Re: Government Noses

[Brian Beesley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

On Saturday 06 September 2003 12:12, Brian Morrison wrote:
>
> One thing worth noting is the rapid appearance of some new cabinets
> containing computing equipment beside many roads. These have a pole with
> a south-facing solar cell array on the top and there are two large
> magnetic loop antennas buried in the road right next to them.

I _believe_ that these are "simply" high-tech replacements for the mechanical 
counters linked to black rubber pipes which used to be placed on many roads. 
Traffic density meters, I think. However there is obvious scope for "feature 
overloading".
>
> The other day I was reading about the tagging of number plates with a
> tag that will report on MOT and VED state of the vehicle as well as
> possibly insurance state as well. Didn't take me long to put two and two
> together regarding how these tags are going to be able to be read
> routinely and frequently, and of course there is the possibility of road
> pricing as well.
>
> The tags will be arranged no doubt so that it will be an offence to
> disable them, because after all when paper VED discs no longer exist it
> will be the only way for PC Plod on the beat to check whether the
> vehicle is road legal.
>
> Now it seems to me that this is one way in which TPTB will shortly be
> able to track a sizeable portion of the population as they make their
> crime free way around the country, and doubtless the access controls on
> the database will be as strict as those we have come to know and love.

Har, har, har ;-)
>
> I also note that I have hardly seen a mention of this in the mainstream
> press, perhaps they haven't quite cottoned on to it yet.

ISTR the Daily Torygraph running articles about tagged licence plates about a 
year ago, try the Motoring section.

There is another serious point here. In rural areas placing detectors on all 
possible minor road routes will be very expensive & the coverage will 
therefore probably be incomplete. Will it be declared illegal to deliberately 
follow a route which bypasses detectors? How will Plod (or the courts) decide 
that circumvention was deliberate? Why should use of public transport, cycles 
or Shank's Pony be allowed if the idea is to monitor people's movement 
(whether of everyone or of specific targetted individuals)?

It's quite clear that the _primary_ motive is, in fact, road pricing i.e. 
tapping yet more money from the private motorist. Those who think this is a 
Good Idea should try living in a rural area. It's also an environmentally 
disastrous policy as it does nothing to encourage use of small vehicles, 
which would in itself reduce congestion as well as saving energy & reducing 
exhaust emissions.

Brian Beesley