studies which show that there is a small but significant reduction in the number of accidents which take place at speed camera sites. So what do we make of this? My take is that it suggests that speed cameras have little effect on the speed at which motorists drive, but the fact that they are there does have the effect of making them drive more carefully. Which goes to support the theory that I have put forward more than once on this blog, that it's how you drive that matters, not how fast you drive.

Not seeing the obvious?

The images coming out of Pakistan of the flooding there are tragic and disturbing, but what I can't get my head round is that this isn't some natural disaster that's come out of the blue - this is the monsoon which happens every year at around this time. And Mother Nature is a fickle old girl, so it is inevitable that there will be years when you will get heavier than usual rain, just as there will be years when you don't get enough rain - and either of these events will produce problems - flooding from the first, and crop failures from the second. So my point is - surely you make sure that you have strategies in place to deal with these eventualities. The impression I get is that Pakistan just wings it and hopes for the best. Back to the drawing board perhaps?

Here we go again!

So the ContactPoint database (see post of 28/1/09) is to be scrapped. Can't say I'm sorry, but I think the scrapping is itself a cause for concern. Firstly, it seems that this is yet another example of a government computer program which has cost a fortune, and simply failed to deliver. Secondly, the government say that the data is being destroyed "using government-approved security standards and processes". Given their track record over data confidentiality, this hardly fills me full of confidence.

Oh yeh?

The Royal Mail is saying that town and county names are no longer necessary when addressing envelopes - all that is required is a house number, street name and postcode. So why is it that several times every year I get mail for someone who lives in a house with the same number as mine and in a road with a similar name, but with a completely different postcode?

TV Times.

Having slagged off the recent series of Doctor Who, I am delighted to give a plug to the BBC's new series Sherlock, a modern-day reinterpretation of Conan Doyle's characters. This is all that Doctor Who should have been and wasn't. Of course, the irony is that the same writer is involved in both series - so perhaps the failure (for me) of Doctor Who really was more down to Matt Smith after all?

Where now for off-beat knick-knacks and incense sticks?

Given the recent and current economic climate, it was inevitable that some retail stores would go to the wall, and it was pretty obvious that those trading in areas where there was a lot of competition would be most at risk. So it was not surprising to hear that Ethel Austin had gone into administration - there are an awful lot of similar cheap and cheerful clothes shops around. But they seem to have dragged Au Naturale down with them, and that's a great shame, because that leaves a big gap in the market place - Au Naturale was very much a one-off type of shop. I for one am going to miss it.

Compare and contrast.

I've posted before about our illogical approach to prison sentencing - here's another example. A man convicted of handling stolen property (not stealing it by the way, just attempting to sell it) has been sentenced to eight years in gaol. Eight years?? Why?? Purely it seems because the stolen item was a rare and valuable Shakespeare first edition. By comparison, the average sentence for the offence of handling is about 12 months, and indeed that for manslaughter is only around five years. Crazy, isn't it?

Sarah's Law.

Although made with the best of intentions, I have a specific reservation about the practical effects of this law which allows parents to check up on anyone who has access to their children to see whether they are on the Violent and Sex Offender Register. My concern is that the Register is not a database of fact - i.e. this person has been convicted of such-and-such an offence - but includes those who are "simply thought to be at risk of offending". Given that you cannot put the genie back in the bottle, the danger is that such people will be demonised despite never having done anything wrong. You may argue that this is a price worth paying for better protection for our children, but I personally have my doubts.

What is truth? - continued.

Here's another thought experiment. Suppose we have a time machine and we hop into it and go back some 300 years - let's say to the year 1700. We're here in what is now the West Midlands - would have been Staffordshire back then - and suppose something momentous happened in London. Let's say the King dies, quite unexpectedly. It would be at least something like 18 hours before we here became aware that this had happened. That's the minimum time it would take a rider, riding a succession of fast horses over rutted tracks, fields, hedges and ditches and stuff, to get here with the news - always assuming that he came straight here. Now the question is, during that 18-hour period, is the King alive or dead, here where we are? The obvious answer is, he's dead but we don't know it yet. But when you think about it, that's an answer we can only arrive at in retrospect, once we know he's dead. What is the situation during that 18-hour period? I would suggest he's alive - we have no reason to think otherwise, and I go back to my basic premise - reality (truth) is the sum total of the information available to us. Until the news reaches us, the status quo exists - he's alive. The upshot of all this is that information travels, and therefore reality (truth) travels. You can imagine the news of the King's death spreading outwards from London like ripples on a pond - the truth of the matter would be different depending on how close, or far away, you were from London. So the truth can be different for different people - spooky eh? And I've not finished yet!

Who are the real losers?

There's been much discussion about whether Formula One is a team competition or an individual one following Ferrari's decision to instruct Massa to let Alonso overtake him and go on to win in the last Grand Prix. Opinion "in the paddock" seems to be divided, despite the fact that the rules are clear that this sort of thing is not allowed, but there's one aspect of all this which seems to me to have been overlooked. In common with all sporting events, there is a lot of money gambled on Formula One races, so surely they owe it to those punters to make sure the races are run honestly. What about all those people who put money on Massa to win? They will feel - and rightly - that they have been cheated. Ferrari have been fined, and may indeed face further punishment, but that doesn't get these people their money back!