Scaremongering (NICEIC)

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Martin Angove

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 3:09:48 PM6/7/05
to
I suppose I should have expected it. Look what I've just read on the
NICEIC website:

<quote>

Face up to new electrical safety law or face fines

Homeowners warned to SWITCH ON to new building regulations

The NICEIC is urging homeowners who plan to tackle home improvement
projects to be aware of tough new changes to building regulations, which
if not complied with, could land you with a massive £5,000 fine and a
property you can't sell.

The new building regulation Part P, effective since 1st January 2005,
requires most electrical work in the home to be carried out by a
government-approved electrician, such as one registered with the NICEIC.
Its aim is to stop the rising number of deaths from faulty electrics,
much of which is undertaken by over ambitious DIY enthusiasts and cowboy
electricians.

Under the new law, homeowners are still able to replace accessories such
as light switches and sockets to an existing circuit, although there are
exceptions for locations such as kitchens and bathrooms. An electrician
registered under a government-approved scheme must undertake all other
work. The alternative, for DIY'ers, is to notify a local building
control body before starting any work and pay the appropriate fee for an
inspection and a certificate after work is completed.

"This law will make homes safer and is long overdue", says Jim Speirs
director general of electrical safety body, the NICEIC. "Homeowners will
now be protected from dangerous electrics as a competent electrician
will provide them with a certificate once they've completed the work. If
you don't get a certificate or do the work yourself without getting it
checked, you will not only be sitting on a potential electrical time
bomb, but committing a criminal offence too. Your local authority can
order the removal or correction of any work and fine you up to £5,000."

Failure to comply could also make it difficult to sell your house in the
future. The NICEIC advises that electrical installation certificates are
likely to be included in the government's proposed home sellers' packs.
These are designed to offer prospective buyers reassurance and peace of
mind about the safety of homes being offered for sale. Amazingly,
electricians have never been regulated despite faulty electrics causing
an average of 12,500 house fires, 750 serious injuries and 10 deaths
each year.

The NICEIC welcomes the government's decision to finally clamp down on
the cowboys who cause these deaths and is advising homeowners to make
sure they only employ government-approved electricians

</quote>

No need to restart the arguments, we can all Google. I just needed to
pass this on having had one of those "grrr..." moments.

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology
... The Eternal Triangle is usually right tangled.

EricP

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 3:21:21 PM6/7/05
to
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 20:09:48 +0100, Martin Angove
<MJAn...@tridwr.demon.co.uk> babbled like a waterfall and said:

>No need to restart the arguments, we can all Google. I just needed to
>pass this on having had one of those "grrr..." moments.
>
>Hwyl!
>
>M.

They can still get stuffed!


Martin Angove

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 3:37:57 PM6/7/05
to
Ok, I was going to leave it at that, not mentioning other "news
releases" on the same or similar subject... until I noticed the
following:

http://www.niceic.org.uk/partp/newsitemjan052.html

(the one I quoted)

Says:

Amazingly, electricians have never been regulated despite faulty
electrics causing an average of 12,500 house fires, 750 serious injuries
and 10 deaths each year.

But

http://www.niceic.org.uk/press/prnov044.html

says:

Amazingly, electricians have never been regulated despite faulty

electrics causing an average of 19 deaths and 2,000 injuries every year.

And

http://www.niceic.org.uk/press/prdec043.html

says:

Amazingly, electricians have never been regulated despite faulty

electrics causing an average of 2336 house fires, 750 serious injuries


and 10 deaths each year.

and

http://www.niceic.org.uk/press/prsept0704.html

says:

Despite the fact that faulty electrics result in 19 deaths and over
2,000 non-fatal electric shock accidents each year,

and

http://www.niceic.org.uk/press/prdec03.html

says:

According to Government statistics, fixed electrical installations in
homes in England and Wales cause around 5 fatalities and over 500
non-fatal injuries every year. And 12,500 fires in homes across the
country are reported as having an electrical source of ignition causing
about 25 deaths and 590 nonfatal injuries each year.

and

http://www.niceic.org.uk/consumers/moving.html

says:

According to Government figures, around 10% of domestic fires are
electrical, and of these, a third are directly due to old or bad wiring.
This equates to over 2,000 electric shock accidents and 9,300 electrical
fires in homes every year.

and I'm sure if I looked further I'd see more. So what is it then?

