|
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
Ken Wilshire wrote:
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? 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 Chris / Neil I was specifically thinking about the London Borough of Merton which for the last three years has been going through the borough converting whole swathes of streets (not enclosed estates) into 20 mph zones (from 10 to 20 roads at a time!). The SW19 and SW20 postcode areas. Minutes of the Street Management Advisory Committee meetings can be found he http://www.merton.gov.uk/council/com...tee&com_id=221 Okay, so having looked at those minutes, specifically http://www.merton.gov.uk/democratic_...eports/146.pdf I see the following with regard to that policy: 2.1 It is the Council¢s policy to improve road safety by reducing vehicular speeds and volume on borough roads. The key objective of these proposals are to convert existing traffic calmed roads within the proposed areas into 20mph zones / 20mph speed limits. The majority of roads have traffic calming measures in place, therefore minimum changes are required for the introduction of these measures. 2.2 20mph zones / 20mph speed limits are dedicated areas where improving safety and maintaining the quality of life for local residents takes precedence over the general objective to ease traffic flows. 2.3 For a 20mph zone, traffic calming features in the form of road humps; speed cushions; road closures; one way systems; pedestrian refuge islands and road narrowing are required to achieve a legal and self-enforceable zone. A 20mph speed limit, however, does not require any form of traffic calming features as part of the legal process. Signs and road markings are mandatory within zones and limits. So it's not "anti-car, not common sense" - it's "pro-resident". Indeed, if the above is correct (and surely there's some liability if it isn't) then although you can see 20 signs sprouting, they are only sprouting in areas where there's already traffic calming in place. So I can't see that any high-speed routes are being lost to the 20 zones. Indeed, referring to para 2.3 - if I had the choice between driving along a 30 with lumps in the road, and a 20 that was plain, I'd go for the latter, and I assume most drivers would. I resent speed bumps much more than I resent low speed limits. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9638813.html (08 103 and 08 920 at Birmingham New Street, 1979) |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
"Adrian" wrote in message
"David A Stocks" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: My car (also two years old) has options for 17", 18" or 19" wheels. I have the the 17" wheels and the speedo reads about 10% over actual speed. If I were to fit 18 or 19" wheels the speedo would still read more than actual speed, but by a lot less as the rolling radius of wheel/tyre combination gets larger. I strongly suspect you'll find that there's very little difference in rolling radius between the standard-fit tyre sizes. As the rim diameter goes up, so the tyre sidewall profile comes down, keeping the overall size around the same. If there is a marked difference between, then cars with the different tyre sizes either factory or dealer-fitted should have the speedo and odo recalibrated. Yes, I'm sure that's correct. However, the large wheel/low profile tyre combo rolling radius is less likely to be affected by air pressure variability. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
"Tim Woodall" wrote in message
e.uk Obviously, this breaks down for high performance cars at very high speeds. I doubt that any road-legal car generates signficant down force at speeds much below about 100mph due to the dire effect it has on fuel consumption. What about the sports cars which have retractable rear spoilers that pop up at, say, ~75mph? |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:55:31 +0100,
Recliner wrote: "Tim Woodall" wrote in message e.uk Obviously, this breaks down for high performance cars at very high speeds. I doubt that any road-legal car generates signficant down force at speeds much below about 100mph due to the dire effect it has on fuel consumption. What about the sports cars which have retractable rear spoilers that pop up at, say, ~75mph? No idea. But if they do generate appreciable down force then they'll also cause significant drag and you'll see that in the fuel economy. Tim. -- God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light. http://www.woodall.me.uk/ |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:55:31 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote: "Tim Woodall" wrote in message . me.uk Obviously, this breaks down for high performance cars at very high speeds. I doubt that any road-legal car generates signficant down force at speeds much below about 100mph due to the dire effect it has on fuel consumption. What about the sports cars which have retractable rear spoilers that pop up at, say, ~75mph? Some of them pop up at much lower speeds - I think the Porsche 911 and Audi TT spoilers pop up at 40 mph. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
"Tim Woodall" wrote in message
e.uk On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:55:31 +0100, Recliner wrote: "Tim Woodall" wrote in message e.uk Obviously, this breaks down for high performance cars at very high speeds. I doubt that any road-legal car generates signficant down force at speeds much below about 100mph due to the dire effect it has on fuel consumption. What about the sports cars which have retractable rear spoilers that pop up at, say, ~75mph? No idea. But if they do generate appreciable down force then they'll also cause significant drag and you'll see that in the fuel economy. Yup, but that's probably not something that owners of cars with automatic rear spoilers (eg, Porsches) worry about too much. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
"Bruce" wrote in message
