netwrker/uk

I’ve been keeping my eye on this topic over the last few days as for the first 48 hours or so, nothing other than ‘deaths and serious injuries on the roads had increased’ had been released. However, an updated article from earlier on, just as the initial heat and interest around this started to die down suddenly shows a different picture:

• Slight Injuries:
  2009: 70; 2010: 55 (down since they were switched off);
• Serious Injuries:
  2009: 13; 2010: 13 (no change);
• Fatalities:
  2009: 0; 2010: 0 (no change); and
• Total Accidents:
  2009: 62; 2010: 60 (down since they were switched off).

Matching periods of 08/2009-01/2010 and 08/2010-01/2011, accidents and injuries at sites where the cameras have been placed have gone down, not up as is initially suggested.

To back up their figures, they need to cover the whole of Oxfordshire:

• Slight Injuries:
  2009: 982; 2010: 999 (slightly up since they were switched off);
• Serious Injuries:
  2009: 160; 2010: 179 (up since they were switched off);
• Fatalities:
  2009: 12; 2010: 18 (up since they were switched off); and
• Total Accidents:
  2009: 885; 2010: 867 (down since they were switched off).

This is not as clear cut as they’ve been making it out to be over the last two days and I don’t find it that surprising that it’s taken until now for the rest of these figures to be released. So, yes, while there is a significant increase in the amount of deaths (up 50%) and overall, injuries across the county are up 2.18%, injuries at camera sites are down 22.1%. This combined with the fact that accidents are down 2.16% overall means that they have had to manipulate the statistics to back up their argument.

They have used a set of figures, loosely related to the ones they should have used, to justify a decision which I believe is in some way incorrect. £600,000 should be used to fund more police in cars to patrol the area, interact with the public and deter bad driving rather than just switching on camera.

After all: “Today the Police are switching back on Speed Cameras in the country after statistics show that accidents and injuries around camera sites have fallen” isn’t quite as catchy a headline!

I saw this on TV while I was at the gym about a week ago and it just make me SO angry. Although I’ve calmed down a little since then, I still cannot believe the nerve of Babjide Osobu and feel compelled to write this.

As a quick overview: In September last year, a fit of jealousy caused someone to set light to a mid-level flat in a multi-story house. The intended target was away, but his wife and three-year-old daughter were inside. They died.

The trial has concluded, and Barbara Zhanje has been jailed for their murder, but on the steps of the Court House after the judgement, the Uncle of the deceased and her daughter, Mr. Osobu, said:

“The fire brigade tried but it was not good enough. Lawyers will be looking at things to see if we can take further action.”

Although this article doesn’t quote the core incident here (and in fact appears to suggest that the blame for failing to save them lays with the Fire Brigade), this one does. Specifically:

Ms Elmi was taken out of her room with the assistance of a ladder. Firefighters entered the property to search the second floor but the landing collapsed - causing one of the officers to fall through the floor injuring himself.

They were unable to get to the back bedroom where Ms Ejifunmilayo and her daughter were and retreated.

“One of the firefighters fell through the landing.” In doing everything they can to search for these people, the building became unstable, a firefighter fell and was injured, so they “retreated.”

Now Mr. Osobu wants to sue the Fire Brigade for not doing enough to save those that died. At this point, I have to say, for fuck’s sake, the building was collapsing and a firefighter as well was almost killed; what more can they do?

It was very tragic what happened and should never have happened. But to lay the blame for the loss of life at the Fire Brigade as well as the murderer, and to then suggest that you will sue them for failing to save these two people is beyond belief.

I want to see him strap on a suit and run into a burning building without knowing what it’s like inside, where people are or whether you’re going to come back out alive, or undamaged, and see how he copes. Once he does that, maybe then he can consider his next step very carefully.

Having just read an article about a camera which lets you (re)focus the image after it’s been shot, I thought less of it’s applications for personal or professional photography (and the world between), but instead for 3D films.

Read More

I had the opportunity (as did many others) over the last few days to download and install the new Android 2.1 update released by Dell & O2. On the whole the process was painless: download, run, wait, and reboot. In all about 30 minutes (over a WiFi connection).

Read More

Today saw the tentative announcement for the auctioning of frequencies for fourth-generational (4G) networks in the UK. Possibly incredibly lucrative for the Government with countless billions plunged into the last round (although probably not on the same scale this time), there’s a big opportunity available here for the wider public.

Currently, each company bought one or more sections of the available bandwidth and then set about building their own networks independently. Not only did the bandwidth cost a staggering amount of money, but the overall network each company manages is just as big an investment.

Yet for all of this, overall network coverage is not really that great. Traveling down the M5, trundling around the cost of West Wales or even the West Coast Main Line all have issues with connectivity, both on 2G and 3G.

Each company follows the same pattern - invest in the areas with the greatest return. Start with inside the M25, work through Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham, Edinburgh, etc. and expand along the major roads, such as the M1, M4, M5, M6, M40/42, etc. and the rail network.

However, all this is overlap. Five networks all competing for the same coverage over the same space. Would it not be cheaper for all and massively more benifical for everyone to work together?

Instead of five towers all covering the same area with many gaps and breaks in signal, three towers instead could all work together to all serve the same five networks but with greater quality and bandwidth availability.

Let’s make the government, through the auction process, install a clause which requires that a neutral, not-for-profit, and ultimately independent company from both the providers it serves and the government, installs, manages, and maintains the network through which each service provider has an equal stake in. This new company will install the base stations, organise the locations and aim for maximum coverage of the whole of the UK.

In the long run this will be cheaper for the service providers which can only mean lower bills for everyone. Plus, if this system works well, why not ensure from the outset that there is capability for providing support for 2G and 3G from the same towers? Counter-productive networks can be dismantled while signaling is improved with both savings in money and CO2 as well.

Surely I can’t be the only person to see sense in this?

I was watching the F1 Grand Prix at Silverstone over the weekend, or at least lightly as it was in the background while I was working away, and on came a forward for the broadcast of the World Cup Final later.

I must admit, I wasn’t really paying attention at the time, but the first through that came to mind was: “Shit, do ITV really have the rights to screen the World Cup Final?”

OK. I know this is wrong on two counts; first, it was a BBC program forward, as F1 is on BBC now, and secondly both BBC and ITV had the rights to broadcast it at the same time. Yet the thought of ITV still managed to fill me with dread, and it wasn’t for the football - I didn’t watch any part of the match - but for the broadcast itself.

Read More

This week I signed up with O2 for the new Dell Streak: The new mini-tablet (or large Smartphone) based on the Android operating system. I’m not going to make this a long review just yet, as I haven’t really managed to spend enough time with it.

Read More

Net Neutrality has become almost a battle ground in the States; the FCC is trying to take more control over the web and the relationship between ISPs and their customers, while the ISPs themselves are more interested in seeing if they can charge at both ends of the pipe. Through all of this, both sides are arguing the case, but with Ofcom now opening the debate here in the UK, I believe there are some causes for concern.

Read More