Ed's journal - Why speed cameras suck




			Ed's journal - Why speed cameras suck




			02:23 pm July 21st, 2005

sobrique

Add to Memories

Tell a Friend


	Why speed cameras suck
	I dislike speed cameras. Leaving aside the obvious 'that I got tagged by one', the reasons are these: * They perpetuate the myth that there's some mystical threshold, at which going faster you suddenly become 'dangerous'. Speed appropriate to conditions. Repeat after me. Speed appropriate to conditions. * Watching your speedometer because there's a camera coming up means you're not paying attention to the road. * A few miles an hour over the limit is less dangerous than stamping on the brakes to avoid getting a ticket. * Automatic tickets transfer the burden of proof onto the hapless motorist. It's an automatic process that on numerous occasions seems to lack basic sanity checking. Guilting until proven innocent is not one of the tenets of our legal system. * In March, I was assaulted, had a leg broken, and a ligament torn. I'm still not walking especially well. Made a statement, but they 'exhausted their avenues of enquiry'. Is it hard to see how I'm bitter that now some one is making my life complicated by issuing a ticket for doing 48 miles an hour, along a road that until a couple of months ago had a 60 mile an hour limit? I appreciate that the skills required to investigate an assault case are not the same as the skills require to stick a notice of intended prosecution in an envelope, but somehow it offends me that more effort seems to have gone in to extorting £60 from me than in doing anything at all about the fact that I've had to put up with 6 weeks in a cast, and am still not entirely mobile.

48 comments or Leave a comment


	Comments




			Thread started by Sandra

	From: wolflady26	Date: July 21st, 2005 02:02 pm (UTC)		(Link)

But the problem with most of your objections is that they presuppose that you're breaking the law. Obeying the law means that you won't be stomping on brakes or changing your driving behavior because a camera is coming up. And conditions that would affect the safe driving speed would presumably only make you go slower than the speed limit, so the camera would be immaterial.

(Reply) (Thread)

	From: sobrique	Date: July 21st, 2005 02:19 pm (UTC)		(Link)

You don't have to be speeding to check what speed you _are_ doing.

I've seen numerous occasions where motorists have suddenly spotted the camera, and stepped on the brakes, regardless of the fact that they weren't travelling faster than the limit anyway.

I accept that whilst I may not agree with the speed limit, that's what the law says, however I don't accept that because some councillor has arbitrarily picked a number out of the air, that that's a reasonable or safe speed for a road.

Actually, I think that rural speed restrictions in general are a bad idea, and we should be using dangerous or careless driving offenses - simply because safe speed changes hour to hour.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: malal	Date: July 21st, 2005 07:55 pm (UTC)		(Link)

"I've seen numerous occasions where motorists have suddenly spotted the camera, and stepped on the brakes, regardless of the fact that they weren't travelling faster than the limit anyway."

That's because they're idiots.... :-P

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: sobrique	Date: July 22nd, 2005 08:02 am (UTC)		(Link)

If a mistake is often made, then perhaps it's time to consider _why_.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: purp1e_magic	Date: July 21st, 2005 08:22 pm (UTC)		(Link)

some councillor has arbitrarily picked a number out of the air

Actually, determining speed limits, and other variable road rules is done by technicians who write and run simulations and compute masses of relevant data and have to make decisions about acceptable levels of fatalities and injuries. They then their decisions got into conference with enforcers who say 'that's ridiculously low, people won't do it' etc. It's hard not to creep over the limit. But I would hate to take it on my own head to say, ah, I'm not going to crash, when someone with the evidence and statistics to back up their claim says some percent of people going at that speed are this likely to crash, and may get this badly hurt, assuming everyone involved drives well.

Speed cameras do work. They are usually placed strategically, and accidents do go down, and fatalities do go down; even if they create a bit of reckless braking.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: sobrique	Date: July 22nd, 2005 07:59 am (UTC)		(Link)

Actually, there's evidence of the opposite:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/19/gatso_deaths_link/

"Hertfordshire saw a 24 per cent rise in speed camera numbers between 2003 and 2004. In the same period, road fatalities rose by 34 per cent.

Likewise in Wiltshire, camera numbers went up 14 per cent, and those killed 22 per cent. In County Durham, meanwhile, a lone Gatso oversaw a 22 per cent drop in fatalities.

The Sun is also delighted to report that in North Wales, where "Gatso fan Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom has a league table for traffic cops", 56,247 speeding tickets were issued although this had little effect on safety, with an 18 per cent increase in road deaths.

The reason? Simple, says safety expert Paul Smith: “Crashes are avoided by making a safe plan based on what you see. Cameras move attention away from hazards to speedometers.”

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: sobrique	Date: July 22nd, 2005 08:13 am (UTC)		(Link)

I'm not trying to argue speed limits exactly, as ... well that's a different post. (Hmm, there's a thought... New LJ post time)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: elrohana	Date: July 22nd, 2005 11:02 am (UTC)		(Link)

the argument about these type of stats is that it deals with marked up Gatso speed cameras of the old type. Put in unmarked digital ones like they have in Nottingham and nobody brakes to avoid the nasty speed camera because YOU BLOODY WELL CAN'T, they'll still get you.

If I were in power, every road in the country would have digital speed cameras on it, with no markings on 'em at all.

I'm sick of people whinging about speed cameras - stop breaking the fucking law, then you won't have a problem.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: sobrique	Date: July 22nd, 2005 11:18 am (UTC)		(Link)

By 'people whinging' you presumably mean me?.

Thanks awfully.

What's the purpose of a speed camera? To issue fines and points? A letter, 2 weeks later, saying 'you were going too fast' isn't any use at all. Does work as an additional source of revenue though.

A law that's 'widely abused' is surely a flawed law? "Everyone does it" may not be a defense but it's definitely an indication that a large proportion disagree with it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: elrohana	Date: July 22nd, 2005 11:48 am (UTC)		(Link)

Not JUST you, though yes, not to put too fine a point on it, you are included in the generic 'people'. As its your LJ, you can whinge about it all you want, won't stop me arguing with you though :P. I would apologise for my abrasive style, but I'd be lying - I thought you'd be used to me by now.

I rarely hear anyone complaining about speed cameras until they get a speed ticket. In fact, I don't remember you mentioning it before - or did I miss that post? :P In fact, the only people I personally know who disagree with them are people who habitually break the speed limit. I don't know many folk who either walk, cycle or use public transport (as opposed to driving themselves) who think they're a bad idea, either.

Odd that, isn't it?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: sobrique	Date: July 22nd, 2005 12:06 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I don't complain about getting bitten by mosquitoes much either, until I'm itchin' like buggery becuase I've been made into an insect snack bar.

I also didn't whinge much about how walking around on crutches totally sucks until it happened to me, or actually how atrocious it is that disabled spaces around supermakets seem to fill with arseholes who aren't.

It's easy to be apathetic about something that's never bothered you. :).

I grudgingly accept the fact that I got got. I'm an adult, and ... well actions have consequences, intended or otherwise. The consequence of this one is a ticket and some points (Or going to court, and trying to argue the case). I do object to the rather mechanistic 'automated process' though. And that's not going to stop me attempting to consider defenses to prevent being prosecuted.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: elrohana	Date: July 26th, 2005 09:19 am (UTC)		(Link)
	Just remembered...

You said its easy to be apathetic about something that's never bothered you.

I have had a speeding ticket, from a camera.

Its a long story, but basically the speed limit on a road had changed from 40 to 30, without being signposted except behind a tree. Local council (up North, so I didn't find out till much much later) eventually publicly admitted it and cancelled a load of tickets. Being a good law-abiding citizen who was gobsmacked to find she'd been speeding, I had assumed I was guilty and had already paid my fine and sucked up the points.

So I am not being apathetic about something that has never afected me.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: mister_jack	Date: July 21st, 2005 02:42 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Given that to a good first approximation everybody speeds, what difference does that make?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: sobrique	Date: July 21st, 2005 02:50 pm (UTC)		(Link)

A quick straw poll of the office indicates that this is the case. Although most extend the caveat that they don't in a 30, 'a bit' in a 40-50 and 'rather a lot actually' in a NSL.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: wolflady26	Date: July 21st, 2005 03:16 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Actually, that's not true. I've lived in a culture where everybody speeds, and I've lived in a culture where it's pretty standard to, you know, follow laws. I have to say, it's much, much preferable to drive in the second culture. And one of the ways that those laws are enforced is through speed cameras.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: mister_jack	Date: July 21st, 2005 03:38 pm (UTC)		(Link)

But in England, everyone speeds so Eds objections stand - people brake for speed cameras, and doing so is frequently dangerous.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: wolflady26	Date: July 21st, 2005 03:48 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Then the solution would better be don't break the law than don't enforce the law.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: mister_jack	Date: July 21st, 2005 03:53 pm (UTC)		(Link)

A better solution still would be to have everyone drive well, drive well maintained cars, drive courtesly, drive within their abilities and never be tired, drunk or distracted when driving. Then we'd have no accidents at all and no need for speed limits.

But we don't live in an ideal world; we live in this one. In this one, people speed every time they get in a car and speed cameras cause them to make dangerous braking manouvers.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: wolflady26	Date: July 21st, 2005 04:19 pm (UTC)		(Link)

In this world, people who speed should also live with the consequences of their actions. So I find the argument extremely uncompelling. If these people are really so incompetant that they willfully break laws and then put themselves in danger when they are faced with the consequences of their action, then they're candidates for Darwin Awards. And, the camera is certainly not the big problem, but rather their extreme lack of responsibility and common sense.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: elrohana	Date: July 21st, 2005 05:35 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Hear hear and well said to everything you've said Wolflady.

We're a two-person household and neither of us speed.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: sobrique	Date: July 22nd, 2005 08:11 am (UTC)		(Link)

When you say 'neither of us speed' do you mean that you don't habitually travel faster than the posted limit, or do you mean that you are continually watching that little needle in your dashboard? Can you say that you've never drifted over the speed limit, even say, when starting down a hill on a 'fast' road?

I'd take the view that one should be paying attention to the road ahead, especially when there's 'hazards' (as there has to be, in order to allow the erection of speed cameras) than looking down to watch dials.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: elrohana	Date: July 22nd, 2005 11:07 am (UTC)		(Link)

Strangely enough, after driving for over 20 years both here and on the European mainland, I find it quite easy to gauge my speed and keep it within the legal limit, yes, even coming down a hill. I've been known to slide a mile or two over the limit briefly, but not deliberately. There's a big difference between a speed 'creep' of 1 or 2 mph and doing 40 in a 30 zone or 100 mph on the motorway. It just takes a bit more thought. Which is why I probably don't chatter much or notice the scenery when I'm driving. And speed cameras rarely snap you when you're only a couple of mph over - generally you ned to be doing 5 over to get zapped. They DO allow for honest mistakes you know.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: sobrique	Date: July 22nd, 2005 11:33 am (UTC)		(Link)

By the letter of the law, 31mph in a 30 zone is an offence. Cameras may have fudge factors built into them, but surely that's just letting lawbreakers get away with it?

Should 'yes, I was over the limit, but I didn't do it deliberately' be a legitimate defense?

There's a notable difference between 'a bit over the limit' especially when the road is otherwise empty, and 60 mph through a residential area, past a school at kicking out time. But a speed camera draws no such distinction, if you're past the threshold, then clicky click.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: elrohana	Date: July 22nd, 2005 11:54 am (UTC)		(Link)

True. Valid points.

However until we are all prepared to pay triple the current council tax so that there are enough traffic cops available to monitor the roads, speed cameras are the only option.

I live in a village, which is a 30 mph or 40 mph limit throughout. Clearly signposted. At each end of the village the road becomes national speed limit - single carriageway, ergo, 60 mph. How many muppets do you think overtake us each morning on the way to work doing 60 in the 30 zone stretch, because its 7.15 a.m. and the road is quiet, and 'well its only a few hundred yards til the speed limit changes anyway'? Revenge is coming -the local police will be arming residents on that stretch of road with mobile digital speed cameras very soon.

Personally, I'd shoot the fuckers.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: sobrique	Date: July 22nd, 2005 12:08 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Personally, I think the easy solution would be 'self drive cars'. Set an autopilot, it takes you to work, and you can sit back and read a book, whilst having a pint. (no drunk in charge, because you're not in charge ;p). I rather like travelling by train, simply because you can just relax whilst doing so. Unfortunately, travelling by train is somewhat more pain than car with my route to work.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: (Anonymous)	Date: July 21st, 2005 06:25 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Well said. My brother was killed because the person driving the car was driving above the speed limit and crashed. Simple rule, don't drive over the speed limit. Just because everyone else does doesn't mean you should.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: sobrique	Date: July 22nd, 2005 08:01 am (UTC)		(Link)

Because they were exceeding the speed limit, or because they were driving dangerously?

The fact that at 30 MPH you're 'safe' and 31 you're suddenly a dangerous death monster is just wrong.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: malal	Date: July 22nd, 2005 08:14 pm (UTC)		(Link)

But it's a suprisingly fine line. 30mph, if you hit someone there is a 1 in 5 chance they'll die. By 40mph, that becomes a 1 in 5 chance that they'll live....

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: mister_jack	Date: July 22nd, 2005 10:36 am (UTC)		(Link)

People who drive dangerously should live with the consequences of their actions. It's the concentration on speed to the exclusion of other factors I object to.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: wolflady26	Date: July 22nd, 2005 10:39 am (UTC)		(Link)

Yes, they should. And so should people who break the law because they can't be bothered to follow it. Most of the people who get into crashes at high speeds thought they were driving safely, until they lost control. Then, oops.

But you're right, speed isn't the only factor. But the scope of this discussion is blaming a camera for causing accidents, when if people were following the law, the camera would be immaterial.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: mister_jack	Date: July 22nd, 2005 01:26 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Let me be quite clear about this; if I am caught speeding I will shrug my shoulders say "it's a fair cop, guv" and pay the fine. It won't make a blind bit of difference to the fact the law is unjust, unreasonable and stupid. As Ed has already pointed out speed is the primary cause in only 1 in 13 accidents, and the specific wording is 'excessive speed' not breaking the speed limit. I know of plenty of places driving at the speed limit would be dangerous. There's also the fact that the areas of the country with the most speed cameras have seen road deaths go up not down.

Saying 'if people were following the law, the camera would be immaterial' is irrelevant because the majority of people aren't following the law. Fact is, Speed Cameras are causing people to drive dangerously - I see them do it every day.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: wolflady26	Date: July 22nd, 2005 01:32 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I think we're going around in circles here. If I'm driving the speed limit - which, as an experienced driver, I always have a good idea of the speed I'm driving - I don't freak out when I see a speed camera. If I'm speeding, I do. Your conclusion is to remove the camera, and mine is to not speed.

My whole point from step one is that the logic of "People act dangerously when they don't want to get caught breaking the law" is a weak reason for not enforcing laws. Before I see this apply to speeding laws, I would apply that logic to, say, drug use. People would behave _much_ less dangerously with drug use if the laws against it weren't enforced. It also applies to a lot of other laws. For example, lots of people behave more dangerously when they want to murder people, for fear of getting caught. If the laws against murder weren't enforced, the likelihood of, say, drive by shootings would probably plummet. Nevertheless, I'm still more in favor of not breaking the law against murder than dropping the enforcement of it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: malal	Date: July 21st, 2005 07:57 pm (UTC)		(Link)

"But in England, everyone speeds"

No they don't. I don't speed. And as someone who tends to stick at exactly the speed limit, I notice an awful lot of English drivers who go notably slower no matter what. And a fair few who stick to it like me.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: sobrique	Date: July 22nd, 2005 08:07 am (UTC)		(Link)

When you say 'exactly at the speed limit' does that mean you're constantly keeping an eye on your speedometer? I mean, as opposed to paying attention to the road.

And can you honestly say you never drift over it when, for example, you start down a hill? Because that's basically what happened to me in this situation (although I'll admit I do often go faster on 'clear' roads).

Hypothetically, which is more dangerous. A collision between two vehicles, one travelling at 80 miles an hour, and another doing 75, or a collision between two vehicles where one's doing 70, and one's doing 40?

Lower speed isn't always appropriate.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: purp1e_magic	Date: July 22nd, 2005 09:21 am (UTC)		(Link)

If you have a feel for the car, and tend to obey the limits, you know what it feels like in your car to be doing 30, 60 and 70 (or whatever you mostly use). You don't need to watch your speedo. If you do go down a hill/ on a fast road, you still notice and can slow it down. Actually, I think you were quite unlucky to be caught, because as a rule of thumb they only pick up 10% plus 3 mph faster than the limit (or so I've heard).

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: mister_jack	Date: July 22nd, 2005 10:33 am (UTC)		(Link)

Such measures are deeply unreliable. Simulator studies show that people badly misestimate their speed based on factors such as road width, prevalance of "pavement traffic" (lampposts, signs, pedestrians, etc), length of the dashed lines down the road and the speed they've previously been travelling at.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: wolflady26	Date: July 22nd, 2005 10:50 am (UTC)		(Link)

Hypothetically, which is more dangerous. A collision between two vehicles, one travelling at 80 miles an hour, and another doing 75, or a collision between two vehicles where one's doing 70, and one's doing 40?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. It depends on things like the angle of impact, but if the two cars met head-to-head, the first situation would be worse. If you mean that one car bumps into another from behind, then the first one (80MPH bumping into 75MPH) would do less damage than a 70MPH car hitting a 40 MPH car. However, in neither case would the slower car be at-fault. And that is true only if the person driving 75MPH continues to drive on completely unaffected by the bump from behind, which is unlikely. In actuality, he'd probably swerve, hit the brakes, or have another panic reaction, which would end up with losing control of his speeding car.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: sobrique	Date: July 22nd, 2005 11:22 am (UTC)		(Link)

Well, if we take e.g. a motorway in the UK, 3 lanes, average speed of vehicles 80-90 miles an hour.
Actually, let's leave the 'legal bit' out of it. Assume everyone's following the national speed limit. 70mph.

A driver trundling along at 40 is causing an obstruction, and forcing other drivers to react to their presence. That, in my book, is dangerous driving.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: wolflady26	Date: July 22nd, 2005 11:57 am (UTC)		(Link)

Err, yeah, sure it is. In fact, many highways in the US have lower speed limits as well.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: sobrique	Date: July 22nd, 2005 12:10 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I'm trying to figure out whether that's sarcasm or not :).

If the average road speed is 40, then doing 40 is fine and good. If it's 40 and you're doing 20, then you're presenting a hazard to all the other drivers. It might not be illegal, but many 'bad habits' aren't illegal per-se.

(Although if I recall correctly, there actually is a prosecutable offence on the books of 'failing to make reasonable progress' or some such, to cover people driving really slowly on motorways)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: wolflady26	Date: July 22nd, 2005 01:59 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I'm not being sarcastic. Many highways in the US have lower as well as upper speed limits, because driving too slowly on a highway is considered a danger. So you can be ticketed for driving 35 on a highway where the speed limit is 55. Either way, it's breaking the law.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: malal	Date: July 22nd, 2005 08:25 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I glance at the speedometer at vaguely regular intervals while still paying attention to the road with my periferal vision. It's really not hard. I "take my eyes off the road" for longer when checking my mirrors (because a glance wont let you estimate that cars speed, so you have to hold it for a fraction of a second).

Yes, occationally I've found I've drifted (hence the word "tends"). I'll stop argueing there because other people are already doing a fantastic job on arguing that particular point.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: mister_jack	Date: July 22nd, 2005 10:33 am (UTC)		(Link)

Which puts you at roughly 1 in 10. So, as I said, to a good first approximation, everyone speeds.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: malal	Date: July 22nd, 2005 08:26 pm (UTC)		(Link)

But I was also pointing out that wasn't my empirical experiance....

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)




			Comment by Anonymous

From: (Anonymous)	Date: July 21st, 2005 08:30 pm (UTC)		(Link)
speeding

it's a common misconception that 'speed kill'. it doesn't. it's in appropriate speed, or someones silly action that does.
I was in a car park near here. Just leaving, and doing about 20mph. A young child (about 4) ran through the cars and nearly ended under my front wheels, the responsible!!!! adult was clearly not controlling him/her. If I had been doing 21mph, we would have contacted. If I had been doing 25mph, I would have well past the area where we would have contacted!!
Also there is a legal requirement that speed (revenue) cameras can only be erected when there have been 3 fatal accidents on the stretch of road.
I do wonder, however, once they are in place, the accident rate will reduce, so when is the situation revisted to see if that stretch of raod is STILL dangerous
bob6pp

(Reply) (Thread)




			Thread started by veremit

	From: veremit	Date: July 21st, 2005 10:56 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Ok, I'll admit that I do break the speed limit in technicality .. but only by a margin which I consider 'reasonable'. This takes into account the fact that my speedometer over-reads (a deliberate manufactured feature) and that despite this margin I shall be additionally alert to factors for which the limit has been set. Additionally I shall not be causing a significantly greater hazard, although I am aware of the arguments between injury and death occurring over very small speed differences.
If conditions prevail that I should travel slower (eg. corners, obstructions, traffic, poor light, children, dogs/animals, etc, etc) I shall do so - this also includes driver and passenger comfort.
I would also like to remind the drivers amongst us that there are limits in urban areas which are implied by spacings of street lighting to 30mph. These must be adhered BY DEFAULT unless signed otherwise. Tedious, but fact and LAW. Another point for discussion...?!

I fully agree with wolflady too, her points, arguments and reasonings are quite true. I think also that with the increasingly poor standard of driving in this country that all drivers should me made to retake a driving test every 5-10 years to refresh their knowledge of driving and highway good practice.

On another related note; as a company vehicle and van driver, isn't it strange how the community of "professional" drivers - as I shall call them - can take into account the actions of themselves and those around them when driving, much more intelligently than car drivers .... !!!

(Reply) (Thread)

	From: mister_jack	Date: July 22nd, 2005 10:35 am (UTC)		(Link)

What increasingly poor standard of driving? Britain has the safest roads in Europe, and a falling level of traffic injuries and deaths - which would be falling much faster if we consider only cars.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: sobrique	Date: July 22nd, 2005 11:36 am (UTC)		(Link)

On another related note; as a company vehicle and van driver, isn't it strange how the community of "professional" drivers - as I shall call them - can take into account the actions of themselves and those around them when driving, much more intelligently than car drivers .... !!!

Not really. A professional driver, as a rule, is going to get more experience than an amateur. I seem to recall that 90% of drivers think they're 'better than average'. When you get to professional drivers though, you start filtering out the 'well, I only like to drive around on saturdays, and passed my test 65 years ago.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


	48 comments or Leave a comment

profile


User: sobrique Name: Ed

calendar

	July 2009
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

links

LJ Links

Update Your Journal

Upload picture

My LJ

Upcoming Birthdays

Turn down the flames

Manage Friends

Manage tags

Customize Journal

LJ Homepage

Popular with friends

Post by email instructions.

To Do List

Recent comments

Log in to LJ

LJ Poll Creator

Posts by Subject

EVE Online

Maelstrom

Systems Admin

Offsite Links

The Register

SINergy Message board

UKAN

Pagga

Joule

page summary

wolflady26 (no subject) [+43]

Anonymous speeding

veremit (no subject) [+2]

tags