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:55:31 +0100, "Recliner" wrote: "Tim Woodall" wrote in message e.uk Obviously, this breaks down for high performance cars at very high speeds. I doubt that any road-legal car generates signficant down force at speeds much below about 100mph due to the dire effect it has on fuel consumption. What about the sports cars which have retractable rear spoilers that pop up at, say, ~75mph? Some of them pop up at much lower speeds - I think the Porsche 911 and Audi TT spoilers pop up at 40 mph. I think it's 75 mph by default with both of those cars, but may be lower in other cars. It can also come up at lower speeds to cool a hot engine in the case of the Porsche. Of course, they can usually be deployed manually, which is especially useful in countries with speed limits 75 mph, like the UK! |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
In message , Bruce
writes Some of them pop up at much lower speeds - I think the Porsche 911 and Audi TT spoilers pop up at 40 mph. I remember reading about this. In Germany, they deploy at the proper speed of 90 mph, but in the UK where the speed limit is 70 mph they come up at 50 mph to allow the owner to show off, it's a sales gimmick. -- Clive |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:55:31 +0100, Recliner wrote
"Tim Woodall" wrote in message e.uk Obviously, this breaks down for high performance cars at very high speeds. I doubt that any road-legal car generates signficant down force at speeds much below about 100mph due to the dire effect it has on fuel consumption. What about the sports cars which have retractable rear spoilers that pop up at, say, ~75mph? In many cases they have an appreciable effect at speeds not often reached in the UK. In order to give them some 'pose value' they are recalibrated to rise at speeds more likely to be achieved in the UK, otherwise the driver might not feel they're getting value for money/the required pose effect. Of course, there is an argument that says a properly designed car shouldn't need 'add-on' wings/spoilers etc fixed or otherwise. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 15:01:31 +0100, Stimpy
wrote: Of course, there is an argument that says a properly designed car shouldn't need 'add-on' wings/spoilers etc fixed or otherwise. Many cars suffer from increased lift at higher speeds. The spoiler provides increased downforce to counter this. The Audi TT (first model) suffered a significant increase in rear lift at higher speeds. In some markets, but not the UK, the automatic rear spoiler was standard equipment. In the UK, which has a 70 mph limit, it was an optional extra, presumably on the basis that it was not actually needed at 70 mph. There was some discussion in the motoring press about whether TTs sold in the UK should all be so fitted, in case they were taken to (for example) Germany and driven at much higher speeds - some stretches of German autobahn have no speed limit for cars in good weather. IIRC Audi UK accepted the suggestion. Subsequently all TTs sold in the UK had the spoiler fitted as standard. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
Bruce gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Many cars suffer from increased lift at higher speeds. The spoiler provides increased downforce to counter this. The Audi TT (first model) suffered a significant increase in rear lift at higher speeds. In some markets, but not the UK, the automatic rear spoiler was standard equipment. In the UK, which has a 70 mph limit, it was an optional extra, presumably on the basis that it was not actually needed at 70 mph. There was some discussion in the motoring press about whether TTs sold in the UK should all be so fitted, in case they were taken to (for example) Germany and driven at much higher speeds - some stretches of German autobahn have no speed limit for cars in good weather. IIRC Audi UK accepted the suggestion. Subsequently all TTs sold in the UK had the spoiler fitted as standard. Not an automatic rear spoiler, but the little permanently fixed one. Also, ESP stability control. Both were also retro-fitted in a recall. Have a google for "vosa R/2000/008". |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Jeff wrote: It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws they break. Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and the majority ignore it. Have you ever accidently put a stamp on upside down but still posted the letter? Yes? Well in that case you've technically commited treason. Look it up. There are probably dozens of other absurd laws that plenty of people ignore because they either bear no relevance to reality or are just plain daft. B2003 |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 20:31:17 +0100, Bruce wrote
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 15:01:31 +0100, Stimpy wrote: Of course, there is an argument that says a properly designed car shouldn't need 'add-on' wings/spoilers etc fixed or otherwise. Many cars suffer from increased lift at higher speeds. The spoiler provides increased downforce to counter this. The Audi TT (first model) suffered a significant increase in rear lift at higher speeds. In some markets, but not the UK, the automatic rear spoiler was standard equipment. In the UK, which has a 70 mph limit, it was an optional extra, presumably on the basis that it was not actually needed at 70 mph. There was some discussion in the motoring press about whether TTs sold in the UK should all be so fitted, in case they were taken to (for example) Germany and driven at much higher speeds - some stretches of German autobahn have no speed limit for cars in good weather. IIRC Audi UK accepted the suggestion. Subsequently all TTs sold in the UK had the spoiler fitted as standard. The original TT was released without any spoiler but a well-publicised spate of accidents which were blamed on loss of rear-end grip prompted a recall for the fitting of a small duck-tail spoiler. All subsequent Mk 1 TT's were fitted with the spoiler from new. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:02:03 +0100, Stimpy
wrote: The original TT was released without any spoiler but a well-publicised spate of accidents which were blamed on loss of rear-end grip prompted a recall for the fitting of a small duck-tail spoiler. All subsequent Mk 1 TT's were fitted with the spoiler from new. Thank you. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
|
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:38:35 +0100
Mark Robinson wrote: wrote: Concerned about what exactly? That the biker could get away with speeding and he couldn't? Concerned as in "having an interest in", not concerned as in "worried about". It is in the interests of all citizens that the law of the land is upheld; it's how society works. Not always. It used to be the law that women couldn't vote and gays went to prison. B2003 |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Aug 2, 9:49*am, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT) Jeff wrote: It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws they break. Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and the majority ignore it. Have you ever accidently put a stamp on upside down but still posted the letter? Yes? Well in that case you've technically commited treason. Look it up. There are probably dozens of other absurd laws that plenty of people ignore because they either bear no relevance to reality or are just plain daft. Well said. The 'breaking any law is serious' argument is a pretty nerdy one that always seems rather detached from the real world. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:00:49 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote: In article , d wrote: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT) Jeff wrote: It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws they break. Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and the majority ignore it. Are you going to take a similar view to bikes jumping red lights? If not, what's the difference? Traffic lights exist to prevent gridlock. Average speed cameras exist to raise revenue for the treasury. B2003 |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
In message
d wrote: On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:00:49 +0100 Mike Bristow wrote: In article , d wrote: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT) Jeff wrote: It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws they break. Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and the majority ignore it. Are you going to take a similar view to bikes jumping red lights? If not, what's the difference? Traffic lights exist to prevent gridlock. There's a certain amount of evidence to show that is not necessarily true. Also traffic lights have been used to create congestion. But that's not the problem caused by cyclists (and drivers) who jump red lights. -- 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"
In message , Mike Bristow
writes Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and the majority ignore it. Are you going to take a similar view to bikes jumping red lights? If not, what's the difference? I agree that laws can only be used by common consent and as for jumping red lights, I have no problem with this providing, if the person lives after being thrown violently from their machine by whatever other vehicle hits them has no complaint. -- Clive |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
wrote Average speed cameras exist to raise revenue for the treasury. So reduce the fine so that it merely covers the cost of enforcement, but make it a 6 point offence to clear drivers who have little thought for other road users off the road more quickly. A major use of average speed cameras is through roadworks. Workers carrying out the roadworks are at serious danger from speeding motorists, that's why average speed cameras are used in these circumstances. The alternative may be to close a motorway completely while it's being widened, but that wouldn't be popular. Ob rail. The need for an adjacent track to be closed while one track is being worked on, so that, for example, if the Up Fast or Down Slow on the WCML is being worked on it is sometimes effectively necessary to impose a 4-track blockade. Peter |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 16:46:31 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote: make it a 6 point offence to clear drivers who have little thought for other road users off the road more quickly. I'm not sure why you think making progress is having little though for other drivers. A major use of average speed cameras is through roadworks. Workers carrying out the roadworks are at serious danger from speeding motorists, that's why No doubt. Except that for the majority of a 24 hour day there generally isn't any bugger working on most roadworks. They should be renamed roadcan't-be-arsed-I'm-off-home. B2003 |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
"Peter Masson" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying: Average speed cameras exist to raise revenue for the treasury. So reduce the fine so that it merely covers the cost of enforcement, but make it a 6 point offence to clear drivers who have little thought for other road users off the road more quickly. I'm really not sure that the link between "exceeding the speed limit" and "drivers who have little thought for others" is anywhere _near_ that kind of clear-cut correlation... |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
d wrote:
Have you ever accidently put a stamp on upside down but still posted the letter? Yes? Well in that case you've technically commited treason. Look it up. I did, and as ever you are talking rubbish. HMG say that it is not treason, and never has been. http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repeal...son-and-stamps -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14486546.html (67 014 at Warrington Bank Quay, 21 Apr 2005) |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
In message , at 16:46:31 on
Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Peter Masson remarked: wrote Average speed cameras exist to raise revenue for the treasury. So reduce the fine so that it merely covers the cost of enforcement, But even that doesn't work. One of the first average-speed camera installations in the country (Nottingham ring road) lost money because people unexpectedly became law-abiding (much to the disgust of the police and others it appeared!) A major use of average speed cameras is through roadworks. Workers carrying out the roadworks are at serious danger from speeding motorists, that's why average speed cameras are used in these circumstances. The alternative may be to close a motorway completely while it's being widened, but that wouldn't be popular. Another alternative would be to employ more than one man and a dog, with a bent teaspoon as their only tool, and get on and finish the work in under typically a year and a half. -- Roland Perry |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
In article ,
Jeremy Double wrote: On 30/07/2010 16:03, Sam Wilson wrote: In , d wrote: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:23:26 +0100 Charles 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. No it wouldn't - the difference in distance only depends on the difference in heading between the start and end points. The _absolute_ difference in distance (i.e. measured in metres) only depends on the difference in heading between the start and end points _and the radial distance between the midpoints of the two lanes in question_. However, the relative difference in distance (i.e. the percentage of the total distance) depends on the total distance travelled. To get a significant percentage difference in distance (and hence speed), the change in heading must be done in a short distance, and this implies a tight curve. Good point! Sam |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 16:46:31 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote: So reduce the fine so that it merely covers the cost of enforcement, but make it a 6 point offence to clear drivers who have little thought for other road users off the road more quickly. A minor infringement of the speed limit gets 3 points. A more serious infringement, which usually means exceeding the limit by over 15 mph, already gets the driver 6 points. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
Bruce gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: So reduce the fine so that it merely covers the cost of enforcement, but make it a 6 point offence to clear drivers who have little thought for other road users off the road more quickly. A minor infringement of the speed limit gets 3 points. A more serious infringement, which usually means exceeding the limit by over 15 mph, already gets the driver 6 points. More accurate to say that it'll see the driver in court, rather than getting a fixed penalty, where he will get between 3 and 6 points, and a much more substantial fine. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
Chris Tolley wrote:
d wrote: Have you ever accidently put a stamp on upside down but still posted the letter? Yes? Well in that case you've technically commited treason. Look it up. I did, and as ever you are talking rubbish. HMG say that it is not treason, and never has been. http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repeal...son-and-stamps Thanks for that address. Prime Minister's Petitions are reborn under another name and with a new gimmick! Charlie |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Aug 2, 9:49*am, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT) Jeff wrote: It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws they break. Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and the majority ignore it. Have you ever accidently put a stamp on upside down but still posted the letter? Yes? Well in that case you've technically commited treason. Look it up. There are probably dozens of other absurd laws that plenty of people ignore because they either bear no relevance to reality or are just plain daft. B2003 No. I suggest you petition your MP to change the law and see if she/he agrees it doesn't have common consent. Would seem an easy way for a politician to gain popularity if he/she can get the impotent law repealed? But perhaps actually a majority of people do support prosecution of speeding car drivers. Would you also say that using a mobile phone while driving or drink driving should be decriminalised? No doubt you could argue that the relevant laws are impotent because of lack of common consent. Even if the upside stamp was treasonable ( a stupid suggestion) I would argue that that law had no common consent and Dave should put it on his bonfire. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
Jeff gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Would you also say that using a mobile phone while driving ... should be decriminalised? No doubt you could argue that the relevant laws are impotent because of lack of common consent. Even if the upside stamp was treasonable ( a stupid suggestion) I would argue that that law had no common consent and Dave should put it on his bonfire. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
Jeff gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Would you also say that using a mobile phone while driving ... should be decriminalised? I would certainly argue that there's no need for the separate legislation which trivialises it. If somebody is driving carelessly or dangerously, charge them with that - whether the phone is the cause, the symptom or whatever. If their driving is safe and appropriate despite the phone, what's the problem? Likewise with a speed above the limit. Exceeding the speed limit and using a phone whilst driving are minor and trivial administrative offences which merely distract from the actual problem - drivers who don't pay any bloody attention to what's going on around them. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Aug 2, 11:50*am, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:38:35 +0100 Mark Robinson wrote: wrote: Concerned about what exactly? That the biker could get away with speeding and he couldn't? Concerned as in "having an interest in", not concerned as in "worried about". It is in the interests of all citizens that the law of the land is upheld; it's how society works. Not always. It used to be the law that women couldn't vote and gays went to prison. B2003 But that was how society worked. The law changed to reflect altered views of what is right and society continues to work. It evolves. Perhaps we will evolve the law so that speeding is outside its scope. It would be interesting to see if such a move would have common consent. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Aug 2, 1:30*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Aug 2, 9:49*am, wrote: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT) Jeff wrote: It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws they break. Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and the majority ignore it. Have you ever accidently put a stamp on upside down but still posted the letter? Yes? Well in that case you've technically commited treason. Look it up. There are probably dozens of other absurd laws that plenty of people ignore because they either bear no relevance to reality or are just plain daft. Well said. The 'breaking any law is serious' argument is a pretty nerdy one that always seems rather detached from the real world. Well which law can I disregard as nerdy? A bit of thieving could be an attractive way of getting a bit of cash together so lets disregard the nerdy Theft Act. It would be interesting to see how you would choose which laws are nerdy. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Aug 2, 3:20*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:00:49 +0100 Mike Bristow wrote: In article , * wrote: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT) Jeff wrote: It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws they break. Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and the majority ignore it. Are you going to take a similar view to bikes jumping red lights? If not, what's the difference? Traffic lights exist to prevent gridlock. Average speed cameras exist to raise revenue for the treasury. B2003 No. They exist to try and enforce speed limits. If people choose to make voluntary payments to HMG because they choose to break a speed limit that's their business - and my business if it puts me in any danger at all. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
On Aug 2, 5:08*pm, Adrian wrote:
"Peter Masson" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Average speed cameras exist to raise revenue for the treasury. So reduce the fine so that it merely covers the cost of enforcement, but make it a 6 point offence to clear drivers who have little thought for other road users off the road more quickly. I'm really not sure that the link between "exceeding the speed limit" and "drivers who have little thought for others" is anywhere _near_ that kind of clear-cut correlation... I would bet there is. I would also suggest there is a correlation between speeding and other criminal activity. Ask a traffic cop for confirmation. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
[snip]
Exceeding the speed limit and using a phone whilst driving are minor and trivial administrative offences which merely distract from the actual problem - drivers who don't pay any bloody attention to what's going on around them. You are wrong actually, driving while using a phone is actually a lot more dangerous than simply speeding. Even using a handsfree kit is not that effective in reducing the danger. The problem is that concentrating on the phone call is a major distraction from paying attention to driving conditions. Psychologically it is a lot different to just talking to another person in the car with you. And don't get me started on people who send text messages while driving. -- 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"
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:20:46 +0100, Bruce
wrote: On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:52:24 +0100, "Recliner" wrote: "Adrian" wrote in message Bruce gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: The margin (maybe not so much nowadays) is necessary to allow for tyre wear (and IIRC tyre type on some vehicles) as well as the capabilities of a mechanical speedo; the normal consequence of tyre wear is that the indicated speed will be progressively too high so to avoid underindication the average speedo will probably already be over-reading from new. The legal requirement is that a speedometer measures road speed with a tolerance of +10%, -0%. Actually, it probably isn't. It's difficult to be sure, since the Construction & Use regs aren't on the web. The nearest that is simple to find is the requirements for the IVA test - which are definitely nowhere near as simple as that. There's a table of allowable readings against accurate speed. 0 under-read is true, though. Mind you, I'd love to know what sort of tyres are being used to affect calibration by 10% as they wear... Something like a total of 6mm variation due to tread wear on a typical overall tyre radius of about 320mm? Wouldn't tyre pressure have a much bigger effect? Indeed so, and that forms the basis of tyre pressure monitoring in many modern cars - when the rotational speed (RPM) of one wheel exceeds that of the others by more than a predetermined percentage, an alarm sounds and a warning light illuminates. I repeat that the legal requirement is that a speedometer measures road speed with a tolerance of +10%, -0%. I am told by a friend who is a car designer that this is stated in the Construction & Use Regulations. He says it is very out of date because speedometers can now be made to much tighter tolerances. They might but the tyres vary with wear and type** so the legal limits will necessarily have to cope with a reasonable amount of variation caused by that. **There are possibly still significant numbers of older vehicles around which were originally designed/produced with cross-ply tyres but which now run on radial tyres with a consequent over-indication of speed due to the speedometer spec. not changing. |
'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk