Longrider

Via Leg Iron, this rather stupid story about righteous fuckwits trying to blame satellite navigation for road traffic incidents.

Fears that sat-nav devices may pose a risk to motorists follow research which showed that 78 per cent of crashes were caused by driver inattention.

Now psychologists at Lancaster University and Royal Holloway, University of London are to examine what they described as the “potentially dangerous effects of ‘SAT NAV’ in-car navigation systems.”

Um, bollocks, frankly – although the righteous keep telling us that accidents are caused by driving fast. I do wish they would make their minds up. Although, to be fair, “minds” is probably over-stating it.

I’ve been using satnavs since the days when I hitched my Psion Series 5 to a Garmin hand held GPS. I had to pull over to do it, but it was a useful aid to map reading. I could find out quickly where I was on the map. The handlebar mounted systems that came next were a real boon. Reading a map on a motorcycle is a pain. A rolling map and voice prompts means that I can concentrate on the road without having to waste attention on navigation. So, if anything, the technology makes my ride or drive easier and, frankly, safer.

…now researchers want to examine the impact of other sources of distraction including sat-nav systems which have become increasingly popular in recent years.

Why? There is no need for such research. The SatNav is a really useful tool for those of us out on the road all day who have to find new places on a regular basis. I don’t need any research to tell me that it makes my life easier – I already know this. I certainly don’t need any research to tell me that it could potentially be a source of distraction if I started fiddling about with it while driving. I have common sense. That tells me all I need to know.

In the study, researchers will analyse how drivers handle the information they receive from sat-nav systems and how they respond to it.

Sigh… When the system tells me that I need to turn left in half a mile, I look for the junction and then turn left when I get there. I can do this without losing my concentration on the road. Indeed, having a voice prompt rather than have to look for road signs that might no be there or find somewhere to pull over and look at a map, means that I can do so more efficiently. I can fucking multi-task, after all.

“If we see any worsening of attention or memory performance while people are carrying out the navigation task, this might indicate that the navigation system imposes demands on the participant which could be dangerously distracting”, said Polly Dalton, one of the researchers involved in the project.

Oh, for fuck’s sake! And if one has a passenger reading a map giving directions? Jesus, H Christ on a pogo stick! Have these people nothing better to do? Don’t answer that – rhetorical question. As LI points out, we can see where this is going. The bansturbators are looking for their next target. Just when technology has produced something that I find really useful and makes my daily drive that much easier, these bastards think it is within their brief to take it away.

“By the end of these experiments, we will be able to provide clear measurements of the ways in which the use of in-car navigation systems might interfere with attention and memory performance.”

It doesn’t. What happens is that my attention is on the road. If a situation develops that requires more concentration, I forget the SatNav – realising that I have mentally switched it off after the situation has passed. That’s how the human brain operates – it prioritises.

It is estimate that around 14 million drivers now use satellite navigation systems and in 2008 a poll of 2,000 motorists showed that one in five had made them hesitate on a busy road.

I’ve been using them for a decade now and not once has it made me hesitate. In fact, the opposite is true. I am more positive, knowing exactly which junction I want.

According to the same survey, carried out by Direct Line insurance, one driver in 50 said sat-nav had either caused or nearly caused an accident.

Nope.

Sat-nav systems have also been held responsible for drivers suddenly swerving or turning.

Nope. Sometimes, the system cannot keep up with complex road junctions – or, more accurately, I make a mistake or see the junction I want just a little too late. I simply carry on, ignoring the voice prompts knowing that the system will reroute. That’s the beauty of automatic routing – taking a wrong turn just isn’t an issue.

However a spokesman for Tomtom, one of the market leaders in sat -nav devices, denied the technology was distracting drivers.

“We have had two pieces of independent research which show that satellite navigation aids driving behaviour.”

“The evidence is that people feel more in control, concentrate on the business of driving and are less stressed.”

Quite. My experience echos that of Tom Tom. And, I’m really enjoying getting to know my new Garmin 1690. Jolly good, it is, too.

