Safe Speed Forums

I'm having a bad day, Twister. I'm loosing it. I am trying to torment the evil doers, but in doing so, I am alienating decent, (otherwise) law abiding persons who don't like speed cameras for whatever reason. Sorry, for that. Sometimes, I forget on this console that there are humans on the other side. I have learned that from THE CORE RULES OF NETIQUETTE page. It's realy quite good. We could do with something similar for the road network.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Thanks. I was a bit surprised by your initial reaction to my different planet comment, especially given that I deliberately added the wink smiley and started the following sentence with "Seriously" to try and show I was just pulling your leg there. I've been online long enough to know how hard it can be to judge someone's tone, and I genuinely thought I'd done what was necessary to express the complete non-seriousnessness of that comment.


As to the other points you raised...

Dictatorships: true, but the government does seem increasingly keen on monitoring/controlling the population, either under the guise of "it's for your own good" or "it's for security reasons". Whilst the system of government may remain democratic, the ideas being talked about tend, by the ordinary citizen, to be associated more with unpleasant regimes elsewhere in the world or from history.

Money trees: if we could reduce/eliminate the waste and inefficiency currently present in government (at all levels, not just in Westminster - central government might set the rules, but it takes a local government department to really understand how to use those rules to maximise spending whilst minimising output) and stop throwing money away on badly specified projects which, inevitably and to no-ones surprise, end up over-budget and over-schedule, then we'd have the money to spend on improving the country for everyone. I don't object to paying tax per se, but I do object to paying more than would be necessary if government took better care in spending it.

I happen to have some scraps of first-hand info on the fingerprint sensors. The technology to implement cheap flat sensors has been around for over 10 years and has been on the point of becoming big all this time, but so far hasn't. The reasons are these:
1) they have not found a way yet to eliminate both false acceptances and false rejections. You can do one at the expense of the other it seems but not both at once. So, if you don't want the embarrassment of your credit card being rejected at the till, you have to accept that it will not be 100% secure. If you want 0 false acceptances, there's a large annoyance factor.
2) electrostatic and scratch protection is a problem in commercial fingerprint sensors
3) most types of FP sensor are sensitive to skin type variations (dry, wet)
4) people with certain hobbies - e.g.rock climbing, and certain professions - e.g. bricklayers, don't have fingerprints to speak of
All these things have conspired to stop FP sensors from becoming ubiquitous. The ones in mobiles will be linear FP sensors at least initially as far as I know (meaning you have to 'swipe' you finger against a thin strip sensor rather than press it against a window). These will undoubtedly be very low security, high false acceptance sensors.
ad

_________________
DO NOT PANIC

Yes, that sounds likely. With a high false acceptance rate, a crook would have to try several cars before he got a hit. This implies that, for greater security, either a) an additional traditional or CHIP and PIN card key could be used to provide backup or b) two separate biometrics (iris scanning ) could, combinatorial, yield a low enough false acceptance rate. Furthermore, if the car is loaded with a digitally signed certificate containing a list of biometric parameters of those insured to drive it, and if it is equipped with roadside RF transfer, such cars could ‘advertise’ who is driving it. Cars which failed to ‘advertise’ could be marked for a spot check or even remotely disabled.

_________________
I stole this .sig

You do - you are just not aware of it - which makes you all the scarier




So - I pay more because I spent time and effort in my youth to move up the career and earning ladder ...

Already donate stackloads of my hard earned money to keep scrotes in luxury .....



Everyone is different - with different abililties



BiBs can do far more than a speed cam....



Reason why they are increasing in number is due to lack of education - across the board... which is reason why we need to improve this asap - and get those cops back to get safety message across on the spot

I appear to be (by previous standards) in the midst of the biblical 7 lean years, and my motto to Gordon Brown is 'Go after the Toffs, not me!'. However, plans are in the offing to solve this temporary constriction, and 7 fat years will surely follow, in which case, I'll be glad to pay my due. If he spends it on driver education, that would be grand, although I consider expenditure on Speed Cameras to be investment in driver education, because it teaches them a lesson!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Would not describe myself as a "toff". Chap who works jolly hard for his money - which came at price of 120 hour week as junior and some really scary exams .....

