OT: Smart Motorways and overly smart cameras?

Yup, that's the problem with droids, no imagination or empathy. ;-(

I'm sure they will / do. That's why some very good drivers (even professional) manage die each year eh?

To other counties that may have a different system (why do you have to explain *everything* to these left brainers ...). That's why, when interviewed, the head Police commissioner of each area will often start their statements with 'This may only apply in the county of xyx but the ...'.

No, I'm saying exactly the opposite of that. I'm saying you are

Now, if we all drive like you do at 10 mph and so have plenty of time to deal with any unforeseen circumstance ...

You go though it of course, just as you would anything low down the list of (survival) priorities.

When you are hanging off a cliff with one hand you don't wonder if you turned the heating off indoors.

You wouldn't be wondering that of course as:

We aren't talking about those instances that catch out the maniacs or those like you who go everywhere at 10 mph , we are talking of those generally conscientious drivers, just trying to get from A to B in the least amount of time and doing their best to do so safely and legally.

And then something happens ... (look up Chaos theory).

"Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future."

That driver in that vehicle on that road at that time with that camera and that sunset and that lorry and that baby being sick ...

Cheers, T i m

Cheers, T i m

Especially those people discussing speeding on an Internet group.

So potentially not applicable here then? So, was it just him showing off, massaging his own ego? The art of good communication is trying to determine the level of the broader audience. [1]

I think you will find one dependant on the other (for this subject). Zero speed = zero deceleration = no loss of life.

I'm not insisting on anything, I'm just trying to keep the level of conversation to such that it just might help others avoid a speeding ticket.

I am very aware of the effects of acceleration (both positive and negative), I ride a motorbike. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Hmm, daughter was asking if it was something you could go on voluntarily so she may need to be aware of that (like all the cr*p that can affect your credit rating (I'm told, never looked)). ;-)

It's all this sort of 'consequence' that bothers me about all this 'Zero tolerance' stuff. Turning small mistakes into big consequences for no valid reason (making money shouldn't be a valid reason). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

I think Tim+ was suggesting that he wasn't offered the course instead of points or a fine, he wanted to go on it out of his own interest?

Cheers, T i m

But did they include the causes of that speed(ding)? Did they take into account the entire period that someone had been driving and not caught for speeding (potentially because they weren't speeding, rather than not being caught etc).

I get a car written off whilst parked, whilst I was asleep (at night) and drove off and the insurance company put the premium up because (amongst other things) that it could be a trend? A trend that so far has happened once every 40+ years?

Ok.

That makes more sense, again, subject to the vehicle and driving conditions. I got a ride in a Lotus 7 when I was a kid and it scared the life out of me. I didn't think anything could accelerate or decelerate as much as that!

Yeah.

Hehe.

Cheers, T i m

It's pretty reliable. There's a bit of the A2 between Brenley Corner and Canterbury where a slip road goes off at a very shallow angle. It picks up a 30mph sign there. Quick kick-down and it's all OK.

Because deceleration is just negative acceleration and the same formulae applies.

Yes, but which ones increase your premiums for one speeding offence?

Its a lot easier to just enforce the existing laws.

That could be why you get disqualified if you tot up 12 points.

What's temporary got to do with it?

Well, you just expanded on what I have already / loosely said, but the bottom line the whole point of all of them is the (supposed) reduction in road related death and injury, be it to pedestrians or the drivers themselves.

Unless you think no road traffic enforcement person has ever received points or a fine for speeding? ;-)

Of course. No such thing was happening.

I know and have thought well enough about how such things work. You seem to have a realising / comprehension issue though or you would already have realised that as I've written about it here.

What? Where did you state this was being done in anything other than the appropriate conditions (as I indeed did above)? Just recently I drove to the South Coast and was doing a steady 70 mph over most of the trip.

No, really!?!

Because it was congested and now the cameras make it seem like it's less so? If you take 1000 cars per our and feed them into one end of a pipe and watch the other end they will all eventually come out. Now, you don't know if they passed though the pipe at a constant speed or if it was stop start because the time could well be the same.

Whilst keeping the above in mind, there are nearly an infinite mix of speeds you could do any journey at that would result in an end-to-end time that was identical (including complete stops). The target time would of course be maintaining the maximum permitted speed over the distance.

Some people would rather keep moving and go the long way round, even if it takes the same time as sitting in the stop start traffic. They often *think* they have got there quicker, as anyone seeing the car that was behind you, re-join behind you after racing though the local rat-run will attest.

Now, and as long as the average speeds are high enough, most people are generally happy to sit at say 50 mph for 25 miles rather than go between 70 and zero, even if the journey time is the same. However, sometimes that (the constant slow speed) can in itself be dangerous because people don't feel the need to concentrate because much less is going on.

Similarly, my Mrs is a better motorcyclist than car driver *because* you are much more involved with the outside world than in a tin box and therefore have to be more aware / alert than you might in a car. A car for example isn't going to be too bothered by some road surface banding, a raised white line or a wet manhole cover on a roundabout.

No, not with you I'm not. With most of the sensible adults I think I am. ;-)

Are you saying that people aren't being (or couldn't be)? Are you saying the new published 'Zero tolerance' prosecution range figures are just made up?

IYHO of course. Do you regularly travel at 90 mph?

He was within the law to be doing that speed and also specifically trained to do so. I'm guessing you must be as well then?

Quite possibly, but you made a call to do something illegal when you were not obliged to and therefore *could* have been prosecuted for it.

Like I said, it all depends on the situation and I can assure you (or your buggy program) that there *will be* situations where stopping is the best solution (like if there is a width restriction ahead and be continuing forward at legal speeds will detain them longer than stopping to let them past).

OK. I am talking about *real* speeds here. The real speed of me car as indicated by a GPS versus the real speed as sent by a (presumably) calibrated gamer system. I am and have only been dealing with the concepts of the real facts.

Duh. I've had a GPS since my first Garmin GPSII+ so I have been well aware of the differences between indicated and real speeds for a very long time.

The only good news for most motorists running standard sized tyres and with non faulty speedometers is that their speedos, if in error at all should always read high (and partly why the original speed + 10% +2mph was used as a prosecution threshold).

So, if you go through a 40 mph camera at an indicated 40 mph then you should be ok. But I'm not talking of those instances, I'm talking of those times when (according to the current published rules) you stray up to 41 (42, 43 mph, De Minimis (real speeds)) and end up being treated the same (or worse) for that as you would for going through a red light?

I'm not saying they do, it's what they are saying they do! Have you not looked at a single link to the references I've posted?

Here it is just for you again and from the Saga site this time, so you can feel comfortable. ;-)

The government at the beginning. We were all 'big brother' and they were all 'Just think of the children' and *initially* the people allowed them to be put up outside schools and the like (any others were burnt down / destroyed).

Only indirectly. Caught doing 71 in a 70, you pay the local force nearly £100 to go on a speed awareness course. 25 people / session for half a day, two groups per day, possibly two officers ...

Bless. So, if you aren't offered a SAC .. or have been on one already within the last 3 years ... or if you were going too fast, you pay the fine, (and take the points) and that fine just goes up in smoke does it? Or, does it go to the treasury who in turn fund the Police ...?

I know.

Yes, I am aware that is the goal ... but when the specific levels of congestion reach a critical mass, you all come to a halt anyway (as anyone who ever uses the top left hand quadrant of the M25 at anything like rush hour will tell you). It matters not if the signs all read 10 mph when you are doing 5mph for 10 yards every 30 seconds.

Yes, but the congestion management thing is a spinoff of the accident thing. If no one was getting killed, do you think they would bother? How long have the idea of dedicated cycle lanes been a 'good idea' and in already in place in many countries but the only thing that seems to motivate people to consider such things over here is after 20 people have been killed in that particular spot. ;-(

I never said there was! But we have to pay the fines and they go somewhere!

Or not. We get caught by a camera, we pay the fine, the fine goes to the treasury, money goes back to the Police and Highway agencies.

Quite, assuming you live or keep your licence long enough. ;-(

Of course you don't, you are a droid. ;-(

Yup, just like you admitting to doing 90mph on here with no legal precedence or authority.

No, I think they should just lower the speed limits if that's what they are trying to do and keep the flexibility they had that has worked for a long time.

Really, I do think you need to see if they include some sort of personality / empathy subroutine / module.

You don't get it do you (humans I mean). ;-)

See, we are analogue (well, not you obviously) beasts and so have senses and feeling, frustrations and urges and are often keen to get from A to B in the least possible time whilst doing so safely and legally. So, you are on your way to an interview or the airport and whilst you have left plenty of time ... you have found yourself at every red light, behind every tractor, milk float and caravan on the way. It's not their fault they are going slowly so you either sit behind them or try to overtake (safely). Then you come to a length of single carriageway with crosshatching in the middle and an old driver doing 29 in what is an otherwise 60 limit. Now, if they are spotted by the Police they would probably be given a talking to and asked to increase their speed because by going that slowly they are likely to be putting other people in danger. Now, you won't understand that because you would imagine it was perfectly acceptable for anyone to travel at any speed under the limit, that's their call (as long as not in a area that actually has minimum speed limits of course).

So, your now frustrated driverS, stuck behind someone not acting considerately, may be tempted to take the law upon themselves (as you did) and overtake over the crosshatching. If they come up behind them at some lights they could find someone getting out and being abusive to them. If you weren't being recharged in the evenings and watched some 'Police stop' / 'Divers gone mad' TV you would already understand. Or maybe you have the only car on your planet / island? ;-)

I don't, I was asking for the thoughts and opinions of others.

Because nothing else makes sense.

"Speed limits are usually set to attempt to cap road traffic speed; there are several reasons for wanting to do this. It is often done with an intention to improve road traffic safety and reduce the number of road traffic casualties from traffic collisions."

Cheers, T i m

I thought something like that was the case.

Yup, whilst they may be smart they aren't 'magic' and once the SWOT (as they used say) has reached a critical mass there is nothing they can do to help. They can only / ever work when they can get all the cars *flowing* at a minimum speed. As soon as they can't, something will have to give.

In days long ago, we would all manage this ourselves .. with cars maintaining reasonable distances and one car moving slowly at the front of a block to avoid all the stop - start stuff you often see today. The problem is today, you try to leave sufficient space to the vehicle in front or roll along at a slow but constant speed to reduce the stop start for everyone behind you and someone will jump into that space.

Interesting, thanks.

Cheers, T i m

Interesting, cheers.

So, I'm guessing it generally spots say the overhead gantry speed limits quickly enough to be able to slow sufficiently *before* you get to them rather than beyond (even slightly)?

I was thinking on on the camera to indicated speed change delay time (the time allowed after an indication of speed reduction before the camera kicks in).

If it's (say) 60 seconds, that means that if you are approaching a gantry at 70 mph and it changes to (being easy / safe), 60 mph *just* as you go under it, the camera for detecting if the next person past the gantry (behind you) are now doing 60 mph should be 1 mile behind the gantry?

Now obviously if you are slowed to 30 mph it would need to be 1/2 a mile away (distance traveled in 1 min).

My point here is that it is perfectly acceptable for someone who had just passed the gantry to continue at the original / higher speed for up to a mile, so why should it trigger immediately behind the gantry after that (when you could safely (presumably) and legally (definitely) still be doing 70 in what is *now* a 60 for over 1 mile)?

Cheers, T i m

Funnily, his sort of 'reply' is typical of what I found with many of the Linux nerds. They don't *actually want* to help and in many cases can't , so come back with some CLI gobbledygook or other BS in the hope it takes you off the scent. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Quite. Tear down the cameras! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

I couldn't find a reference to a zero tolerance policy there, or anywhere else, which is why I asked. I thought you might know of a policy change that I had missed.

One of the reasons for the limit + 10% + 2mph policy is that it significantly reduces the administrative burden of pursuing every case. In 2015, 46% of cars exceeded the 70mph speed limit on motorways, but only 11% did 80mph or more. On 30mph roads, 52% of cars exceeded the limit, but only 17% did 35mph or more. Another reason is that the tolerance is significantly higher than the accuracy of the measuring equipment, which avoids convictions being challenged on that basis.

Agreed, not bring in new ones.

Yes, for going at 41 four times on a motorway when it's posted at 40 potentially.

(Oh keep up FFS!) We are talking mainly about variable speed limits with Zero Tolerance on 'Smart Motorways' and so anything below 70 mph is likely to be temporary.

So, you go past a speed sign at 1mph over the posted *temporary* speed limit and you get a fine and 3 points. Go back past there maybe 10 minutes later at 70 mph and you are ok. Before your clockwork brain spins up, I *understand* why it's like that, just that the transient and potentially irrelevant (at the time) nature of these cameras with

There, the meaning of temporary in this scenario. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Are you no longer discussing smart motorways? You need to say so.

Read what I said, decreased travel times being the words you should be looking at.

So you now agree with variable limits as that is what will produce the quickest transit time on a smart motorway when the variable limits are operating.

You can sit for longer in start stop traffic if you want, I prefer driving at a lower maximum speed and getting there sooner.

Some people don't feel the need to concentrate at 100 mph what do you want to do about it?

Do you want a bet on that? It probably explains why the idiot bikers get in the way on every island! They appear to think its fine to come tear arsing up and then go around the island really slow.

how many people have been done?

I could but I didn't want to impede them for no good reason.

I recommend you don't stop on a motorway when you are doing 70 just to let them pass in an inside lane.

So what are the tolerances on your GPS system and how many sats does it need to achieve them and how often does it average the location to report the speed? You might find that they aren't very good as speedos in cars. However they are quite useful as calibration tools.

OK which link states that they are going to fine you for doing 41 in a

They said no such thing. Safety cameras and police enforcement cameras are different things and always have been.

Do you think they make a profit on that then?

It may or may not get to a police force, with the cuts being dished out its very unlikely that it does.

So?

It doesn't take anywhere near that many to get something done.

If you say so, however in the real world..

So?

Why lower the speed limits just so you can speed?

You give yourself too much credit.

Why do you think driving an extra 10% faster will make any difference to the idiot road rager? Does it make you road rage?

You don't appear to like mine, maybe you asked the wrong people if you wanted them to agree with you.

Maybe you want to reduce road noise near a hospital? Maybe you want people to use the bypass? Maybe the traffic flow is better at lower speeds?

You appear to have very limited thinking.

Notice that it says often, not always.