5, 10, 19 or 30 deaths a year?

2336, 9300 or 12500 house fires?

750, 1090 or 2000 injuries?

Or is it just that these people make the figures up on the spot to try
to prove a point?

Hwyl!

M.


--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology

... After we pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is NOT our friend!

Stefek Zaba

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 3:58:29 PM6/7/05
to
EricP wrote:

> They can still get stuffed!
>

That's a lot more politely expressed than the deeply encrypted (can you
say ROT-13?) .sig on every posting from one of the two 'moderators' at
the highly-trafficked forum of this month's Winner Of Friends and
Influencer Of People. Hope that's the positioning he's after for his
company...

David Lang

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 6:50:26 PM6/7/05
to
Hi Martin

> 5, 10, 19 or 30 deaths a year?
>
> 2336, 9300 or 12500 house fires?
>
> 750, 1090 or 2000 injuries?

Or to put it another way;
Up to 0.00005% of the UK population die each year
Up to 0.063% of UK housing stock catches fire
Up to 0.0034% of the UK population are injured.

No wonder we need legislation - its a national scandal.

Dave


andrewpreece

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 7:52:14 PM6/7/05
to

"David Lang" <davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Swppe.115560$g12.1...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
How many people die of MRSA every year? If it's more than 10 ( or 19 )
then I suggest they spend the money on cleaners, and do something
useful and popular for a change. Fat chance....

Andy.


Dave Liquorice

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 7:36:30 PM6/7/05
to
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:50:26 GMT, David Lang wrote:

>> 5, 10, 19 or 30 deaths a year?
>

> No wonder we need legislation - its a national scandal.

Yet we still allow people to be in control of a tonne or more of metal
doing many tens of miles per hour. Several thousand people are killed
on the roads each year (think about it 3650 is 10 a *day*...) and
several tens of thousands suffer serious injury.

--
Cheers new...@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

John Rumm

unread,
Jun 7, 2005, 9:00:15 PM6/7/05
to
andrewpreece wrote:

> How many people die of MRSA every year? If it's more than 10 ( or 19 )

5000 on secondary infections acquired in hospital (of which MRSA is one
of the more common). That is the government figure however, so any guess
as to what the real one is.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

Mark Carver

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 2:27:09 AM6/8/05
to
Martin Angove wrote:

> The NICEIC is urging homeowners who plan to tackle home improvement
> projects to be aware of tough new changes to building regulations, which
> if not complied with, could land you with a massive £5,000 fine and a
> property you can't sell.

I shall wait with interest to see if there are any documented cases of that
actually happening. I suspect I'm in for a long wait ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 5:23:56 AM6/8/05
to
In article <868c6b774...@tridwr.demon.co.uk>,

Martin Angove <MJAn...@tridwr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> If you don't get a certificate or do the work yourself without getting
> it checked, you will not only be sitting on a potential electrical time
> bomb, but committing a criminal offence too.

So they provide a say 10 year warranty on their member's work?

--
*Even a blind pig stumbles across an acorn now and again *

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Andy Dingley

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 5:50:18 AM6/8/05
to
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 00:36:30 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
<new...@howhill.com> wrote:

>Yet we still allow people to be in control of a tonne or more of metal
>doing many tens of miles per hour.

Not for much longer -- I hope we've all written to our MPs in protest at
the idea of satellite tracking all cars in the UK.

Then think of the added "convenience", when they have to be tied into
our compulsory ID cards.

John Rumm

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 6:25:26 AM6/8/05
to
Andy Dingley wrote:

> Not for much longer -- I hope we've all written to our MPs in protest at
> the idea of satellite tracking all cars in the UK.
>
> Then think of the added "convenience", when they have to be tied into
> our compulsory ID cards.

And all those speeding tickets they could automatically generate...