Do not want to be criminalised for straying above speed limit just where NSL meets 40mph at Ings and where the talivan twits are hiding behind trees ........ and actually zapping my car (know this because useful gadget sounds the alarm) when legally above 40 mph but slowing down so as to pass the lollipop below 40mph ..... How do I know they are being fair and square when I read that they are not even using approved equipment here - and when I read of people getting some really bizarre NIPs, and when I know for fact that couple of thousand were prosecuted, admitted their "guilt" and were never notified that they were in fact innocent unless they happened to buy the newspaper which carried the story of the South Wales scamera incorrectly positioned on M4 road works. (Because people sign these darned things because of the threat of far worse punishment if they do not .... not my idea of justice....)




You will dislike paying Gordon even more of your hard -earned cash for him to squander on shallow, but effective all the same money grabbing schemes....




And what lesson is that? Learning resentment at being pinged for something trivial - such as my colleague (who is still fighting his case and is prepared to go to court over 4mph above speed limit whilst returning to save a life)

Ooops!


Well - all this technology is to blame really --- they have too many cameras and not enought training ....

Of course he should have slowed on approach - undue care and attention can be committed at the speed limit - and you do not say whether o nothe was in excess of this. Only that the stretch was 40mph .... which on a tight bend could well have been inappropriately fast.

So - if speed limit is 40mph and he took bend at 40 mph and collided with car - how does a scamera ping him? In fact, he may not even have slowe down if I had been behind him - because his lack of expertise led him to think that 40mph limit meant that bend was "safe at that speed" - Mate - it happens - sometimes you can pin an "undue" - if you can make it stick...

However, could you have glimpsed the white sheen of this through some foliage. Was with Wildcat's Dad las week (WildCat's parents - my aunty and uncle are visiting them) Anyway - we went out for a drive with them and the old guy (who taught us all how to drive) took the wheel. On approach to a blind bend - he slowed and he tooted the horn lightly to let oncoming traffic ( he could not see ) be aware of his presence. Basic common sense .... he is in mid 70s ....and still sharp as they come .... Perhaps another factor we should be aware of - at a really blind spot - just a small toot on approach as well as observation and anticipation that some numpty just may be speeding towards you either legally or illegally - but not applying COAST. You have to compensate for another's lack of COAST. You are the component in the machine which compensates for the shortcoming of another - if you like. The part which stops the machine's overall failue to perform. That old guy taught me something last week and the Mad Lad and his L-driver son....




basingwerk - you know what happened to one cousin of mine - and the Mad lad's own wife. Twice in one family - within months and both freak occurrences. Neither were speed related - nor does this family blame every other motorist for these occurrences.

Seen more accidents than computerised doo-dahs you have probably tinkered with. Each one different set of circumstances - some due to speed as sole cause, but majority had another factor which caused it. The speed impact on outcome - again subject to circumstances and road/weather condtiions at the time. Generally, the faster the speed - the messier the outcome ... but have seen some equally nasty low impacts as well.



So he was on the limit? Not over it.... You were indeed unfortunate. But if he was on the speed limit - a scamera would not have pinged him - nor made him take the bend more slowly. Not even sure BiB presence would have done this ... Nor would a black box necessarily slow him down before the bend - though it may reveal he was not driving above speed limit but reveal driver error as sole cause. But it still would not prevent this kind of accident.

Only the training system we have all advocated could be of much more benefit.

But I can understand why you are so angry against driversyou perceive as driving too fast ...

Actually, In Gear, this exact part of the road has a little history, that I'll be glad to expound upon. It is a tightish bend in a 40 mph zone, on the edge of town. At the crux of the inside bend, on the left, there is a slight run-up to a field or something, which distracts the eye and makes you steer wide towards the middle to avoid it. Also, there is a large, thick telegraph pole which also has the same effect. This means that traffic wanders to the line, and often over it. In a 5 minute session with my digicam, 5 of the 10 vans and lorries which passed were over the line, one by well over a foot. It only takes a little more than that to be well over and cause a crash, so I have no doubt that, unless I get this fixed, someone will be killed there. The lady who lives on the corner has seen this happen before. It is well possible to take the bend at 40, or 50 even, but it is also likely that you will stray over that line at a lot less. It may not have been speed that caused this, but a 'thumb in bum' attitude.



It wouldn't have on this occasion, but might have on an earlier one. Cameras can crop up anywhere, like mushrooms. The only guaranteed way to avoid getting pinged is to drive with total awareness all the time. The thumb in bum brigade are learning that the hard way! If this boy had been driving with total awareness, who knows if it might not have happened? He only got 'undue care' because of what he did after the accident. The BiB turned up and found me and my mate lying by the road gasping, with broken bones and stoved in chests! I heard one of the local people explain to the copper that the other bloke wasn't even bothered to check us out, and was more worried about the panels on his van! So he must have got a bad write up, I reckon.



I am also defensive in style. Hope for the best but expect the worst. I wasn’t driving, I was a passenger that time.



I have been preaching this, too. Fat lot of good it does! I have never been able to explain the size of the force, it was just 'something else'. I have come off bikes at 85 when I was a mad youngster, but it was never with as much impact as this.



He's being trained to catch the bus, now! Serves him right, as well.

_________________
I stole this .sig

No "SLOW" painted on road surface? They usually paint this on road where there are hidden junctions and even public footpaths/tracks.

Can they not move the pole as well if this is distraction?

Again "thumb in bum" can be corrected to a point with on-going assessment and encouragement to learn more - as we have all discussed in great essays previously.



By the way what does S.L.O.W> actually stand for?



Not the right attitude on his part. But he may just as easily have been watching his speedo and not the road if a scamera were present Still argue that the awareness is not corrected by a fine and three points, nor necesssarily a short ban for "undue care". It can only come about with training. heck - basingwerk - my guys spend time honing up their skills in training all the time. We practise each manoeuvre until we get it right and fluent. We have refresher courses. OK - so it our job and public money is spent on this and you expect value for money here. (fortunately - our patch still has large contingent - unlike others. )

There should be some kind of training for all drivers - but perhaps it may even be an idea to encourage firms to insist on IAM qualification as preququisite for all jobs involving driving company vehicles....in bid to get quick fix measures in short term at least.



Good to hear this. Nothing wrong witht the A in COAST



Two large vehicles meet .... Always messy. Like I say - seen nasty sights as result of all kinds of accidents - involving whole spectrum of speeds - fast and slow. No two accidents are the same - and injuries and recovery do depend to some extent on victim's health and even personality



Well - it is to be hoped that they teach him the Green Cross Code and what not to do when getting off a bus

That's fair enough. If you do that you'll probably spot all the cameras in time to brake for them. Still, wouldn't it be better to change that sentence to read:
The only guaranteed way to avoid causing a collision is to drive with total awareness at all times.
If only! They're not being taught to drive with total awareness, they're just learning to be distracted by something else. I don't think that the majority of them are actually increasing the amount of attention they pay to the road. Surely that should be the purpose.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

BW, from your own posts here and elsewhere on your personal driving habits it seems that you are not very representative of the driving population at large. Just from looking around, the average driver does not find the natural speed for the road to be the same as the top speed of his/her vehicle. The average driver tends to be rather more sensible than that. Neither does the average motorist deliberately and self-righteously drive at 20% below the speed of traffic flow using personal safety as justification, prompting overtaking manoeuvres by others which are inherently less safe for all concerned. Incidentally this is not much of an assumption - it is established that drivers that conform least to the traffic flow speed at either low or high end are more likely to be involved in a crash (presumably by crashing into each other ). The slower ones may not technically be causing the accidents but is it any consolation? (Though I, others and nowadays I hear insurance companies, would be inclined to apportion some blame)Since most motorists do not either drive flat out or 20% slower than the average traffic flow speed, you sound like a high insuarance risk to me! Though this may be mitigated somewhat if traffic in Flintshire is light Sorry for what might sound like personal critisism above (it is not meant that way), I don't really have the faintest idea about your actual likelihood of crashing but I am making the point that I would rather base road safety policies on 'shaky psychological stuff' than on a personal perspective of one man.

Psychology is not as inexact as you are making it out to be. We are not talking about Freudian individual pseudo-psychoanalysis rubbish. Individuals stray from the norm but large numbers of people consistently behave in predictable and measurable ways. Bore them and they lose concentration or find other distractions. Punish them disproportionately for being 'bad' and they become resentful and spiteful. Reward them for being 'good' and they will strive to improve. It's not rocket science.

Yes I think we do have a test tube - the current speed enforcement policies are on a sufficiently wide scale to allow for a thouroughly scientific comparison with control samples. No need to understand the individual psychological mechanisms at first, we could treat the whole thing as a black box. Do the laws of physics and system dynamics explain the actual behaviour of our model, if not then what could possibly be complicating the matter - could it be driver response by any chance. Presumably in many places potential speed camera sites were identified but were left untreated: ready-made 'garden gnome experiment' that could settle the regression to the mean question. Why is it that electronic warning signs are more effective than speed cameras at reducing speed -could it be that when treated with respect drivers respond more positively? Or is it because they are more inclined to drive according to conditions when informed of the specific type of hazard ahead, or both?. Is it really beyond modern science to answer these questions?


Is this not a contradiction? On the one hand you accept that psychological input is more important than speed per se, and that the two inputs may not be independent, yet on the other hand you postulate that speed is what we must worry about because we can measure it more easily and precisely. But it is the effect of speed on the eventual outcome i.e.KSIs that is important to us. We can measure KSIs can't we, without the need to understand immediately whether the underlying psychological causation mechanisms are as we imagine or totally different. Why by all means expend effort on enforcing strict compliance with the speed limit if it can be shown that this measure is effective/not counter-productive.

Slower average speeds with reference to what? The speed limit? Or the average speed of traffic flow? Crash risk is elevated for both the fastest and the slowest in the driver population, presumably because they are the ones that encounter each other in an overtaking situation most often (or it could be something entirely different but we needn't necessarily know the real reason to draw conclusions from this speed-crashrisk relationship). Speed limits do serve a useful purpose and SS does not say otherwise. It would be foolish not to accept that a large margin over the speed limit is also very likely to be excessively fast for even ideal conditions. Excessive speed limit violations should not be tolerated and this is one of the reasons why sensible speed limits and sensible enforcement are needed. Convictions and fines for marginal speeding are unfair and more to the point they have unintended consequences that possibly negate any benefit. That is how this web site comes across to me.
Cheers
ad

_________________
DO NOT PANIC

Biometrics in lap tops now -

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/04/1543209&tid=184&tid=136&tid=218

Is it only a matter of time before they are fitted in cars? And if they are, will other strands of this technology converge (congestion charging, two way drive by RF, satellite tracking, self-announcing vehicles, centralised DB monitors) to make cameras obsolete?

_________________
I stole this .sig

A friend has a laptop with a fingerprint scanner (an HP I think). Time will tell how reliable or effective it is. You wouldn't want any false rejections of your own fingerprint, after all.
Congestion charging? Don't get me started Seriously, I'm not convinced. Doesn't this rely on making driving in the charge area less attractive? So people just drive elsewhere. Then you have to extend it and extend it until all the charge areas join up and we're back to square one, but all paying an extra fiver every time we use the car.

Two way drive by RF? Er, what?

Satellite tracking? Done this to death elsewhere. Potential problems still, and I can't remember much in the way of solutions being put forward.

Self-announcing vehicles? Er, what? Hello, I'm a Honda?

Centralised DB monitors? For the untaxed and (maybe in the future) un-MOT'd and uninsured. Annoying to have more cameras pointing at me, but I could be won over here.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

We already have it. The Mersey Tunnels, the charge in London, which is being extended, many bridges and so, and , in a funny kind of way, the channel tunnel, and the M6 bypass at Birmingham. It is a trend.



A very important component, is this. Basically, I mean networked cars, which exchange data packets from roadside transceivers. Coupled with biometric keys, they allow self-identifying vehicles, i.e. vehicles that tell the system what they are and who is driving.



Exactly, I’m Honda XYZ and Joe Bloggs is driving me (at 40 in the 30 zone)! Saves the expense of a lot of camera installations, and if a car doesn’t don’t broadcast, send an SMS to the nearest patrol.



The record keeping system for MOTs is already being trialed. Coupled with self-announcing vehicles which transmit own ID and their driver’s ID, there is no need for cameras, just a simple look-up on the central DB to make sure the records are straight. If not, send an SMS and let the cops get some easy pickings. Of course, if there are no cops around, satellite tracking (GPS) and roadside transceivers can give you a rough location on where the car is now.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Yes, we have already begun, but that's not the point I was making.

Let's imagine that they decide to extend the London congestion charge zone (and they do want to do that), and that they put tolls on the M25 to control congestion there. Well, why not just make a charge for the M25 and everything within it? Perhaps Reading will impose a congestion charge too (heard rumours that they are looking at London's charge), in which case why not put tolls on the M4 to link the chargeable zones of London and Reading? Hang on a mo... there's a toll on the Severn crossing further up the M4, so let's make the toll go that far, and perhaps stick a congestion charge on Bristol. While we're at it, let's stick tolls on the M40 which runs by the might-as-well-not-have-a-car city of Oxford and links to the new toll section north of Brum by the M42. So let's do the M42 as well. Looks a bit odd that there's a free route round the city, so let's do the M6 and the M5 as well. Hang on, the M5 goes down to Bristol and we've just put a charge in there, so let's....

Okay, I know I'm being pretty cynical, but if, as you say, it is a trend to have more tolls and charges then the end result of that will be to have tolls and charges everywhere. If they over extend they lose the purported benefits of the charges. If you're going to get charged for going anywhere and everywhere, or even most places, you'll just get in the car and bitch slightly louder about the cost, and so will most other people. Congestion will go back to normal, minus some poor sods who have been priced off the road. If you want to take private transport out of the hands of the poor, then this is a great way to do it. Pretty shitty thing to do though, if you ask me. Still, for a laugh I might go all and try this in SimCity. Little sods are always bleating about the traffic so I'll stick a toll booth on every road. Mwhahahahaha!

Ah, back to tracking. So are we going to put RFIDs or something in bicycles, pedestrians and domestic animals too? Because I can't see the point of any tracking system that doesn't monitor all road users (even then wild animals will be omitted). Even then you're only monitoring rather than actually controlling. Apart from vehicles of course. Still, as long as vehicles are under control everything else will work fine, eh? Yeah, sure.

Same as above, but with a couple of questions.

I'll get the predictable one out of the way first. How do I know that the information I'm sending out will not be misused? Or worse, stolen? For example, could a nutter who works with the computer system look up Mrs Gatsobait's movements and stalk her? Could the information that I travel from A to B on a regular basis be sold to a rail company who operate the service between A and B so they can mail bomb me with junk about how wonderful their service is? Would the information of movements be compared to anything else or made available to other government departments? Say a plasterer goes to work at five different locations one week and gets cash at two of them - would the information that his movements appear to suggest five jobs that week be made available to the Inland Revenue? I'm sure I could think of more like this. Of course we'll be told that they wouldn't do any of this, but I'd much prefer to know that they couldn't. I consider such information to be private and unless TPTB can prove to me a need for it, i.e. that I am likely to behave in a dangerous way while driving, I expect it to remain private.

Next. You're saying that it saves the expense of a lot of cameras, and you've said before many times that you believe cameras will eventually go not because we hate them but because they will become obsolete. So what's going to detect the car that doesn't broadcast so that SMS can be sent? Sounds like you'll need some sort of blanket coverage ANPR type camera system to notice that car reg AA00XYZ isn't sending, or the patrol will not get any SMS. So the expense of Gatsos is saved only to be spent on ANPR instead? In addition to the rest of the system which isn't likely to come for free. Oh hang on, they'll be charging us per mile for this in a lame attempt to make it look like the exchequer isn't coughing up. (Perhaps, but the economy will have to foot the bill somehow.) All this is assuming the eejits in charge don't think they can dispense with patrols as a result of all this technology, and that a handful will remain to pick up the SMS about the non transmitting car.

Well, it would at least reduce the need for producers. I got one last week after being hit by the cyclist, and although I had my license with me I couldn't help but think that in the C21st they should be able to find out my insurance and MOT details in seconds on a computer. Instead I got a ticket to come back with them. Cutting edge it ain't. Another bonus is that if the trafplods see an unroadworthy looking car they can find out if it has an MOT while they're still following it. Mind you, now I've thought about it some more, the MOT test is a long way off perfect so I don't know if it would really do much to make the roads any safer, which ought to be the point. This could easily end up being another system that is all about improving compliance rather than improving safety in any real way. I'm still anti blanket monitoring,though, but if they did random checks from patrol cars I could live with that. I'm always up to date so I'll never have to worry about being stopped. Or better yet, take all the speed stuff out of the Talivans and chuck it in a ditch, and then use them instead.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Not at all. This is exactly what will happen. A market in road use would emerge. It already did, decades ago, if you happened to live south of the tunnels in Chester and had to decide to go north through Birkenhead (with a charge) or east through Runcorn (which is free but further). We might see it everywhere. The point is to have a coherent way of setting the charge to effect the pin point control you seek. It's like tuning a piano on a grand scale. Get it right, and you can eliminate congestion. Get it wrong, and it is useless. Near-real time changes might be the best approach, i.e. if a road is getting congested, raise the charge to enter it. This is what happens when there is a shortage of something - the price goes up. If there was a national shortage of beer (God forbid), the price of beer would go up. Modern computer models (e.g. simulated annealing) can make sense of this giant task very quickly,



If I needed information on bicycles, pedestrians and domestic animals, yes. But they have no tax, mot and are unlikely to break the limit, so no, only in cars for now.



I imagine you will have the same protection as you have today with respect to air travel. In other words, it will strip you of the right to travel anonymously. In a sense, cameras and congestion charging already have. It will be dark days for fly tippers.




Road side RF would have a cheap simple inductive instrument to account for failed senders. A series of fail-to-sends over a route would mean you have a rogue, which is more easy pickings for the cops. Of course, such cars would be remotely disabled after several fail-to-sends, in this brave new world.



Yes, I read you report. Bad luck. I don't bother fixing my cars after small grazes and dings. I just let them be for 6 years or so until till the car is a eyesore, then I scrap it and get another one. Road travel has been stuck in a technological hole for many years. Now I think significant progress is on the horizon, after years of daft, ineffective stuff like car alarms and so on.

_________________
I stole this .sig

What a load of absolute baloney. But don't worry, you're in good company.

Listen. Time is money. Congestion takes time. Therefore it ALREADY self regulates EXACTLY as it would be regulated with road pricing. Too much congestion, and a journey takes too long and people seek alternatives.

The overhead costs of administering congestion charges just burn cash. You want to manage congestion? Just tell folk the waiting time for the route ahead and let them decide. It isn't even regressive to do it this way. If there's too much congestion they will seek alternatives.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Basingwerk, 'tis a sad, sad picture you paint. I can only re-iterate that which I have been saying more and more , lately. Thank f*** I'm not young!!! Your view of the future makes me thank God that I did the bulk of my driving before the computer age!