|
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
In message , Bruce
writes On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:01:01 -0500, wrote: Evidence that the fines ever went to local government coffers? All the "evidence" anyone should need is the bleating of local authorities ever since they were denied the income stream from fines. They never have had such an income stream. Money from speeding fines has always gone to central government. All that local authorities (or, strictly, groups of local authorities) got was the cost of processing the fines, for which they had to apply to the DfT. What local authorities are currently bleating about is the change introduced in 2007, which means that they now can't even claim the cost of processing fines. Instead they were given a Road Safety Grant, to spend as they wished on a range of road safety measures, and which has just been halved in value. -- Paul Terry |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
Graeme gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: As the tolerances for speed cameras are not advertised, then it is foolish to risk your license by driving past at any mph above the posted limit. ACPO's recommended +10%+2 notwithstanding... ACPO also recommended upping the Motorway limit to 80mph, that was ignored as well. You don't understand the difference between recommending a change to legislation (which requires political agreement) and recommending a tolerance for enforcement (which doesn't)? |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On 29 July, 12:57, Ken Wilshire wrote:
Nobody has yet pointed out that speed limits generally were set at the nearest 10 mph lower than the 85th percentile (approx from memory) of all road traffic on a stretch of road (blanket 30 mph zones excepted) in the 1960s. *Therefore, "exceeding" a posted speed limit just means that you are driving faster than the 85th percentile - not an offence if you are driving sensibly. Since the 1960s car control has improved tremendously from power steering through ABS brakes, yet the Highway Code still has the stopping (thinking/braking) distances of old. *I would like to see these distances recast for modern cars with two tables, one for dry conditions and one for wet. *Modern downward tinkering of speed limits is practically all about anti-car, not common sense, cf ever increasing swathes of 20 mph zones, etc. Although a car in working order may have great capabilities, I still feel unnerved when driven by someone who zooms up to traffic queues and then brakes hard (stopping safely). I wouldn't bother accelerating towards an obstruction and would save on both petrol and brake pad by coasting gently towards it. That way, even if the systems fail, far less harm is likely to result. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
In message
, Ken Wilshire writes Speed cameras are a danger (except at real accident black spots) as it is a reflex action to brake when you see one on a road not traveled before, and you lose concentration checking that you are 'safe'. Added to which, it has been widely reported (and confirmed by the cameras' manufacturer) that drivers can defeat a SPECS camera by the potentially unsafe practice of lane-hopping during the measured section of road. -- Paul Terry |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
Paul Terry gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: Added to which, it has been widely reported (and confirmed by the cameras' manufacturer) that drivers can defeat a SPECS camera by the potentially unsafe practice of lane-hopping during the measured section of road. It's no more or less "potentially unsafe" than changing lanes at any other time. It's precisely that "Change lanes? Oooh! Unsafe!" attitude which results in the abysmal lane discipline in this country and the constant motorway lane-widening which results from it. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:08:34 +0100, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Ken Wilshire writes Speed cameras are a danger (except at real accident black spots) as it is a reflex action to brake when you see one on a road not traveled before, and you lose concentration checking that you are 'safe'. Added to which, it has been widely reported (and confirmed by the cameras' manufacturer) that drivers can defeat a SPECS camera by the potentially unsafe practice of lane-hopping during the measured section of road. That hasn't been the case since sometime in 2007. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...d_camera_myth/ According to Collins, the need for Home Office Type Approval (HOTA) may have given rise to the confusion. This, he says “is a form of rigorous testing that any system must undergo before it can be used for enforcement. Until recently, the only HOTA available applied to cars maintaining their lanes. “However, a new test schedule was carried out last year, which means that average speed checking can be applied even where cars change lanes.” |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
In message , David Walters
writes On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:08:34 +0100, Paul Terry wrote: Added to which, it has been widely reported (and confirmed by the cameras' manufacturer) that drivers can defeat a SPECS camera by the potentially unsafe practice of lane-hopping during the measured section of road. That hasn't been the case since sometime in 2007. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...d_camera_myth/ Ah, glad to hear that that loophole has been closed. -- Paul Terry |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:01:56 +0100
Paul Terry wrote: In message , David Walters writes On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:08:34 +0100, Paul Terry wrote: Added to which, it has been widely reported (and confirmed by the cameras' manufacturer) that drivers can defeat a SPECS camera by the potentially unsafe practice of lane-hopping during the measured section of road. That hasn't been the case since sometime in 2007. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...d_camera_myth/ Ah, glad to hear that that loophole has been closed. Did anyone believe it worked anyway? Why would anyone writing the software make the cars lane part of the database key in the first place? It makes no sense whatsoever. The best way of deafeting specs cameras is just remove your front number plate which I've done on many an occasion. Or ride a motorbike. B2003 |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
In message
Adrian wrote: Graeme gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: As the tolerances for speed cameras are not advertised, then it is foolish to risk your license by driving past at any mph above the posted limit. ACPO's recommended +10%+2 notwithstanding... ACPO also recommended upping the Motorway limit to 80mph, that was ignored as well. You don't understand the difference between recommending a change to legislation (which requires political agreement) and recommending a tolerance for enforcement (which doesn't)? I do, I was just being sarcastic. They don't have much choice with the tolerance, car speedometers are only legally required to be accurate within 10%. -- Graeme Wall This address not read, substitute trains for rail Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/ |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
Graeme gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: As the tolerances for speed cameras are not advertised, then it is foolish to risk your license by driving past at any mph above the posted limit. ACPO's recommended +10%+2 notwithstanding... ACPO also recommended upping the Motorway limit to 80mph, that was ignored as well. You don't understand the difference between recommending a change to legislation (which requires political agreement) and recommending a tolerance for enforcement (which doesn't)? I do, I was just being sarcastic. They don't have much choice with the tolerance, car speedometers are only legally required to be accurate within 10%. But only in one direction. Zero tolerance in the other direction. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
|
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
In article ,
(Bruce) wrote: On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:01:01 -0500, wrote: In article , (Bruce) wrote: It's because the purchase and installation costs of the cameras were paid for by central government while the income from fines (formerly) went to local government coffers. Evidence that the fines ever went to local government coffers? All the "evidence" anyone should need is the bleating of local authorities ever since they were denied the income stream from fines. So, you don't accept that you are misinformed? -- Colin Rosenstiel |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:35:29 +0100
Paul Terry wrote: Why would anyone writing the software make the cars lane part of the database key in the first place? You misunderstand. Home Office approval applied only to systems that recorded speeds of vehicles which maintained their lane when SPECS cameras first appeared in 1999. So, while a change of lane didn't affect the SPECS reading, any attempt at prosecuting a speeding driver who had changed lanes between the two relevant SPECS photos would almost certainly have failed on the basis that the system was being used beyond its approved purpose. Ah ok. Not a technical shortcoming then. The best way of deafeting specs cameras is just remove your front number plate which I've done on many an occasion. Erm ... SPECS3 can read the rear number plate :( Only if they point the cameras in the right direction. They don't have x-ray vision... yet! B2003 |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
In article
, " wrote: On 28 July, 21:53, Adrian wrote: Sam Wilson gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: ... *I'm still not sure whether to believe it, but he slowed down to 40-ish for the cameras his satnav told him about (A68 - not many). The theory is commonplace, but I doubt the practice - not least because it's entirely possible for two nominally visually identical vehicles (and certainly very similar in overall outline or cross-section) to have different speed limits. Basically, I just don't think the cameras are intelligent enough. Talivans, otoh... SPECS3 combined with ANPR, Bristol and South Wales trials went very well. Yeah, but these were point speed cameras (GATSOs or whatever) not SPECS-type average speed setups. Sam |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
In message , Graeme
writes IIRC in the original installations each lane was monitored by it's own set of cameras. The assumption was each set was independent all through the chain. Not necessarily true but urban myths get taken up very rapidly. According to the manufacturer of SPECS, writing in 2008 and quoted in the article in The Register reference up-thread, it was no urban myth, but simply the case that the cameras were not authorised for use in situations where a vehicle had changed lanes between check points: "Until recently, the only HOTA [Home Office Type Approval] available applied to cars maintaining their lanes. However a new test schedule was carried out last year, which means that average speed checking can be applied even where cars change lanes." In other words, SPECS could technically work out the average speed, even when the driver changed lanes, but if the speed was above the limit there would be little chance of a successful prosecution because the system would not have been deemed to have been used in an approved manner prior to late 2007. -- Paul Terry |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
In message
Paul Terry wrote: In message , Graeme writes IIRC in the original installations each lane was monitored by it's own set of cameras. The assumption was each set was independent all through the chain. Not necessarily true but urban myths get taken up very rapidly. According to the manufacturer of SPECS, writing in 2008 and quoted in the article in The Register reference up-thread, it was no urban myth, but simply the case that the cameras were not authorised for use in situations where a vehicle had changed lanes between check points: You misunderstood, the urban myth was about the reason the system didn't work. I doubt the average motorist has even heard of HOTA. -- Graeme Wall This address not read, substitute trains for rail Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/ |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
"Sam Wilson" wrote in message
... Yeah, but these were point speed cameras (GATSOs or whatever) not SPECS-type average speed setups. Even a single-point camera could enforce vehicle-specific speed limits by bolting on a bit of ANPR technology. -- DAS |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:06:19 -0500,
wrote: In article , (Bruce) wrote: On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:01:01 -0500, wrote: In article , (Bruce) wrote: It's because the purchase and installation costs of the cameras were paid for by central government while the income from fines (formerly) went to local government coffers. Evidence that the fines ever went to local government coffers? All the "evidence" anyone should need is the bleating of local authorities ever since they were denied the income stream from fines. So, you don't accept that you are misinformed? Perhaps you should concentrate your efforts on the local authorities who are complaining bitterly about losing an income stream which you appear to be implying they never had. ;-) |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
In article ,
(Bruce) wrote: On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:06:19 -0500, wrote: In article , (Bruce) wrote: On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:01:01 -0500, wrote: In article , (Bruce) wrote: It's because the purchase and installation costs of the cameras were paid for by central government while the income from fines (formerly) went to local government coffers. Evidence that the fines ever went to local government coffers? All the "evidence" anyone should need is the bleating of local authorities ever since they were denied the income stream from fines. So, you don't accept that you are misinformed? Perhaps you should concentrate your efforts on the local authorities who are complaining bitterly about losing an income stream which you appear to be implying they never had. ;-) You have been told elsewhere in this thread that was in the form of government grants, not receiving the fines. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On 29 July, 14:05, MIG wrote:
On 29 July, 12:57, Ken Wilshire wrote: Nobody has yet pointed out that speed limits generally were set at the nearest 10 mph lower than the 85th percentile (approx from memory) of all road traffic on a stretch of road (blanket 30 mph zones excepted) in the 1960s. *Therefore, "exceeding" a posted speed limit just means that you are driving faster than the 85th percentile - not an offence if you are driving sensibly. Since the 1960s car control has improved tremendously from power steering through ABS brakes, yet the Highway Code still has the stopping (thinking/braking) distances of old. *I would like to see these distances recast for modern cars with two tables, one for dry conditions and one for wet. *Modern downward tinkering of speed limits is practically all about anti-car, not common sense, cf ever increasing swathes of 20 mph zones, etc. Although a car in working order may have great capabilities, I still feel unnerved when driven by someone who zooms up to traffic queues and then brakes hard (stopping safely). *I wouldn't bother accelerating towards an obstruction and would save on both petrol and brake pad by coasting gently towards it. That way, even if the systems fail, far less harm is likely to result. Good point, the fact is cars may have improved, humans have not. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On 29 July, 14:08, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Ken Wilshire writes Speed cameras are a danger (except at real accident black spots) as it is a reflex action to brake when you see one on a road not traveled before, and you lose concentration checking that you are 'safe'. Added to which, it has been widely reported (and confirmed by the cameras' manufacturer) that drivers can defeat a SPECS camera by the potentially unsafe practice of lane-hopping during the measured section of road. -- Paul Terry Er, no. Not anymore |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On 29 July, 15:15, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:01:56 +0100 Paul Terry wrote: In message , David Walters writes On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:08:34 +0100, Paul Terry wrote: Added to which, it has been widely reported (and confirmed by the cameras' manufacturer) that drivers can defeat a SPECS camera by the potentially unsafe practice of lane-hopping during the measured section of road. That hasn't been the case since sometime in 2007. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...d_camera_myth/ Ah, glad to hear that that loophole has been closed. Did anyone believe it worked anyway? Why would anyone writing the software make the cars lane part of the database key in the first place? It makes no sense whatsoever. The best way of deafeting specs cameras is just remove your front number plate which I've done on many an occasion. Or ride a motorbike. B2003 The cameras being installed as part of the extended trial here face both ways, and a colleague of mine has just fallen victim to them. Alerted the patrol officer that his rear number plate was too small and he got stopped three miles down the road. One biker who claimed he would never be stopped. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:57:01 -0700 (PDT), Ken Wilshire
wrote: Since the 1960s car control has improved tremendously from power steering through ABS brakes, yet the Highway Code still has the stopping (thinking/braking) distances of old. I would like to see these distances recast for modern cars with two tables, one for dry conditions and one for wet. Modern downward tinkering of speed limits is practically all about anti-car, not common sense, cf ever increasing swathes of 20 mph zones, etc. I was with you until that. Some 20mph zones are excessive (the ludicrous one on the approach to Ambleside was one example but it's now mostly been increased to 30, and most people did 30 anyway), but many or most of the ones on estates are justified. That said, the better approach on newer residential estates is to design the road layout with curves and natural chicanes (on-street parking) so the natural speed is 20mph or below, then it doesn't matter if the limit is the default 30. This is done to great effect on many Milton Keynes estates, especially newer ones. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK To reply put my first name before the at. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:08:34 +0100, Paul Terry
wrote: Added to which, it has been widely reported (and confirmed by the cameras' manufacturer) that drivers can defeat a SPECS camera by the potentially unsafe practice of lane-hopping during the measured section of road. Really? I always assumed that either of the two cameras would work. (Not sure why it's 2 - if it's lane based there should logically be 3 across a motorway). Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK To reply put my first name before the at. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:28:53 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote: On 29 July, 15:15, wrote: On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:01:56 +0100 Paul Terry wrote: In message , David Walters writes On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:08:34 +0100, Paul Terry wrote: Added to which, it has been widely reported (and confirmed by the cameras' manufacturer) that drivers can defeat a SPECS camera by the potentially unsafe practice of lane-hopping during the measured section of road. That hasn't been the case since sometime in 2007. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...d_camera_myth/ Ah, glad to hear that that loophole has been closed. Did anyone believe it worked anyway? Why would anyone writing the software make the cars lane part of the database key in the first place? It makes no sense whatsoever. Possibly for the sake of simplicity to allow for e.g. the difference in speed between two vehicles remaining in parallel in lanes 1 and 4 where there is a significant curve between measurement points. If the usual 10% etc. tolerance is ignored and speed limits applied strictly then in theory it would be possible for the two vehicles to stay together with one under and one over the speed limit. The best way of deafeting specs cameras is just remove your front number plate which I've done on many an occasion. Or ride a motorbike. B2003 The cameras being installed as part of the extended trial here face both ways, and a colleague of mine has just fallen victim to them. Alerted the patrol officer that his rear number plate was too small and he got stopped three miles down the road. One biker who claimed he would never be stopped. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:27:22 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote: On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:57:01 -0700 (PDT), Ken Wilshire wrote: Since the 1960s car control has improved tremendously from power steering through ABS brakes, yet the Highway Code still has the stopping (thinking/braking) distances of old. I would like to see these distances recast for modern cars with two tables, one for dry conditions and one for wet. Modern downward tinkering of speed limits is practically all about anti-car, not common sense, cf ever increasing swathes of 20 mph zones, etc. I was with you until that. Some 20mph zones are excessive (the ludicrous one on the approach to Ambleside was one example but it's now mostly been increased to 30, and most people did 30 anyway), but many or most of the ones on estates are justified. That said, the better approach on newer residential estates is to design the road layout with curves and natural chicanes (on-street parking) so the natural speed is 20mph or below, then it doesn't matter if the limit is the default 30. This is done to great effect on many Milton Keynes estates, especially newer ones. In many places this can have the unfortunate effect of concealing pedestrians or distracting drivers from their presence; some chicanes also seem to encourage pedestrians to use them as crossing places. Speed bumps OTOH are more effective when they have been correctly constructed and allow drivers to travel in reasonable comfort up to the desired speed. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:23:26 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote: Did anyone believe it worked anyway? Why would anyone writing the software make the cars lane part of the database key in the first place? It makes no sense whatsoever. Possibly for the sake of simplicity to allow for e.g. the difference in speed between two vehicles remaining in parallel in lanes 1 and 4 where there is a significant curve between measurement points. If the usual 10% etc. tolerance is ignored and speed limits applied strictly then in theory it would be possible for the two vehicles to stay together with one under and one over the speed limit. In theory , but it would have to be one hell of a small radius curve to make a significant difference. Not something you're likely to find on the sort of roads these cameras are placed on. B2003 |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
" wrote: The cameras being installed as part of the extended trial here face both ways, and a colleague of mine has just fallen victim to them. Alerted the patrol officer that his rear number plate was too small and he got stopped three miles down the road. One biker who claimed he would never be stopped. I remember reading about a biker who had a retractable plate for when he went past speed cameras. Apparently some sanctamonious do gooder reported him. B2003 |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
Ken Wilshire wrote:
Nobody has yet pointed out that speed limits generally were set at the nearest 10 mph lower than the 85th percentile (approx from memory) of all road traffic on a stretch of road (blanket 30 mph zones excepted) in the 1960s. Therefore, "exceeding" a posted speed limit just means that you are driving faster than the 85th percentile - not an offence if you are driving sensibly. No, If you are exceeding the speed limit you are committing an offence. You may not be driving dangerously in any real sense, but you are still committing an offence. Since the 1960s car control has improved tremendously from power steering through ABS brakes, yet the Highway Code still has the stopping (thinking/braking) distances of old. I would like to see these distances recast for modern cars with two tables, one for dry conditions and one for wet. The tables will continue to be current until all non-"modern" vehicles are removed from the roads. Modern downward tinkering of speed limits is practically all about anti-car, not common sense, cf ever increasing swathes of 20 mph zones, etc. Cite? Speed cameras are a danger (except at real accident black spots) as it is a reflex action to brake when you see one on a road not traveled before, and you lose concentration checking that you are 'safe'. If you are not aware of what speed you are doing, then you clearly aren't concentrating enough in the first place. Indeed, if it has become a reflex action for you to brake when you see a speed camera, it shows you have quite a disregard for the limits in the first place. (When I first started driving and saw that kind of behaviour, I wondered why there wasn't another camera in advance of the speed camera, looking for brake lights.) There is also the huge cost to the economy of braking/accelerating and wear and tear on the brakes at these points and at speed cameras in general. Again, that huge cost is only caused by those who are misbehaving in the first place. Good drivers don't brake suddenly except in emergencies. As the tolerances for speed cameras are not advertised, then it is foolish to risk your license by driving past at any mph above the posted limit. AOTBE, roads are safest when they are filled with people driving at the same speeds. People who think they can choose whatever speed they like to drive at put not only their licence at risk, but also their safety and that of other road users. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p15036432.html (60 020 at Winwick, 10 May 2005) |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying: Since the 1960s car control has improved tremendously from power steering through ABS brakes, yet the Highway Code still has the stopping (thinking/braking) distances of old. I would like to see these distances recast for modern cars with two tables, one for dry conditions and one for wet. The tables will continue to be current until all non-"modern" vehicles are removed from the roads. Even though the vehicles to which they are relevant are a _tiny_ minority of those on the roads - and they are wildly optimistic for other vehicles? |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
Adrian wrote:
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Since the 1960s car control has improved tremendously from power steering through ABS brakes, yet the Highway Code still has the stopping (thinking/braking) distances of old. I would like to see these distances recast for modern cars with two tables, one for dry conditions and one for wet. The tables will continue to be current until all non-"modern" vehicles are removed from the roads. Even though the vehicles to which they are relevant are a _tiny_ minority of those on the roads - and they are wildly optimistic for other vehicles? This may come as a shock to you, but the tables never had anything to do with real performance. They are a simple mathematical model linking the speed in mph with the stopping distance in feet. Anyone with GCSE maths should take no more than 2 minutes to deduce the formula that is used.. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14486552.html (47 009 at Stratford Depot, 4 Jul 1981) |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying: Since the 1960s car control has improved tremendously from power steering through ABS brakes, yet the Highway Code still has the stopping (thinking/braking) distances of old. I would like to see these distances recast for modern cars with two tables, one for dry conditions and one for wet. The tables will continue to be current until all non-"modern" vehicles are removed from the roads. Even though the vehicles to which they are relevant are a _tiny_ minority of those on the roads - and they are wildly optimistic for other vehicles? This may come as a shock to you, but the tables never had anything to do with real performance. They are a simple mathematical model linking the speed in mph with the stopping distance in feet. Anyone with GCSE maths should take no more than 2 minutes to deduce the formula that is used.. Sure. But the formula was based on a roughly representative family car of the period - the 105E Anglia, allegedly. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:28:59 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote: On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:08:34 +0100, Paul Terry wrote: Added to which, it has been widely reported (and confirmed by the cameras' manufacturer) that drivers can defeat a SPECS camera by the potentially unsafe practice of lane-hopping during the measured section of road. Really? I always assumed that either of the two cameras would work. (Not sure why it's 2 - if it's lane based there should logically be 3 across a motorway). There are only ever two on the cantilever posts. However, if they are mounted on an overhead gantry, you can have as many as you like. I have done some work for a firm that supplies these cameras, and it is true that lane hopping can defeat them (although I wouldn't bet my licence on it!). But a new generation of control system is being trialled which allows number plate recognition data from all lanes to be used. I couldn't find out where it was being trialled, but I strongly suspect (from where the firm is located) that it would be on M1 Junction 10-13. Of course the easiest way to 'defeat' the cameras is to stick to the speed limit. Boring, I know, but it also helps save fuel. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:05:56 +0100
Bruce wrote: Of course the easiest way to 'defeat' the cameras is to stick to the speed limit. Boring, I know, but it also helps save fuel. Actually the easiest way to defeat them is to drive a foreign registered car of which there are plenty around. If road safety was really the concern then they'd have traffic plods patrolling the road, not revenue raising "safety" cameras. B2003 |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
Adrian wrote:
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Since the 1960s car control has improved tremendously from power steering through ABS brakes, yet the Highway Code still has the stopping (thinking/braking) distances of old. I would like to see these distances recast for modern cars with two tables, one for dry conditions and one for wet. The tables will continue to be current until all non-"modern" vehicles are removed from the roads. Even though the vehicles to which they are relevant are a _tiny_ minority of those on the roads - and they are wildly optimistic for other vehicles? This may come as a shock to you, but the tables never had anything to do with real performance. They are a simple mathematical model linking the speed in mph with the stopping distance in feet. Anyone with GCSE maths should take no more than 2 minutes to deduce the formula that is used.. Sure. But the formula was based on a roughly representative family car of the period - the 105E Anglia, allegedly. The formula is far too simple to be based on anything real. It no doubt gives and always gave a safety margin. But until every relevant vehicle has ABS and other suitable gizmos, revising the table only serves to create a misleading impression of safety. The poster I was responding to initially clearly has a sufficiently misleading impression of his own abilities already. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683800.html (153 330 at Cark and Cartmel, Jul 1995) |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying: Since the 1960s car control has improved tremendously from power steering through ABS brakes, yet the Highway Code still has the stopping (thinking/braking) distances of old. I would like to see these distances recast for modern cars with two tables, one for dry conditions and one for wet. The tables will continue to be current until all non-"modern" vehicles are removed from the roads. Even though the vehicles to which they are relevant are a _tiny_ minority of those on the roads - and they are wildly optimistic for other vehicles? This may come as a shock to you, but the tables never had anything to do with real performance. They are a simple mathematical model linking the speed in mph with the stopping distance in feet. Anyone with GCSE maths should take no more than 2 minutes to deduce the formula that is used.. Sure. But the formula was based on a roughly representative family car of the period - the 105E Anglia, allegedly. The formula is far too simple to be based on anything real. No, but the formula would have been worked so that the resulting stopping distances are approximately correct for "something real". It no doubt gives and always gave a safety margin. But until every relevant vehicle has ABS Which doesn't actually make the slightest difference to stopping distances, since it does absolutely nothing at all unless the driver cocks up in a way that would have failed them their driving test. and other suitable gizmos You seem to miss the subtle detail that the distances are massively long for any even remotely competent and roadworthy vaguely modern vehicle. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
Adrian wrote:
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Since the 1960s car control has improved tremendously from power steering through ABS brakes, yet the Highway Code still has the stopping (thinking/braking) distances of old. I would like to see these distances recast for modern cars with two tables, one for dry conditions and one for wet. The tables will continue to be current until all non-"modern" vehicles are removed from the roads. Even though the vehicles to which they are relevant are a _tiny_ minority of those on the roads - and they are wildly optimistic for other vehicles? This may come as a shock to you, but the tables never had anything to do with real performance. They are a simple mathematical model linking the speed in mph with the stopping distance in feet. Anyone with GCSE maths should take no more than 2 minutes to deduce the formula that is used.. Sure. But the formula was based on a roughly representative family car of the period - the 105E Anglia, allegedly. The formula is far too simple to be based on anything real. No, but the formula would have been worked so that the resulting stopping distances