—————————————————————

Please… If you are itching to hit the keyboard with a drive-by comment telling me that you can read a map, so don’t need a SatNav, kindly resist the temptation. I’m really not interested.

Via Samizdata, a jaw dropping quote from the BBC ethical man site. I quote it in full so that you can truly appreciate its sheer awfulness.

The one commment that I read that made most sense was the one about over population.
Frankly the sooner we can persuade the catholics, muslims, and other ‘faith zealots’ that breeding billions extra followers is not needed and is putting their lives in danger the better, then finally we might find preachers telling people to use condoms, the pill etc. to reduce their own output of offspring.
WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER SINGLE HUMAN for at least the next 10 years! We don’t need them to provide for the old ones, we don’t need them to continue to hold unsustainably large number of humans in populations, we certainly don’t need them to avoid offending ‘God’ in whatever form he takes.
We DO need to reduce the human population DRASTICALLY, this one act will solve global warming, starvation, lack of medicines indeed most of the diseases. In a lot of respects I am saddened that the various pundits were so wrong about swine flu, the human population could do with a good 25% knocked out. Heres a nicer idea – restrict every woman to a single pregnancy, once she has had that then sterilize her, restrict every man to causing a single pregnancy, after that castrate him, stop ALL forms of artificial preganancy (test tube etc.) This way we will reduce the population – and quite quickly.

Now, I’m not going to get into the discussion about “ethical man’s” angst about the birth of his daughter. If he was really that concerned about the impact she will have on the planet, he’d have worn a condom or his partner would have popped a pill. They didn’t, so we can assume that “ethical man” doesn’t quite live up to his claimed ethics, and write him of as the rampant hypocrite that is the case with most watermelons.

But Dave Hitchman – the vile moron who made the above comment – is worthy of rather more than mere dismissal as a hypocrite. He is a reminder of the insane hatred of mankind that exists in the world. If you ever wondered about the type of people who could stand by and watch millions going to their deaths in gas chambers, then look no further. It is the Dave Hitchmans of this world that allow such evil to perpetuate.

Sure, there’s a discussion to be had about population and resources – although you can forget about the carbon footprint bollocks. Sure there’s a discussion to be had about sustainability in the third world. Sure, there’s a discussion to be had about religious fundamentalism that prevents the use of contraceptives. But for someone to wish for a pandemic that will wipe out a quarter of the population takes misanthropy and turns it into an art form.

Presumably Dave Hitchman isn’t including himself in that 25% – these arseholes never do. It’s always the poor and dispossessed who need wiping out. Or better still, the western middle classes. But not Dave Hitchman, we can be sure about that. And, presumably, Dave Hitchman will be nipping down to the local hospital to get himself castrated. No? Why ever not? Surely with his ethics, he will want to lead by example? Certainly the sooner his genes are removed from the gene pool the better for humanity as a whole. I do, however, find it amusing in a strange way that this man can accuse others of zealotry and come out with such hateful zealotry himself. The religion is different, that’s all.

I am a peaceful person. I have never owned a gun, nor wanted to (although I can shoot reasonably well). But, I have to say, Perry’s solution to this is appropriate:

A far better response, and dare I say a more ethical one, would be “your policy will indeed reduce the world’s population because people like me will put a 10mm hole between the eyes of totalitarian scum like you.”

Indeed. I do still have my bow. So a well aimed arrow will do as well, I trust?

Just as one case is not a justification for vigilantism, so too is one case not a justification for a national DNA database. Never mind, Sandra Laville tries to justify it anyway.

Since Colette Aram was snatched off the street and murdered 26 years ago, her mother, Jacqui Kirkby, has waited to see justice. Were it not for the DNA database and the retention of samples taken from those arrested for minor offences she would still be waiting.

Advances in DNA profiling, including the development of low-copy DNA, were not enough to catch Paul Hutchinson for the murder of Aram in 1983. He had never been arrested for a criminal offence and as such his details were not on the database to provide a match when police finally obtained a full profile of the killer through low-copy DNA last year.

It was only a familial link – provided via the DNA swab taken from a relative of Hutchinson following their arrest for a minor offence, that led detectives to the man who has evaded justice for nearly three decades.

Yes, all very well, but that it makes things easier for the police is not a justification for having us all on a database and it is not a justification for keeping DNA for those not charged or subsequently acquitted.

Campaigners against the retention of profiles for any length of time of those arrested would perhaps argue the image above is an emotive one, best not advanced in the debate at the heart of the controversy over the UK’s DNA database; the balance between the need for society to protect the privacy of its subjects while also maintaining their security.

Um, that’s because it is an emotive image and it is best not to advance it in this debate. The balance should always be in the interests of the privacy of the majority – the innocent majority who would otherwise be lifelong suspects.

But ask any police officer charged with informing a mother that their child’s naked body has been found lifeless in a field and they would say that murder and its aftermath are always an emotional business.

Indeed. However, it goes with the territory and keeping innocent peoples’ DNA is disproportionate and unjustified. And, in English law we are innocent until proven guilty – therefore once that innocence is demonstrated or charges dropped, there is no need to retain any DNA samples, no matter how much it might help the police in their fishing expiditions, no matter how much it might help to solve a cold case.

It is the position of Liberty and other campaigners such as Genewatch UK that DNA samples of those arrested for but not convicted of offences should be removed from the database as soon as a decision not to charge is taken.

Quite correctly.

They reject the government’s proposal in the crime and security bill that the DNA of suspects should be kept for six years and then removed.

Quite correctly.

But it would not be difficult to argue that their position, had it been policy, would have left Hutchinson at large for another two decades, if not until the day he died.

So it would. However, the capture of one murderer, desirable though that is, does not justify treating innocent people as lifelong suspects, much less the whole population as the database fans would like.

One solved case does not a summer make. If Ms Laville thinks it’s such a jolly fine idea, let her lead by example and trot down to the local nick and proffer her DNA.

Senior police officers sit in their offices across the country and seem baffled by the ferocity of the arguments over the DNA database.

That’s because they are authoritarian arseholes who would like to treat us all as suspects and believe that people who object clearly have something to hide.

They see the rows of numbers that fill the database detailing the profiles of 4.5 million people as a tool in their armoury, something as essential as fingerprinting.

And so it is – where those are profiles of guilty people. There is no justification for it to contain profiles of innocent people.

They admit they are not good at getting their message across and believe the agenda has been seized by civil liberties campaigners whose proposals police say would lead to fewer serious crimes, such as murder and rape, being solved.

Oh, they are getting their message across alright. That message being that they are authoritarian arseholes who would treat us all as suspects. That the civil liberties campaigners have seized the argument is a good thing, not a bad one.

Perhaps the likes of Jacqui Kirkby would have something to say on the subject. But she has never been asked.

No. Perhaps not. When the victims start to campaign for changes in the law based upon their case, we get bad results. The issue of law and order must be dispassionate, detached, impartial and balanced in favour of the innocent.

Following the Eurostar train failures today, the BBC was interviewing (if you can call haranguing someone while they try to answer your questions interviewing) Richard Brown, CEO of the company. The question being asked was why they did not get passengers off the trains more quickly. Richard Brown did explain why – in among the wittering and constant interruptions from the interviewer.

We did get them all safely out of the tunnel. Safety is our absolute priority as you would expect.

Quite. In any incident, safety is the initial priority. 

When you have a failed train full of passengers, the best way of managing the situation is to keep those people on the train. The railway environment is hazardous and if you let people wander around as they please, they have a tendency to get themselves killed. Frankly, if the incident involves anything less than a fire on board, then keeping those people on the train is the safest option. The best option by far is to get the train moving rather than have to rescue them. 

Passengers on two of the trains were taken out via service tunnels to car trains, while the passengers on the other three trains remained on board.

This seems to me to be a sensible and pragmatic method of getting people out as efficiently as possible given that the failed trains weren’t going anywhere fast. When dealing with incidents on the railway, utilising other trains is one option for getting passengers out of the situation.

While I understand the frustrations people experienced, as I’ve been on failed trains myself often enough, some of the hyperbole is bordering on the hysterical.

“It was terrible. We were treated like animals”

No, you were not. You were evacuated using a train not normally used for passenger transport in order to get you out as quickly as possible. It was uncomfortable. It was unfortunate. You were not treated like animals. I also noted complaints about lack of food. What do these people expect? The train is not equipped for an overnight stop in the tunnel. This was an unprecedented situation.

Okay, so why it took so long to rescue the failed trains is an issue that will doubtless be explained at the inevitable inquiry, and clearly Eurostar have some serious introspection to do here. Why their trains are so badly affected by condensation being one of them. Also, could they have managed the incident more effectively (should they have involved the emergency services?) – probably, being the answer to that one. Hindsight always illustrates missed opportunities. However, until then, from the reporting that I have seen, the train crews did the best they could in the situation and followed protocol.

A little less hysteria and one-sided reporting would be nice, but I’m not holding my breath on that one.

Once more, medics think that telling us what to do is more important than healing sick people. This time, that totalitarian, puritan, media whore, Liam Donaldson is lecturing parents.

Parents who allow their children alcohol at home may be increasing the chances of future drinking problems, says England’s chief medical officer.

Sir Liam Donaldson accused some parents of a “laissez-faire” approach and said letting children taste alcohol to ready them for adulthood was “misguided”.

Evidence showed that this could lead to binge drinking in later life, he said.

Really? Really? I do find myself becoming increasingly annoyed by the constant stream of totalitarian, puritan, interfering, busy-bodying arse-dribble coming from this evil little fat fuck. It is not up to this arrogant poltroon to decide whether parents are “misguided”.

My parents introduced me to alcohol at around the age of ten or eleven. Their rationale being that it would demystify it if I tried it in a controlled, supervised environment. And, did I go out binge drinking in later life? No. Indeed, I have never been drunk. Yes, really. On a couple of occasions I was a little light-headed and that was about it. By the time I was in my early twenties, I realised that it wasn’t all it was cracked up to be, and slowly stopped. At fifty one, I am teetotal.

However, Sir Liam described the idea of a glass of watered-down wine for a child as a “middle-class obsession”, and criticised the approach among some parents towards their children getting drunk.

The only obsession I observe is that of Liam Donaldson’s obsession with other peoples’ business. Indeed, his use of “middle class” as a pejorative term tells us that this man is nothing more than a nasty little puritan socialist and unfit for his job. A job, frankly, that should not exist.

“The science is clear – drinking, particularly at a young age, a lack of parental supervision, exposing children to drink-fuelled events and failing to engage with them as they grow up are the root causes from which our country’s serious alcohol problem has developed.”

Ah, yeah, the “science is clear” argument. Where have we heard that one before? Look, the dangers posed by excessive alcohol consumption are well known. If people choose to go ahead anyway, that is their business – not least, given that those “safe limits” are one hundred percent, gold plated bollocks pulled out of the ether and can be safely ignored as such. The only problem here is Liam Donaldson.

We should be left alone to decide for ourselves what is enough or not. We should be left alone to enjoy a dram or two should we so wish without the chief medical officer wagging his finger disapprovingly – because it is none of his business if we drink or how much we drink and if we choose to educate our children about it.

Where there is a problem as a consequence of alcohol abuse – punish the perpetrators for the crimes they commit. Leave the rest of us alone.

First they came for the hunters, but I was not a hunter, so I said nothing.

Then they came for the smokers, but I was not a smoker, so I said nothing.

Then they came for the fat people, but I am not fat, so I said nothing.

Then they came for the drinkers, but I am not a drinker… Ah, yeah, okay, I get the message.

The state is not your friend.

—————————————————

Update: James Dellingpole neatly skewers Donaldson.

But perhaps his argument might have carried a little more weight if Sir Liam didn’t have such a long history of crying wolf. This, remember, is the same doom-monger (“Private Frazer”, as The Spectator‘s Rod Liddle has nicknamed him) who cheerfully assured us that between 50,000 and 750,000 of us were likely to die of avian flu (actual death toll: zero) and that perhaps 60,000 of us would be finished off by swine flu (deaths in England so far: 178). Earlier this year, he put satirists out of business by inventing the concept of “passive drinking”. This, he explained, was a bit like “passive smoking” – only with booze instead of fags – and resulted in precisely 3,393 deaths every year.

Indeed. The best thing we can do with any advice offered by Liam Donaldson is ignore it.

That’s why, this Sunday, my children and I will be raising a glass to the final days of Sir Liam.

Quite right, too. And if I drank, so would I.

——————————————————

Another update: I see that CF writes almost word for word… Great minds thinking alike or fools seldom differing?

The ultimate goal of government should be promoting wellbeing.

Catherine Bennett is unconvinced that “it is the state’s business to meet those psychological needs” that the Young Foundation’s recent research has highlighted. She suggests that “since no nice person would want to set their face against general wellbeing”, using wellbeing as a political goal is utterly devoid of meaning. This inadvertently raises a crucial question: what is the overall goal of politics?

Catherine Bennet is right to be unconvinced and “wellbeing” whatever that may turn out to be is none of government’s business, let alone the overall goal of politics. Government exists to conduct those affairs that we cannot manage individually. Criminal justice, defence, public utilities possibly. Very little else, frankly. But wellbeing? Jesus Christ!

Economic growth is the most common headline measure of political success. Combating problems such as poor mental health or income inequality, although dismissed by Bennett, might also be candidates.

No. They. Are. Not.

In fact none of these pass muster in the role of ultimate outcome for societies. When examined closely, it becomes clear that they are all different means to the end of wellbeing: enabling people to experience their lives going well.

Absolutely nothing to do with government – indeed all it will do is lead to the agents of the state involving themselves in the personal and private lives of citizens. Something that we are experiencing far too much of already. It isn’t up to government to involve itself with our lifestyles, whether we drink, smoke, eat fatty foods, exercise (or not) – or how much we do of any of these things.

 It is about a life well lived, not short-term happiness or pleasure seeking.

Actually, I consider my life well lived by enjoying short term pleasure seeking. Hedonism rules.

Anyway, on checking out Juliet Michaelson’s profile, we get this:

Juliet Michaelson is a project manager and researcher at the centre for well-being, nef

Well, there’s a surprise. Juliet, my wellbeing is no one’s business but mine. Not yours and not government’s. So fuck off and take your wellbeing with you.

————————————————-

Update: Oh, yeah, it looks as if nef might just be a fake charity. Am I surprised? Cynic, moi? Surely not.

I’ve noticed this story mentioned in the past couple of days – with the usual recriminations against the forces of law and order.

Jail for ‘courageous’ Munir Hussain who beat intruder with cricket bat

It sounds typical of what we hear so often; the crim gets away with it and the householder suffers the penalty. And, frankly, who would not have sympathy for Munir Hussain?

A businessman who fought off knife-wielding thugs after his family were threatened has been jailed for 30 months.

Given the ordeal, I certainly have sympathy for him. But, but…

Hussain, 53, made an escape after throwing a coffee table and enlisted his brother Tokeer, 35, in chasing the offenders down the street in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, bringing one of them to the ground.

Now, at this point the danger to his family has passed.

What followed was described in Reading Crown Court as self-defence that went too far. Walid Salem, one of the intruders, suffered a permanent brain injury after he was struck with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces. Neighbours saw several men beating Salem with weapons, including a metal pole.

That’s why Mr Hussain was gaoled. This is not self defence and the law is perfectly clear on the matter. Had he used a metal bar while fighting off intruders, he might have got away with reasonable force. As it was, the danger had passed and it was time to hand over to the police.

So, yes, I have some sympathy, but the law is correct – just as it was with Tony Martin. While I do feel that the law should be more lenient with householders who defend their property – I certainly don’t want those householders getting away with dishing out their own version of justice after the event.

Well, after a drive through snow over the mountains, I’m home at last. Normal blogging will resume shortly. In the meantime, Here is a picture of Louis making himself at home.