Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Joined: Jan 14, 2005 Posts: 19638 Location: Blackpool , Lancs
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:01 pm Post subject:
BigPerk wrote:
If one could suspend disbelief briefly, I think this is valid though
Quote:
to place speed cameras at dangerous locations where the average speed is higher than the legally allowed speed limit
Sorry David, but my take on such statistics would be to say the speed limit at such a location was probably too low, obviously you would need other information such as accident stats for the same stretch of road to make a true judgement.
Just because the average speed on a section of road is higher than the posted limit doesn't make said section of road dangerous - Mike
Joined: Sep 06, 2006 Posts: 1618 Location: East Hertfordshire
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:36 pm Post subject:
No need for apology , I agree, Mike - 'dangerous' assumes such 'other information', such as accidents.
If a section is not dangerous in this sense, then it may well point to a low limit as you say, such as on a wide dual carriageway, but I suspect this would not be a police concern, but rather a traffic management one. No mention of them so far though ... _________________ David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)
Maybe important to add: no raw data were sold: only the average speed per road. They were sold to consultancy firms in traffic management and road construction. The whole idea was to give government an idea where to build extra roads.
One consultancy added data about traffic incidents (lethal ones) to the data, and then sold these combined data to the police. So the police now have an idea what the average speed is per road, and how many serious incidents happen per road.
TomTom didn't know that this consultancy firm, called Via, was adding data to their information, and then reselling/forwarding it to police.
Oh yeah, to give an extra dimension to this news: the way that dutch newspapers brought this, was that tomtom was selling 'private/personal' information directly to the police. It was a bit dirty, and not at all sticking with the facts.
An interesting fact is also, that this information came out early morning 7.30 AM, exactly at the same time tomtom was publishing it's 1st quarter financial results. It's not the first time that 'bad news' comes out on a moment that looks like 'planned' or even 'plotted' and then make share prices plunge. News about Nokia coming with navi on their phones which was then considered very 'dangerous' also came out in the same way.
It looks a bit like Goldman Sachs practices. They can run a complete propaganda machine (both negative or positive, whatever is in their interest) to make financial markets move the way they want to... Hmm.
Joined: Sep 06, 2006 Posts: 1618 Location: East Hertfordshire
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:50 pm Post subject:
OK. So ... on what terms was TT providing this info then? Can they sue the offending company? If so, how does that tie in with their press release? _________________ David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)
Maybe important to add: no raw data were sold: only the average speed per road. They were sold to consultancy firms in traffic management and road construction. The whole idea was to give government an idea where to build extra roads.
One consultancy added data about traffic incidents (lethal ones) to the data, and then sold these combined data to the police. So the police now have an idea what the average speed is per road, and how many serious incidents happen per road.
TomTom didn't know that this consultancy firm, called Via, was adding data to their information, and then reselling/forwarding it to police.
Oh yeah, to give an extra dimension to this news: the way that dutch newspapers brought this, was that tomtom was selling 'private/personal' information directly to the police. It was a bit dirty, and not at all sticking with the facts.
An interesting fact is also, that this information came out early morning 7.30 AM, exactly at the same time tomtom was publishing it's 1st quarter financial results. It's not the first time that 'bad news' comes out on a moment that looks like 'planned' or even 'plotted' and then make share prices plunge. News about Nokia coming with navi on their phones which was then considered very 'dangerous' also came out in the same way.
It looks a bit like Goldman Sachs practices. They can run a complete propaganda machine (both negative or positive, whatever is in their interest) to make financial markets move the way they want to... Hmm.
You need to provide evidence to support your claims as you're obviously so pro TomTom. It is not credible that a data services firm (TomTom) did not know the data would be used in the ways you describe. Your post is peppered with diversions too. So what about the competition? Or the timing of the announcement? Did these others persuade TomTom to sell on data in what at best can be described as on naive terms? I know the business of information management. TomTom's response is not credible.
Since you know TomTom so well, tell us what TomTom will do on the subject of selling on data when the likes of Daimler roll out their Google enhanced in car web services with SatNav? Do you think they'll be selling that data on in as naive a way as TomTom seem to have? There are so many obvious and well-established ways of restricting data licenses - TomTom will have internal as well as external people advising on risks and opportunities based on those best practices. Most people on here could imagine dozens of applications of that data. This episode suggests, at best, that TomTom hasn't followed best practice, a matter I am sure is as relevant to customers/users as well as to shareholders.
To claim innocence is frankly laughable. To offer diversions as you have is, well, worse.
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 10:53 am Post subject: Tom Tom ---- its worse than kiss and tell
TomTom is providing speed data to police so they can locate cameras to catch motorists. As sussamb pointed out, this is more likely to be a place where they can make loads of money than an accident spot -- since the latter are obvious anyway from the accidents ! Doh!
So next question -- is TomTom selling this data to the police? A nice little income stream.
Or, more probable, is it a quid pro quo for the police providing the camera data to TomTom so (unlike PocketGPS) they don't have to do the work themselves?
Or, most likely of all, a really cozy relationship.
TomTom's own camera database is deliberately kept a year out of date. This is a long standing deal the other side of which is that the police provide the database to TomTom.
Add the latest info, and we have TomTom providing best cashcow camera points to the police -- and the cameras that will be installed will NOT SHOW UP ON THE TOM TOM DATABASE FOR A YEAR.
I dumped the TomTom camera database, and got my money back, when I discovered two local cameras about 8 months old were not on it.
Drivers who have suffered financially in fines and insurance costs might like to think about a Class Action against Tom Tom.
Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 870 Location: Southport
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 12:01 pm Post subject: Re: Tom Tom ---- its worse than kiss and tell
mike19444 wrote:
........ As sussamb pointed out, this is more likely to be a place where they can make loads of money than an accident spot -- since the latter are obvious anyway from the accidents ! Doh!
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14907 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:22 pm Post subject: Re: Tom Tom ---- its worse than kiss and tell
mike19444 wrote:
TomTom's own camera database is deliberately kept a year out of date. This is a long standing deal the other side of which is that the police provide the database to TomTom.
Add the latest info, and we have TomTom providing best cashcow camera points to the police -- and the cameras that will be installed will NOT SHOW UP ON THE TOM TOM DATABASE FOR A YEAR.
Now just where did you get this information? If you can prove it, please do so. Some of us have long believed the TT database to be inaccurate and not up to date, but to say it is because TT deliberately keep it a year out of date is a great leap of faith, which I for one am not prepared to accept without you proving it. I believe the TT database is in such a poor state because it is not well administered. I also believe that by not being transparent about it, TT are allowing statements like yours to germinate. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Nov 14, 2003 Posts: 2146 Location: Surrounded by A1, M1 & M25
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 8:02 am Post subject: Re: Tom Tom ---- its worse than kiss and tell
Quote:
Drivers who have suffered financially in fines and insurance costs might like to think about a Class Action against Tom Tom.
What a stupid idea, the drivers broke the law by speeding and have no one to blame except themselves, this would be laughed out of court. _________________ Drivelux
The information came to me from a confidential source, so the best I can do is put it in the public domain.
There is a way of testing the claim. Use the PocketGPS database to check the age of each member of a set of randomly selected cameras from the Tom Tom database.
Find one that is less than, say, 9 months** old, and my claim falls.
Find none, and the probability of the claim being correct increases.
Of course, not finding any does not prove the claim. It does not, for instance, rule out DennisN's suggestion of bad administration -- although this seems a little unlikely in a large organisation with demonstrable competence in similar areas.
Another way is to ask Tom Tom directly. The response would be interesting.
The argument would be that the motorists were trying to obey the law, and purchased the TomTom Database to help them do this.... much the same way as the large camera signs are intended as reminders.
The Tom Tom database is not fit for the purpose for which it is sold under the Trades Description Act. Since it is knowingly not fit for this purpose, Tom Tom would have a larger liability to motorists who relied on it, and were let down.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14907 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 8:46 am Post subject:
mike19444 wrote:
I would love to prove it as DennisN demands.
The information came to me from a confidential source, so the best I can do is put it in the public domain.
Aw c'mon! I'm the last to be an apologist for TomTom but that is too easy to say. How about a word in the ear of WikiLeaks?
Strictly in confidence, if you promise that you and the rest of this readership will maintain my anonymity, I can tell you where and how to find a pot of gold on a rainy/sunny day and near waterfalls.
If your method of identifying proof is worthwhile, why don't you publish the camera IDs yourself? TomTom are quite simply incompetent with databases - POIs and Cameras and fuel prices - they just don't have the competence and resources to make a good idea work. Those three things working properly in one PND would be terrific, but are beyond TT's ability. I often wonder how they manage to get HD Traffic as good as it is reported to be - maybe somebody else is doing it - but run RDS-TMC and HD Traffic side by side to see that they aren't really that good. _________________ Dennis
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
, I agree, Mike - 'dangerous' assumes such 'other information', such as accidents.
