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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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)