Big Brother EU gets its way again with car tracking deal

bompington

Veronese68 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

They have a manifesto?

I thought they just barked arbitrarily at things they didn't do or understand.

It's published in instalments, also known as the Daily Mail.

Well funnily enough the Mail endorse the Tories - but the Express actually do endorse UKIP!

elbowloh

bompington wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

They have a manifesto?

I thought they just barked arbitrarily at things they didn't do or understand.

It's published in instalments, also known as the Daily Mail.

Well funnily enough the Mail endorse the Tories - but the Express actually do endorse UKIP!

Not only endorse them, but Richard Desmond is their biggest or one of their biggest donors. I believe he gave them a million quid recently.

veronese68

bompington wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

They have a manifesto?

I thought they just barked arbitrarily at things they didn't do or understand.

It's published in instalments, also known as the Daily Mail.

Well funnily enough the Mail endorse the Tories - but the Express actually do endorse UKIP!

Poetic licence on my part I'm afraid. I've always said UKIP policy is based on the Daily Mail type headlines.

CYCLESPORT1

And the same to you with knobs on

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

CYCLESPORT1 wrote:

Vote for UKIP on Thursday
http://www.ukip.org/big_brother_eu_gets ... cking_deal

Dear Shithead

fark off

Yours,

The sane majority.

veronese68

Can't respond to questions about policy because they're too complicated to understand, but understands name calling. That's about right.
I think Greg got the balance in his response absolutely spot on there then.

davmaggs

Neal1984 wrote:

And if you are knocked unconscious? Or are trapped upside down in a ditch? I'm not sure why you are fearful of a system that can help you to be honest. Is it the slight increase in cost? Euro emission legislation cost many times this, do you think cleaner emissions are a bad idea as well?

Virtually zero chance of that happening.

At best you'd find the odd very rare case where somehow no-one else noticed a crashed car, and of that almost non-existent amount of missing cars where this device would actually be the solution. Let's say you/they do manage to drag up more than a dozen cases per year, that miniscule amount wouldn't be enough to justify the cost benefit analysis. The same money would save far more lives deployed elsewhere.

tgotb

davmaggs wrote:

Neal1984 wrote:

And if you are knocked unconscious? Or are trapped upside down in a ditch? I'm not sure why you are fearful of a system that can help you to be honest. Is it the slight increase in cost? Euro emission legislation cost many times this, do you think cleaner emissions are a bad idea as well?

Virtually zero chance of that happening.

At best you'd find the odd very rare case where somehow no-one else noticed a crashed car, and of that almost non-existent amount of missing cars where this device would actually be the solution. Let's say you/they do manage to drag up more than a dozen cases per year, that miniscule amount wouldn't be enough to justify the cost benefit analysis. The same money would save far more lives deployed elsewhere.

What about all the times the emergency services take longer to reach an accident because the person who reported it didn't know, or were unable to describe, exactly where they were? Next time you're driving along a random B road or country lane in the middle of nowhere, just think how accurately you could describe your current location, and how long it would take. With the rise of the Satnav generation, there are a huge number of drivers following arrows on a screen who don't actually know where they are. On top of that, you can add people who can't find their phone after an accident, or who have neglected to charge it.

Of course, arguments like this aren't going to influence the views of people who start with an opinion and then formulate their arguments to support it (ie your typical UKIP supporter).

veronese68

TGOTB wrote:

Of course, arguments like this aren't going to influence the views of people who start with an opinion and then formulate their arguments to support it (ie your typical UKIP supporter).

I have to take you to task on this bit. I don't think many of them have the wit to formulate an argument beyond blindly repeating whatever prejudices they hold.

davmaggs

TGOTB wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

Neal1984 wrote:

And if you are knocked unconscious? Or are trapped upside down in a ditch? I'm not sure why you are fearful of a system that can help you to be honest. Is it the slight increase in cost? Euro emission legislation cost many times this, do you think cleaner emissions are a bad idea as well?

Virtually zero chance of that happening.

At best you'd find the odd very rare case where somehow no-one else noticed a crashed car, and of that almost non-existent amount of missing cars where this device would actually be the solution. Let's say you/they do manage to drag up more than a dozen cases per year, that miniscule amount wouldn't be enough to justify the cost benefit analysis. The same money would save far more lives deployed elsewhere.

What about all the times the emergency services take longer to reach an accident because the person who reported it didn't know, or were unable to describe, exactly where they were? Next time you're driving along a random B road or country lane in the middle of nowhere, just think how accurately you could describe your current location, and how long it would take. With the rise of the Satnav generation, there are a huge number of drivers following arrows on a screen who don't actually know where they are. On top of that, you can add people who can't find their phone after an accident, or who have neglected to charge it.

Of course, arguments like this aren't going to influence the views of people who start with an opinion and then formulate their arguments to support it (ie your typical UKIP supporter).

Let's say for a moment that this is a genuine problem, then use the satnav you just mentioned or your smart phone to tell you where you are. They all give a grid reference (like the device you advocate) or can pull up a map. Smart phone take-up is already over 70% and by the time this device comes out will be higher again.

There's no upfront cost to the car buyer, no infrastructure cost to the telcos, there's no lock-in to a proprietary (single purpose) tech system needed at the 999 call centre, no ongoing maintenance costs (car or services), no standards body needed, less weight in the car etc etc.

If you really want a pan-Europe becon system then ignore cars and make it a mandatory feature on smart phones so that every person in the EU can hit a button and send a grid during a 999 call.

davis

davmaggs wrote:

Neal1984 wrote:

And if you are knocked unconscious? Or are trapped upside down in a ditch? I'm not sure why you are fearful of a system that can help you to be honest. Is it the slight increase in cost? Euro emission legislation cost many times this, do you think cleaner emissions are a bad idea as well?

Virtually zero chance of that happening.

At best you'd find the odd very rare case where somehow no-one else noticed a crashed car, and of that almost non-existent amount of missing cars where this device would actually be the solution. Let's say you/they do manage to drag up more than a dozen cases per year, that miniscule amount wouldn't be enough to justify the cost benefit analysis. The same money would save far more lives deployed elsewhere.

It's not that they don't notice, it's that people try very hard not to get involved. I've crashed two cars (young and stupid), both obviously "bad" crashes, and both times I couldn't quite believe the number of people that just cruised past without even slowing down. Both crashes were on busy-ish main roads; if I'd have been on a country lane how long would it have taken?

Maybe this system could've saved my sister's life when she crashed. Probably not, although I'd assume you've heard of the "golden hour". Either way I'd like to see you nominate a cash value for your cost benefit analysis that compares to 100 quid on the cost of a new car.

ETA: Don't vote UKIP. Certainly don't vote UKIP because you disagree with an EU policy on what you perceive to be state-level surveillance. I'm a libertarian privacy advocate, and I'm really not keen on the idea of governments being able to track citizens. I still don't want to pin my hopes on a party whose policies are based on fear, protectionism and distrust. I've got a little more hope left in me yet.

tgotb

davmaggs wrote:

Let's say for a moment that this is a genuine problem, then use the satnav you just mentioned or your smart phone to tell you where you are. They all give a grid reference (like the device you advocate) or can pull up a map. Smart phone take-up is already over 70% and by the time this device comes out will be higher again.

There's no upfront cost to the car buyer, no infrastructure cost to the telcos, there's no lock-in to a proprietary (single purpose) tech system needed at the 999 call centre, no ongoing maintenance costs (car or services), no standards body needed, less weight in the car etc etc.

If you really want a pan-Europe becon system then ignore cars and make it a mandatory feature on smart phones so that every person in the EU can hit a button and send a grid during a 999 call.

You chose to ignore my point about people not always being able to find their phone; this is only going to be more likely when someone's in a state of shock. They may also have left their phone at home, forgotten to charge it, or may not own a smartphone.

As for using the satnav to tell you where you are - I have no idea how to get a grid reference out of my Satnav. Assuming it does actually have the feature, I could probably find it, but I wouldn't say the same thing for someone who's less tech-savvy, especially if they're in a state of shock. Same applies to smartphones; as it happens, I do have a mapping app which provides a grid reference, but I bet most don't - or if they do, that they don't know how to use it.

Still, maybe this is all just a ruse to clear out all those nasty immigrants who clog up the M4 and make nice Mr Farage late for his meetings. If we don't adopt sensible life-saving technologies in the UK, maybe all those odious people who can't trace 400 years of English ancestry will clear off back to Bongo Bongo land and give us our jobs back...

davmaggs

davis wrote:

It's not that they don't notice, it's that people try very hard not to get involved. I've crashed two cars (young and stupid), both obviously "bad" crashes, and both times I couldn't quite believe the number of people that just cruised past without even slowing down. Both crashes were on busy-ish main roads; if I'd have been on a country lane how long would it have taken?

Maybe this system could've saved my sister's life when she crashed. Probably not, although I'd assume you've heard of the "golden hour". Either way I'd like to see you nominate a cash value for your cost benefit analysis that compares to 100 quid on the cost of a new car.

ETA: Don't vote UKIP. Certainly don't vote UKIP because you disagree with an EU policy on what you perceive to be state-level surveillance. I'm a libertarian privacy advocate, and I'm really not keen on the idea of governments being able to track citizens. I still don't want to pin my hopes on a party whose policies are based on fear, protectionism and distrust. I've got a little more hope left in me yet.

All engineering and health decisions have a cost benefit analysis. We don't throw an infinite amount of money at designing out every perceivable danger or on saving every single life no matter what.

Doing the rough maths this device will cost the UK £230 million a year on the cars alone, and then you have the costs of the infrastructure.

Let's say we want becons and are prepared to ignore the lack of evidence; is it really a good idea to mandate a hardware device in a car that has a lifespan of 10-15 years and honestly believe that it will remain the best solution?


edit; I broke the quote tags

davmaggs

TGOTB wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

Let's say for a moment that this is a genuine problem, then use the satnav you just mentioned or your smart phone to tell you where you are. They all give a grid reference (like the device you advocate) or can pull up a map. Smart phone take-up is already over 70% and by the time this device comes out will be higher again.

There's no upfront cost to the car buyer, no infrastructure cost to the telcos, there's no lock-in to a proprietary (single purpose) tech system needed at the 999 call centre, no ongoing maintenance costs (car or services), no standards body needed, less weight in the car etc etc.

If you really want a pan-Europe becon system then ignore cars and make it a mandatory feature on smart phones so that every person in the EU can hit a button and send a grid during a 999 call.

You chose to ignore my point about people not always being able to find their phone; this is only going to be more likely when someone's in a state of shock. They may also have left their phone at home, forgotten to charge it, or may not own a smartphone.

As for using the satnav to tell you where you are - I have no idea how to get a grid reference out of my Satnav. Assuming it does actually have the feature, I could probably find it, but I wouldn't say the same thing for someone who's less tech-savvy, especially if they're in a state of shock. Same applies to smartphones; as it happens, I do have a mapping app which provides a grid reference, but I bet most don't - or if they do, that they don't know how to use it.

Still, maybe this is all just a ruse to clear out all those nasty immigrants who clog up the M4 and make nice Mr Farage late for his meetings. If we don't adopt sensible life-saving technologies in the UK, maybe all those odious people who can't trace 400 years of English ancestry will clear off back to Bongo Bongo land and give us our jobs back...

Your UKIP slanging makes you look just as stupid as the people you dislike, let's stick to the point.

The solution has no real evidence to support that it will actually save lives, and even less evidence that the cost to benefit ration means that it is the right choice. You are just falling into a version of "something must be done" so any idea that feels right must be good.

As to your point about not being able to work your own equipment. How many cars crash in such total isolation that a becon is likely to outperform a passerby who isn't in shock?

rick_chasey

I though the tracking stuff was purely for insurance?

asprilla

I don't think there is a business case of it the way that it's set out.

However, I don't think it's going to lead to a £100 cost passed onto the consumer either. Prices will go up if the market supports the price increase; the price we pay for cars far exceeds the cost of manufacture and distribution (and R&D, etc) and this allows car companies to turn huge profits.

If this device is going into every vehicle then the economies of scale will be huge.

It may be that this device is used for road charging in the future. So be it, I think that it's going to happen anyway and I don't think it's a bad thing.

tgotb

davmaggs wrote:

The solution has no real evidence to support that it will actually save lives, and even less evidence that the cost to benefit ration means that it is the right choice. You are just falling into a version of "something must be done" so any idea that feels right must be good.

You're falling into the trap of confirmation bias, whereby you disregard or ignore any evidence that doesn't back up your preconceived opinion. Two people on this thread have described accidents where the victim would most likely have benefitted from this technology, and yet you claim (providing no evidence) that the benefits would be negligible.

davmaggs wrote:

As to your point about not being able to work your own equipment. How many cars crash in such total isolation that a becon is likely to outperform a passerby who isn't in shock?

Based on the considerable amount of information available, I'd say close to 100%. Last time I witnessed a serious accident I was straight on the phone, and was able to give a precise location immediately; I'd still have been outperformed by a beacon.

davmaggs

TGOTB wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

The solution has no real evidence to support that it will actually save lives, and even less evidence that the cost to benefit ration means that it is the right choice. You are just falling into a version of "something must be done" so any idea that feels right must be good.

You're falling into the trap of confirmation bias, whereby you disregard or ignore any evidence that doesn't back up your preconceived opinion. Two people on this thread have described accidents where the victim would most likely have benefitted from this technology, and yet you claim (providing no evidence) that the benefits would be negligible.

davmaggs wrote:

As to your point about not being able to work your own equipment. How many cars crash in such total isolation that a becon is likely to outperform a passerby who isn't in shock?

Based on the considerable amount of information available, I'd say close to 100%. Last time I witnessed a serious accident I was straight on the phone, and was able to give a precise location immediately; I'd still have been outperformed by a beacon.

Two people out of millions is anecdotal, and not evidence. The eCall web site doesn't actually provide supporting figures.

I recommend a rummage around the site, it is amazingly vague for something that is going to cost billions. It's amateur hour on that site, and wouldn't survive 5 minutes on Dragon's den. I am astounded that people on here support an idea without evidence.

UndercoverElephant

davmaggs wrote:

Two people out of millions is anecdotal, and not evidence. The eCall web site doesn't actually provide supporting figures.

I recommend a rummage around the site, it is amazingly vague for something that is going to cost billions. It's amateur hour on that site, and wouldn't survive 5 minutes on Dragon's den. I am astounded that people on here support an idea without evidence.

Make that three. Only time I've been involved with a real accident (the car in front of me went into the back of a horse box that hadn't pulled off the dual carriageway fully and was sat there in the dark without hazard lights on - I managed to get past somehow unscathed but it was astoundingly close). We stopped, naturally, but I'd been following my brother-in-law along unfamiliar roads. My wife went to give assistance, I rang an ambulance.

Absolutely no help at all to the poor lass on the other end, I had no idea where I was, no signs nearby, nothing.

davis

davmaggs wrote:

All engineering and health decisions have a cost benefit analysis. We don't throw an infinite amount of money at designing out every perceivable danger or on saving every single life no matter what.

Well, now we have a firm handle on the obvious. I'm so glad you're here to point it out.

davmaggs wrote:

Doing the rough maths this device will cost the UK £230 million a year on the cars alone, and then you have the costs of the infrastructure.

£230 million sounds like a lot doesn't it? Unfortunately for your point, it isn't. The value of a life is about £5 million, according to US EPA, FDA, and DoT. That means "doing the rough maths" on this the system would be required to save 46 lives per year out of the approximately 800 per year that die in cars, or about 6%, assuming you're talking strictly in financial terms (I'm ignoring the "cost to the UK" of the coroner, the inquest, and the massive amount the NHS spends on a corpse, just to help your point along). Now, I can't find a reference figure for the golden hour (a somewhat contentious point anyway), but I *think* from memory about 30% of the "golden hour" deaths are directly attributable to bleeding to death. Anyway, as long as this evil system saves more than 6%, we're in profit (oh yeah and fewer people get all corpsified and gross).

You've also said that it'll "cost the UK". It'll cost the buyers of new cars, certainly; approximately 0.3% of the cost of a new car. It might actually save the state money if you factor in the cost of dealing with a corpse.

davmaggs wrote:

Let's say we want becons and are prepared to ignore the lack of evidence; is it really a good idea to mandate a hardware device in a car that has a lifespan of 10-15 years and honestly believe that it will remain the best solution?

No, I don't believe it will remain the best solution. I don't believe cars are the best solution. Change is iterative. To my eyes, this seems fairly cheap, fairly workable, and an improvement on having to rely on a conscious considerate human phoning for an ambulance. (I've just thought of two more people I know who might have benefitted from this, now that I think about it).

davmaggs

That's £230m just for the car side of the equation.

I couldn't find any estimate about the lives that could be saved on the eCall site, so even the EU sponsors of this concept don't provide actual evidence.

By the way the golden hour is a myth.
http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S019 ... 0/fulltext

davis

davmaggs wrote:

That's £230m just for the car side of the equation.

You do know precisely how tiny that figure is, don't you? You're attempting to get people excited about 230 million pounds. The budget of the NHS is ~100 billion pounds. In country terms, you are talking about pin money.

davmaggs wrote:

I couldn't find any estimate about the lives that could be saved on the eCall site, so even the EU sponsors of this concept don't provide actual evidence.

Would you like me to ignore your conflation of "evidence" with "estimate"? Even so, it's difficult to provide numbers for something which doesn't yet exist. You're welcome to conduct a detailed rebuttal of my very cursory figures above though.

davmaggs wrote:

By the way the golden hour is a myth.
http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S019 ... 0/fulltext

Yes, I even handed you that one. It is definitely a contentious issue, and one which still undergoes study (there are other papers that say it's definitely true). I can tell you that very few emergency doctors will tell you to wait five minutes before calling 999 though. By the way, an interesting outcome of that paper you cited: most of the calls were as a result of a motor vehicle crash.

surrey_commuter

a good debate this -

we need to calculate how many lives you could save by spending the money elsewhere.

The £5m per life is a spurious number. In purely economic terms it is better that these people are not rescued as they could end up spending ages in hospital or even worse go to prison.

davmaggs

davis wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

That's £230m just for the car side of the equation.

You do know precisely how tiny that figure is, don't you? You're attempting to get people excited about 230 million pounds. The budget of the NHS is ~100 billion pounds. In country terms, you are talking about pin money.

You are being naughty. You are now trying to redirect focus away from the flaws in the concept to a back of the envelope figure that was clearly only used to highlight that the cost isn't just £100, whilst always conveniently ignoring the infrastructure costs.

The EU has published no evidence and you have no evidence. If eCall publish it, and it makes sense then I will support the idea. By all means post a link if I've misread their site.

Cost aside, I've not yet found anything on their site that explains how knowing that a crash occurred tells the 999 service if someone is actually hurt, how many people, how severely, what hazzards are on scene and all the other factors that allow triage. Are you saying that ambulances are simply dispatched every time a car registers that it has taken a bad a knock?

veronese68

davmaggs wrote:

Your UKIP slanging makes you look just as stupid as the people you dislike, let's stick to the point.

Did you read the OP? This is being used as justification to vote UKIP, that's the whole point of this thread.

davis

davmaggs wrote:

You are being naughty. You are now trying to redirect focus away from the flaws in the concept to a back of the envelope figure that was clearly only used to highlight that the cost isn't just £100, whilst always conveniently ignoring the infrastructure costs.

You brought the money into it; you had actually started with a privacy argument, if I recall. I'm merely pointing out the costs you're now reacting to are tiny. You're correct in saying that I've ignored the infrastructure costs; I'm assuming they will be fairly small (let's say half a billion quid to piggyback a la Whispernet) and absorbed over the course of time. Of course, they could always just use the EPIRBs network (so essentially free), which has been working worldwide for quite a while now, thanks very much. Quite a few boat owners choose to spend the ~400 quid on something they plan to never use too...

davmaggs wrote:

The EU has published no evidence and you have no evidence. If eCall publish it, and it makes sense then I will support the idea. By all means post a link if I've misread their site.

So... you're asking me for evidence on something that doesn't exist yet? Isn't that like saying "seatbelts won't save anyone!" in the 1980s?

davmaggs wrote:

Cost aside, I've not yet found anything on their site that explains how knowing that a crash occurred tells the 999 service if someone is actually hurt, how many people, how severely, what hazzards are on scene and all the other factors that allow triage. Are you saying that ambulances are simply dispatched every time a car registers that it has taken a bad a knock?

The only question you're asking that would affect the dispatch of an ambulance is whether someone is hurt; the number of people, the severity, and the "hazards on scene" (Really?) would make very little difference to a handler's decision to dispatch an ambulance. Triage is what happens when you get to hospital. I suspect that an ambulance would be dispatched every time the car's crash sensors go beyond a certain value, and I'm ok with that behaviour.

davmaggs

Triage is done at the scene too. The ambulance service isn't going to dispatch one vehicle if a car has crashed into a bus stop full of people, and they aren't going to let them work on a motorway that hasn't been closed by the police. Ambulances aren't great for cutting apart crashed cars either or dealing with flammable liquids.

The idea is daft. You still haven't sourced any estimates about the numbers of lives that would saved compared to a simple phone call.

It's bizarre you support billions of pounds of expenditure with zero evidence.

jamesco

Relevant article from the New Yorker:

The Engineer’s Lament
Two ways of thinking about automotive safety.

veronese68

Some people value money more than life.
Only when discussing hypothetical lives of course, not somebody they give a toss about.

davis

davmaggs wrote:

Triage is done at the scene too. The ambulance service isn't going to dispatch one vehicle if a car has crashed into a bus stop full of people, and they aren't going to let them work on a motorway that hasn't been closed by the police. Ambulances aren't great for cutting apart crashed cars either or dealing with flammable liquids.

You know what: you're right. Completely, indisputably right. Let's not send any emergency services at all until Mrs Miggins phones 999. There would be no point whatsoever in an ambulance automatically turning up, with multiple staff trained in emergency response and a direct radio link to all the other emergency services in any of the remarkably common horror scenarios you've provided. Just the other day I saw a bus-stop full of flattened people; I thought I shouldn't phone for an ambulance as they'd need at least 10, so just 1 couldn't help, and besides the bus would be along in a minute.

The idea is daft. You still haven't sourced any estimates about the numbers of lives that would saved compared to a simple phone call.

I asked my dog earlier how many lives he thought the system would save; he said "82 per year". How many lives did people think would be saved by seatbelts? I'm not saying the numbers saved by the beacon are even comparable to the numbers saved by seatbelts, I'm saying we're in the same situation of trying to know the unknowable. It might save 5, 50, or 500 people per year. Please feel free to put a little effort into refuting my figures above though rather than simply knee-jerking and saying "it won't work".

It's bizarre you support billions of pounds of expenditure with zero evidence.

Billions? Who said billions? (hint: only you did). I'm not even saying I'm a fervent supporter; I don't particularly care that much about spending a few hundred million quid. I think it'll probably help in a few situations (I can name 4 personally-known anecdotes), and for the money, well, bugger it, why not try it?

For what it's worth, I do believe that requiring every licensed driver to be trained in first aid, and requiring every car to carry a first aid kit will probably help as much or more than a beacon. Not because having a few plasters will save the moribund, but because making every driver aware at some point they're going to be involved in or witness to a crash, and they have an obligation to actually *do* something. How would you fancy that for an EU law? Would that make your head fizz?

elbowloh

davis wrote:

£230 million sounds like a lot doesn't it? Unfortunately for your point, it isn't. The value of a life is about £5 million, according to US EPA, FDA, and DoT. That means "doing the rough maths" on this the system would be required to save 46 lives per year out of the approximately 800 per year that die in cars, or about 6%, assuming you're talking strictly in financial terms (I'm ignoring the "cost to the UK" of the coroner, the inquest, and the massive amount the NHS spends on a corpse, just to help your point along). Now, I can't find a reference figure for the golden hour (a somewhat contentious point anyway), but I *think* from memory about 30% of the "golden hour" deaths are directly attributable to bleeding to death. Anyway, as long as this evil system saves more than 6%, we're in profit (oh yeah and fewer people get all corpsified and gross).

Just as an aside, I used to write a lot of business cases for Network Rail in the support of various safety improvement features across the railway infrastructure (e.g. how many lives would be saved if we extended the length of the parapet on all road overbridges etc) and we would use a thing called "Value of preventing a fatality" or VPF. The VPF was £1.6 million and was the same figure that the Highways Agency used (actually we borrowed it from them). Subtly different to the value of a life.