are approximately correct for "something real". Perhaps you should offer some evidence for this contention. Put it this way - I didn't bother to memorise the distances for my driving test. I memorised the formula, and as I say, it links mph to feet. The only way in which it would have any resemblance to reality is if there were some universal driving constant whose value happens to lie in the region of 1/5280, being the conversion factor from miles to feet. It no doubt gives and always gave a safety margin. But until every relevant vehicle has ABS Which doesn't actually make the slightest difference to stopping distances, since it does absolutely nothing at all unless the driver cocks up in a way that would have failed them their driving test. Never having had a car so fitted, I wouldn't know. The only evidence I have to go by is that the continuous rubber smears on the road tend to be longer than that dashed ones, from which I infer that ABS reduces stopping distances. and other suitable gizmos You seem to miss the subtle detail that the distances are massively long for any even remotely competent and roadworthy vaguely modern vehicle. You seem to miss the subtle detail that I have said repeatedly that the distances are a mathematical enterprise, nothing to do with reality and include a safety margin. Personally, I drive according to the two second rule. That's much more straightforward. I observe that many of my fellow road users think they are considerably better drivers and can get away with a 0.5 second rule. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10589947.html (37 092 at London Liverpool Street, 13 Apr 1980) |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On 30 July, 11:23, Adrian wrote:
Chris *Tolley (ukonline really) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Since the 1960s car control has improved tremendously from power steering through ABS brakes, yet the Highway Code still has the stopping (thinking/braking) distances of old. *I would like to see these distances recast for modern cars with two tables, one for dry conditions and one for wet. The tables will continue to be current until all non-"modern" vehicles are removed from the roads. Even though the vehicles to which they are relevant are a _tiny_ minority of those on the roads - and they are wildly optimistic for other vehicles? This may come as a shock to you, but the tables never had anything to do with real performance. They are a simple mathematical model linking the speed in mph with the stopping distance in feet. Anyone with GCSE maths should take no more than 2 minutes to deduce the formula that is used.. Sure. But the formula was based on a roughly representative family car of the period - the 105E Anglia, allegedly. The formula is far too simple to be based on anything real. No, but the formula would have been worked so that the resulting stopping distances are approximately correct for "something real". It no doubt gives and always gave a safety margin. But until every relevant vehicle has ABS Which doesn't actually make the slightest difference to stopping distances, since it does absolutely nothing at all unless the driver cocks up in a way that would have failed them their driving test. and other suitable gizmos You seem to miss the subtle detail that the distances are massively long for any even remotely competent and roadworthy vaguely modern vehicle. I don't think that they're massively long. If you look at the table in the highway code, it gives the distances in terms of car lengths (being 4m): 20mph = 3 car lengths, 50mph = 13 car lengths, 70mph = 24 car lengths (=96m) with the other speeds in between. These numbers seem about right to me, maybe slightly over at lower speeds but not massively. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying: This may come as a shock to you, but the tables never had anything to do with real performance. They are a simple mathematical model linking the speed in mph with the stopping distance in feet. Anyone with GCSE maths should take no more than 2 minutes to deduce the formula that is used.. Sure. But the formula was based on a roughly representative family car of the period - the 105E Anglia, allegedly. The formula is far too simple to be based on anything real. No, but the formula would have been worked so that the resulting stopping distances are approximately correct for "something real". Perhaps you should offer some evidence for this contention. Put it this way - I didn't bother to memorise the distances for my driving test. I memorised the formula, and as I say, it links mph to feet. The only way in which it would have any resemblance to reality is if there were some universal driving constant whose value happens to lie in the region of 1/5280, being the conversion factor from miles to feet. So did this formula get plucked from thin air for a totally random result? Why 75m from 70mph? Why not 200m or 20m? It no doubt gives and always gave a safety margin. But until every relevant vehicle has ABS Which doesn't actually make the slightest difference to stopping distances, since it does absolutely nothing at all unless the driver cocks up in a way that would have failed them their driving test. Never having had a car so fitted, I wouldn't know. The only evidence I have to go by is that the continuous rubber smears on the road tend to be longer than that dashed ones, from which I infer that ABS reduces stopping distances. Did you miss the "unless"? Personally, I drive according to the two second rule. That's much more straightforward. I observe that many of my fellow road users think they are considerably better drivers and can get away with a 0.5 second rule. I don't think anybody's said anything to contradict that. But if these figures purport to be a typical "stopping distance", do you not think it might actually be useful if they were? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk