The actual incident that triggered the request for UAVs was the death in Fyshwick earlier this year - where a serial car thief who delighted in baiting police (because the courts kept letting him off) hit and killed some of his friends after calling them to help escape the police pursuit.

Irrespective of whether we can trust the AFP, the installation of point-to-point speed cameras which have "relatively low infringement rates" seems like a gross over-reaction to a non-existent problem. The data --crazy I know to look at it when considering emotionally driven issues -- does not bear out the expense http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/D18CA4EA930FF0D2CA25773700169CE5?opendocument

Suggesting that reducing tolerances to increase infringements (in this case, I see no other reason than for revenue) to pay for a system that is not needed is abusive. Will it reduce deaths?

There is input, output and logic. Input, in this case was the collected data from weather stations, satellites, ice cores, tree rings, etc. The model is a computer simulation program. It is a set of logic rules (algorithms) we feed the input to produce the output. The output is the climate prediction.

The output, or the global warming prediction is flawed because the logic (the model) is flawed.

Of course, there are many that will challenge the data (input) as well (weather stations located inside an active volcano, etc).

However, your comments on tort reform are dead on. As a resident of Illinois (one of the worse states for medical malpractice insurance), I completely agree that the first step toward fixing any healthcare system in our country is malpractice tort reform. I feel that an acquaintance of mine put it best: "You expect a bunch of lawyers to fix tort law to make it harder to sue? Ha!"