Martin Angove

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 10:30:48 AM6/8/05
to
In message <4d77b9b...@davenoise.co.uk>,

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <868c6b774...@tridwr.demon.co.uk>,
> Martin Angove <MJAn...@tridwr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > If you don't get a certificate or do the work yourself without getting
> > it checked, you will not only be sitting on a potential electrical time
> > bomb, but committing a criminal offence too.
>
> So they provide a say 10 year warranty on their member's work?
>

The legal requirement is 2 years.

And you can't buy insurance for that as yet, not even from the NICEIC.

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology

... <Ctrl><Alt><Del> to read the next message

Andy Dingley

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 1:11:14 PM6/8/05
to
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:25:26 +0100, John Rumm
<see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote:

>And all those speeding tickets they could automatically generate...

Why stop at speeding ? Parking too.

John Armstrong

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 3:10:48 PM6/8/05
to
On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 20:37:57 +0100, Martin Angove wrote:

> http://www.niceic.org.uk/consumers/moving.html
>
> says:
>
> According to Government figures, around 10% of domestic fires are
> electrical, and of these, a third are directly due to old or bad wiring.
> This equates to over 2,000 electric shock accidents and 9,300 electrical
> fires in homes every year.
>

So if a third of 10% of house fires is 9,300, that would mean 279,000 house
fires in total each year.
According to
<http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_fire/documents/downloadable/odpm_fire_028259.pdf>
in 2002 there were 65,000 dwelling fires overall. 2,773 caused by
electrical distribution. So the 1/3 of 10% is in the right ballpark, but
not the numbers.

Mike

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 3:51:21 PM6/8/05
to

"Dave Liquorice" <new...@howhill.com> wrote in message
news:nyyfbegfubjuvyypb...@news.howhill.com...

> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:50:26 GMT, David Lang wrote:
>
> >> 5, 10, 19 or 30 deaths a year?
> >
> > No wonder we need legislation - its a national scandal.
>
> Yet we still allow people to be in control of a tonne or more of metal
> doing many tens of miles per hour.

But apparently only if you're over 24 if that judge gets his way.


OldBill

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 4:07:12 PM6/8/05
to
Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:50:26 GMT, David Lang wrote:
>
>
>>>5, 10, 19 or 30 deaths a year?
>>
>>No wonder we need legislation - its a national scandal.
>
>
> Yet we still allow people to be in control of a tonne or more of metal
> doing many tens of miles per hour. Several thousand people are killed
> on the roads each year (think about it 3650 is 10 a *day*...) and
> several tens of thousands suffer serious injury.
>
Probably "electricians" in their white vans are the main culprits.
Oh, I forgot, they are mainly sat outside elec wholesalers drinking
tea/smoking when they've "gone to get parts".

Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 4:08:09 PM6/8/05
to
In article <7fd7d5774...@tridwr.demon.co.uk>,

Martin Angove <MJAn...@tridwr.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In message <4d77b9b...@davenoise.co.uk>,
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <868c6b774...@tridwr.demon.co.uk>,
>> Martin Angove <MJAn...@tridwr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > If you don't get a certificate or do the work yourself without getting
>> > it checked, you will not only be sitting on a potential electrical time
>> > bomb, but committing a criminal offence too.
>>
>> So they provide a say 10 year warranty on their member's work?
>>
> The legal requirement is 2 years.

There's no legal requirement at all.

> And you can't buy insurance for that as yet, not even from the NICEIC.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Dave

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 5:33:39 PM6/8/05
to


But don't both ideas contravene our human rights of privacy?

Dave

Martin Angove

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 6:11:56 PM6/8/05
to
In message <42a75028$0$38039$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk>,
and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

Fair enough, but to be registered for the purposes of Part P with any of
NICEIC, ECA, ELECSA, whatever, whatever, they *all* require the
applicant to have a minimum of £2M public liability insurance, and
insurance in place to be able to offer an (optional) 2-year warranty on
all work undertaken. This insurance isn't easy to find for the slole
trader, and although NICEIC say they are "working on it" even they don't
yet have a scheme in place apparently.

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Two free issues: http://www.livtech.co.uk/ Living With Technology

... If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.

Andy Dingley

unread,
Jun 8, 2005, 6:25:39 PM6/8/05
to
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 21:33:39 +0000 (UTC), Dave <dave...@btopenworld.com>
wrote:

>But don't both ideas contravene our human rights of privacy?

You some kind of Terrorist ?


Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 5:15:42 AM6/9/05
to
In article <1l9ea11b1t4d3bcn0...@4ax.com>, Andy Dingley

That isn't the major concern for me. Bear in mind that in true socialist
fashion, your movements will be tracked and recorded at all times. Now you
see the true reasoning behind the crackpot idea.

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

John Rumm

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 5:48:31 AM6/9/05
to
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:

> That isn't the major concern for me. Bear in mind that in true socialist
> fashion, your movements will be tracked and recorded at all times. Now you
> see the true reasoning behind the crackpot idea.

The only saving grace is that they will expect high tech IT solutions to
do all the work for them ;-)

Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 5:17:50 AM6/9/05
to
In article <h2sea1tgj075ev04o...@4ax.com>, Andy Dingley
<URL:mailto:din...@codesmiths.com> wrote:

> >But don't both ideas contravene our human rights of privacy?
>
> You some kind of Terrorist ?

I think that many may become so if A Darling gets his way.

Rich

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 7:28:48 AM6/9/05
to
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 21:33:39 +0000 (UTC), Dave
<dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote:

Our current government cares little for human rights. Look at the the
so called "anti-terrorism" laws, ASBOs etc. ID Cards and sattelite
tracking of motor vehicles is the next step towards a Police State.

Rich.

Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 7:00:24 AM6/9/05
to
In article <42a81066$0$5003$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, John Rumm
<URL:mailto:see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote:

> The only saving grace is that they will expect high tech IT solutions to
> do all the work for them ;-)

Can anyone say "NHS"? John can. :-)

Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 12:13:58 PM6/9/05
to
Andy Dingley wrote:

> Not for much longer -- I hope we've all written to our MPs in protest at
> the idea of satellite tracking all cars in the UK.

Silver foil on the antennae/reciever.
Won't be difficult to lose a GPS signal, or swamp the tiddlywatt signal
with a few watts of spurious emissions on the right frequency.

Can't see what all the paranoia is about, it will never take off or be
policeable, and evasive techniques will be so simple.


--
http://gymratz.co.uk - Best Gym Equipment & Bodybuilding Supplements UK.
http://trade-price-supplements.co.uk - TRADE PRICED SUPPLEMENTS for ALL!
http://fitness-equipment-uk.com - UK's No.1 Fitness Equipment Suppliers.
http://gymratz.co.uk/hot-seat.htm - Live web-cam! (sometimes)

Martin Evans

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 6:15:57 PM6/9/05
to

>Andy Dingley wrote:
>
>> Not for much longer -- I hope we've all written to our MPs in protest at
>> the idea of satellite tracking all cars in the UK.
>
>Silver foil on the antennae/reciever.
>Won't be difficult to lose a GPS signal, or swamp the tiddlywatt signal
>with a few watts of spurious emissions on the right frequency.
>
>Can't see what all the paranoia is about, it will never take off or be
>policeable, and evasive techniques will be so simple.

I doubt they will but we might get lucky and Crapita will do the
"implementation"

:-)

Unless you only keep to back roads in the middle of nowhere, when you
loose the GPS signal and pass a big brother monitoring point your
vehicle will be identified either by the number plates or by something
like RFID. Maybe you will be able to pass one or two monitoring
points with the GPS out of service and get away with it but do it
regularly you have got to expect a visit from Mr Big to probe your
black box.

GPS signals are also by design remarkably immune to "a few watts of


spurious emissions on the right frequency"


--

Mike

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 6:24:56 PM6/9/05
to

"Martin Evans" <mce...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:78fha15m31qu2hj2i...@4ax.com...

>
> Unless you only keep to back roads in the middle of nowhere, when you
> loose the GPS signal and pass a big brother monitoring point your
> vehicle will be identified either by the number plates or by something
> like RFID. Maybe you will be able to pass one or two monitoring
> points with the GPS out of service and get away with it but do it
> regularly you have got to expect a visit from Mr Big to probe your
> black box.

Even without a GPS signal the car will still record how many miles you've
done so they'll just charge you at peak rate.

I would also expect petrol pumps will have to be modified to interogate your
box as well and only serve petrol if it's working properly.


> GPS signals are also by design remarkably immune to "a few watts of
> spurious emissions on the right frequency"

Yeah - takes a nuclear warhead to block them properly ;-)
But there's a far better use for that ............


John

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 6:42:26 PM6/9/05
to

"Mike" <mi...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:d8afk2$icb$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

Oi! I would be within the firestorm radius of one over East Hull


John Rumm

unread,
Jun 9, 2005, 9:34:45 PM6/9/05
to
Mike wrote:

> I would also expect petrol pumps will have to be modified to interogate your
> box as well and only serve petrol if it's working properly.

Which its "after market" software will confirm quite happily ;-)

(even if it only ever records 15 miles a week of motoring)

Dave Liquorice

unread,
Jun 10, 2005, 4:37:37 AM6/10/05
to
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 02:34:45 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

>> I would also expect petrol pumps will have to be modified to
>> interogate your box as well and only serve petrol if it's working
>> properly.
>
> Which its "after market" software will confirm quite happily ;-)
>
> (even if it only ever records 15 miles a week of motoring)

And 0.5mpg... Which raises the other "problem" with road pricing,
there is little incentive to go for a more economic vehicle (as in
mpg) if a majority of the driving you do is on "cheap" roads. A
"cheap" road would be one less than about 8p/mile which is roughly the
current duty element of fuel costs.

John Rumm

unread,
Jun 10, 2005, 5:24:48 AM6/10/05
to
Dave Liquorice wrote:

> And 0.5mpg... Which raises the other "problem" with road pricing,
> there is little incentive to go for a more economic vehicle (as in
> mpg) if a majority of the driving you do is on "cheap" roads. A
> "cheap" road would be one less than about 8p/mile which is roughly the
> current duty element of fuel costs.

Watching a report on "This Week" last night, it seems they are already
shifting the goalposts a bit. They were then talking about charging per
mile where the price paid per mile for the same stretch of road would
vary depending on your type of vehicle as well as they time of day and
type of road.

Message has been deleted

Ian Stirling

unread,
Jun 10, 2005, 10:23:53 AM6/10/05
to
Martin Evans <mce...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
<snip>

> GPS signals are also by design remarkably immune to "a few watts of
> spurious emissions on the right frequency"

Oh, no they aren't.
I've designed (though not actually got around to building) a GPS reciever.
Some actual numbers.
Each satellite broadcasts some 50W of signal.
The coding makes this effectively some 1MW (taking the highest end of possible
interpretations.)
But.
This has to cover an entire hemisphere.
Call a hemisphere 6*(6*10^6 ^2)m = 2*10^13m^2.
So, this is 2*10^7m^2 per watt.
Or some 4Km.

So, a 1W noise signal will completely blank out about a 2Km radius.
However, I estimated that it would cost about a tenner extra to make
a meaconer, that broadcast fake GPS signals, to increase the jamming area
for 1W by the 20000 'gain factor' that's gotten by the GPS coding, or
about a range of 100Km.
And that's only a watt.
A balloon and a 5-10W transmitter can nuke GPS over several hundred Km.

Mike

unread,
Jun 10, 2005, 2:17:46 PM6/10/05
to

"Dave Liquorice" <new...@howhill.com> wrote in message
news:nyyfbegfubjuvyypb...@news.howhill.com...
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 02:34:45 +0100, John Rumm wrote:
>
> >> I would also expect petrol pumps will have to be modified to
> >> interogate your box as well and only serve petrol if it's working
> >> properly.
> >
> > Which its "after market" software will confirm quite happily ;-)
> >
> > (even if it only ever records 15 miles a week of motoring)
>
> And 0.5mpg... Which raises the other "problem" with road pricing,
> there is little incentive to go for a more economic vehicle (as in
> mpg) if a majority of the driving you do is on "cheap" roads.

Agreed. Wife gets a discount for her small car and saves on petrol as well
whereas with this new scheme I'll possibly be paying less than her as I use
country roads more. I would have thought some 'base rate' with a multiplier
for small cars, medium cars, large cars, vans, 4WDs and HGVs would be
better.

Mike

unread,
Jun 10, 2005, 2:19:31 PM6/10/05
to

"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:42a8ee2d$0$28545$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...

> Mike wrote:
>
> > I would also expect petrol pumps will have to be modified to interogate
your
> > box as well and only serve petrol if it's working properly.
>
> Which its "after market" software will confirm quite happily ;-)
>
> (even if it only ever records 15 miles a week of motoring)


Not sure how you're going to forceably load this software onto a secure
processor but good luck !!!

Bare in mind if you succeed the whole credit card "chip on card" market goes
down the pan as well :-)


Mike

unread,
Jun 10, 2005, 2:22:44 PM6/10/05
to

"Ian Stirling" <ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42a9a279$0$2325$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...

> A balloon and a 5-10W transmitter can nuke GPS over several hundred Km.

If this is true, and I don't dispute it may be, why aren't you in business
selling such kit to the military market ? I can suggest sources of private
startup finance it you need it as I don't imagine the DTI will want to :-)


Ed Sirett

unread,
Jun 10, 2005, 3:57:57 PM6/10/05
to

I was trying to do some guesstimations of the p/mile that would have to
prevail to get approx parity.

Take a typical vehicle which does 10k miles per annum.
This will perhaps get through £1500 of fuel most of which is tax.
So say £1500 of tax including the tax disc.

That means the average would be 15p/mile. So the general price would have
to be very much toward the low end of the ranges that were quoted in the
media.

However have really cheap fuel would put us so far out of odds with the
rest of Europe I can't see that happening. So all they could is scrap the
Car's Poll Tax (sorry Vehicle Excise Duty) and perhaps reduce fuel duty a
bit. In which case the roads would almost all have to be under 5p/mile to
get any sort of parity.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html


Ian Stirling

unread,
Jun 10, 2005, 4:18:45 PM6/10/05
to

Because it's generally not interesting to first, or even second line armies.

Firstly, jamming military GPS is a bit harder, as it's spread over a
wider frequency, and the code is secret.

This means you lose about a factor of 1000, or maybe 30 fold distance,
as you can't pretend to be a satellite, you have to just use random noise
to jam.

Second, all the nice toys (GPS guided bombs, cruise missiles, ICBMs,
aircraft, don't rely only on GPS, they have their own internal inertial
positioning systems, that may not be quite as good as GPS, but will generally
not drift far at all in the 30 min or so between entering jamming range, and
bad stuff arriving on target.

(30 min = 1200Km at Mach 2).

GPS is really, really useful where you've got a 12 hour flight out to the
target, before releasing weapons, to remove the accumulated errors and
mean that your inertial platform is calibrated before you get to enemy
territory.

The only real case it would be useful in wars would be few.
Consider that the US military (and allies if they beg hard enough) can
get GPS turned off at source for a given area.

GPS isn't much needed if you know the country, which means that turning
it off is of limited use in civil wars.
Currently the only uses I can think of would be for a 3rd world government
who is having problems with insurgents using commercial GPS to guide
weaponry.

(If iraq had deployed large numbers of commercial GPS jammers before desert
storm 1, it may have slowed things down a bit - but not so much now, as
military recievers are (AIUI) much more available.)

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Martin Evans

unread,
Jun 10, 2005, 4:46:21 PM6/10/05
to
Ian Stirling <ro...@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote:

OK I'll bite. On what frequency do you envisage the broadcast of a
blocking signal would be effective? What are the spectral components
of that signal?

* For the goons who may (make that will) be listening. Please note
that nothing in this post is an indication of an intent or otherwise
to interfere with GPS systems operated by the US DoD


--

Dave Liquorice

unread,
Jun 10, 2005, 4:59:55 PM6/10/05
to
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:57:57 +0100, Ed Sirett wrote:

> However have really cheap fuel would put us so far out of odds with

> the rest of Europe ...

Oh crikey it wouldn't half wouldn't it. Our fuel is still more
expensive, truckers coming in fill up just before they get on the
ferry/chunnel. And thats for just a few pence/litre, think what would
happen with 50p/l difference...

Mike

unread,
Jun 10, 2005, 7:31:01 PM6/10/05
to

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1gxym9d.slimn31b6slhdN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...

> Mike <mi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > If this is true, and I don't dispute it may be, why aren't you in
business
> > selling such kit to the military market ?
>
> What makes you think that the military don't already have such
> capability?

I meant to 'foreign militarys' - the sort of trade we only do under the
counter through ex-army reps.
But Andy has since pointed out there isn't a market.


Mike

unread,
Jun 10, 2005, 7:32:30 PM6/10/05
to

"Ed Sirett" <e...@makewrite.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.06.10...@makewrite.demon.co.uk...

>
> I was trying to do some guesstimations of the p/mile that would have to
> prevail to get approx parity.

AFAI've heard, 12.6p/mile


Mike

unread,
Jun 10, 2005, 7:34:25 PM6/10/05
to

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1gxymc6.8158bd1cruhfjN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...

> The government "dozy twat" on Any Questions tonight stated that they
> will require each car to have setting in the tracking box that will
> account for the size of the engine and possibklyt for fuel usage. Bigger
> cars will pay higher charges.

Wonder it there'll be exemptions for pre-1973 cars like with road tax. If
not they'll lose out.

And I bet none of the kit will work with positive earth Austin 1100s :-)


Ian Stirling

unread,
Jun 10, 2005, 8:10:14 PM6/10/05
to

It's the same frequency as GPS (1.2Ghz?), with a carrier modulated by the
XOR of a 1.024Mhz 1024 bit PRN code picked to emulate a satellite, and
prerecorded navigation messages at 300 bps.
Ideally, you'd probably want to do 4 or 6 satellites, to give a valid
position.

None of this is challenging technically.
I estimated a 100Mhz microcontroller could trivially do this, apart
from perhaps calculating the required faked orbits, so these would have
to be prerecorded - but prerecording 4*300bps is not very hard.

Ed Sirett

unread,
Jun 11, 2005, 4:43:13 AM6/11/05
to

ROFL
I'm sure the field trial will throw up some interesting features that no
one thought of.

Andy Dingley

unread,
Jun 11, 2005, 6:20:25 AM6/11/05
to
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 22:42:26 +0000 (UTC), "John"
<bo1l...@ASbtinternet.com> wrote:

>Oi! I would be within the firestorm radius of one over East Hull

East Hull ? Think of it as an Extreme Makeover

John

unread,
Jun 11, 2005, 10:34:17 AM6/11/05
to

"Andy Dingley" <din...@codesmiths.com> wrote in message
news:amela1lribkb7b20v...@4ax.com...

Well I admit it would improve the scenery quite a lot although once you pass
the roundabout at the end of Hedon Road it all becomes quite rural (apart
from the chemical plant). I suppose a small tactical nuke detonated at
ground level next to the "castle" might just be acceptable and topography
might shield the West Hull villages.


Stefek Zaba

unread,
Jun 11, 2005, 10:55:01 AM6/11/05
to
Mike wrote:

> Not sure how you're going to forceably load this software onto a secure
> processor but good luck !!!
>
> Bare in mind if you succeed the whole credit card "chip on card" market goes
> down the pan as well :-)
>

Have you read Uncle Ross Anderson's detailed, entertaining, and
authoritative (modulo a few typos) 'Security Engineering' tome?
Available at all good technical bookshops and in the AmaZone, for
something around 20 notes - publisher is Wiley. He's got a few pages in
there on tacho scams, which he uses to illustrate the general point that
the software can be as well-secured as you like - it's still taking
input from some uncontrolled 'outside world'. In the case of tachos, the
after-market mods are little black boxen which fit between the propshaft
rotation detector and the tacho. There are, if I remember, three
positions for the switch: 'full count', so your chart matches the
displayed speed - no reason not to use that in under-60 areas, keeps the
whole record plausible; 'drop 1 in 10', which lets you travel at 11%
higher than the indicated speed - just the job for tooling along the
motorways at a less catatonic pace; and the 'I'm parked up' position,
useful for your working-hours fiddles. (As another instance of the
'secure processing, unconrolled inputs' pattern, he recalls electricity
metering in South Africa, where smartcards accurately recorded the
number of units you'd prepaid for; but the system allowed the amount of
lekky per unit to be changed in the field ;-)

However, the new system will be faultlessly engineered, evaluated to the
very highest levels, with both physically and cryptographically secored
paths from all inputs. And will cost under 50 quid in mass production.
And come with a free tooth fairy....

Stefek

John Rumm

unread,
Jun 11, 2005, 11:04:24 AM6/11/05
to
Mike wrote:

> Not sure how you're going to forceably load this software onto a secure
> processor but good luck !!!

The software does not need to be running on the box in question though
does it.... think more of a wrapper round the IO on the box. Even if
they went for an encrypted system (difficult unless they can get the
yanks to rewrite GPS for them ;-), the chances of them having something
thrown open to the public crypto community (i.e. actually secure) seems
slim to none.

> Bare in mind if you succeed the whole credit card "chip on card" market goes
> down the pan as well :-)

Now I bet that is a prise the consultation never works out it is
creating a massive incentive to hand up ;-)

Mike

unread,
Jun 11, 2005, 5:28:46 PM6/11/05
to

"Stefek Zaba" <s-nilne...@zaba.com> wrote in message
news:1badnToX6_b...@pipex.net...

> Mike wrote:
>
> > Not sure how you're going to forceably load this software onto a secure
> > processor but good luck !!!
> >
> > Bare in mind if you succeed the whole credit card "chip on card" market
goes
> > down the pan as well :-)
> >
> Have you read Uncle Ross Anderson's detailed, entertaining, and
> authoritative (modulo a few typos) 'Security Engineering' tome?
> Available at all good technical bookshops and in the AmaZone, for
> something around 20 notes - publisher is Wiley. He's got a few pages in
> there on tacho scams, which he uses to illustrate the general point that
> the software can be as well-secured as you like - it's still taking
> input from some uncontrolled 'outside world'. In the case of tachos, the
> after-market mods are little black boxen which fit between the propshaft
> rotation detector and the tacho. There are, if I remember, three
> positions for the switch: 'full count', so your chart matches the
> displayed speed - no reason not to use that in under-60 areas, keeps the
> whole record plausible; 'drop 1 in 10', which lets you travel at 11%
> higher than the indicated speed - just the job for tooling along the
> motorways at a less catatonic pace; and the 'I'm parked up' position,
> useful for your working-hours fiddles.

Possibly. But with the GPS integrated with the charge processing unit I
think it will be somewhat harder than that to crack ...


> However, the new system will be faultlessly engineered, evaluated to the
> very highest levels, with both physically and cryptographically secored
> paths from all inputs. And will cost under 50 quid in mass production.

... but as you point out, probably not impossible :-)


> And come with a free tooth fairy....

Mandyson ?


Mike

unread,
Jun 11, 2005, 5:36:32 PM6/11/05
to

"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:42aafd70$0$41906$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...

> Mike wrote:
>
> > Not sure how you're going to forceably load this software onto a secure
> > processor but good luck !!!
>
> The software does not need to be running on the box in question though
> does it.... think more of a wrapper round the IO on the box.

Agreed - any I/O is insecure so it needs to be limited solely to the GPS
signal. If this disappears the unit can either backtrack to other inputs or
'guess' what you did during the missing time. Little worrying though if the
system is going to be based on something with planned outages as somebody
else pointed out happens with GPS.


> Even if
> they went for an encrypted system (difficult unless they can get the
> yanks to rewrite GPS for them ;-),

Ah - a use for Galileo :-)


>
> > Bare in mind if you succeed the whole credit card "chip on card" market
goes
> > down the pan as well :-)
>
> Now I bet that is a prise the consultation never works out it is
> creating a massive incentive to hand up ;-)

I'm sure there's a lot of people working on it already.


raden

unread,
Jun 12, 2005, 8:06:48 PM6/12/05
to
In message <hauja1lumtqppak6t...@4ax.com>, Martin Evans
<mce...@dial.pipex.com> writes

Running scared of Echelon, are we ?

--
geoff

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages