Safe Speed Forums

I remember that too - it was amazing feat of co-ordination I thought. The thing is that by doing that, there is no need for stopping distance between the cars, so we could fit 10 times more cars on the motorway before we max out the bandwidth.


Yes, but you would not need a front window, so you would not see how close you are!

Anyway, the idea of sharing a road with manual drivers who I don't know who could (and often do) act in an irrational and unpredictable way is also terrifying. Each one of these people could be on a mobile phone, have a heart attack, get stung by a bee, get distracted by children in the back, not do a shoulder check on a lane change, overtake on a bend, corner too fast and move into the on-coming traffic etc. You can think of any number of these scenarios that would result in a horrific pileup!



I couldn't agree more - driving (with or without automatic control) is nightmarish if you really think about it. Over a million people are killed globally each year in car crashes - that is like having 8 full Jumbo jet crashes every day of the year - it's a nightmare, isn't it?

If I were the engineer in charge of building a system like that, I would engineer it to be tolerant of failure. Generally, this means redundant system on standby, and watchdog timers to do failover. That's how automatic control on planes, trains, nuclear power stations and spacecraft etc. is done.

A bad mechanical failure is hard to deal with - perhaps that would be the stumbling block. There might be a solution, or perhaps the answer is transporter trains, like the Chunnel.

_________________
I stole this .sig

The problem is, the capacity of the motorway would be largely limited by the rate at which vehicles can leave it at the end. Picture a 20-mile long train of cars, and a set of traffic lights at the end of the motorway.



Here again, the big limiting factor would be the amount of time it takes to load vehicles onto the transporter train the one end and offload them at the other end. Plus we don't have anywhere near enough rail capacity to make this feasible.

Regards
Peter

Thanks pete317 for giving me food for thought!



Yes. On some roads, motorists choose to drive at the rate they want, without respecting the limits. As you might expect, society dishes out points to discourage this.



I'd agree with you if everybody correctly judged their own speed to be safe. But how can you trust their judgement? You don't know them and they could be incompetent drivers as far as you know. That is why there is a maximum limit – a belt and braces approach to cater for fools who should know better. It has side effects – that is the trade-off. The law suggests that the appropriate speed is not more than either the appropriate speed for the conditions and the maximum limit.


Which people, the good drivers or the incompetent ones? The law has to fit both sets.



Given the general state of driving nowadays, I'd say the majority treat the maximum limit as a target speed, and coppers agree with that. You have to put a corrective stimulus back into the system to communicate the pitfalls of breaking the limit to the average Joe. When you are teetering towards loosing your license, with 9 points and your livelihood depending on it, it sharpens your mind. I suspect that most people against scameras have been caught in ‘thumb in bum, mind in neutral’ mode, had a ticket or two and now feel that their honour has been violated. Most people who habitually drive legally feel OK about the scameras – if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.




Yes, I could live with that just about, although I think it is fiendish. In the thirty zone, reduce the posted limit to 25, then make the actual limit for fines 30 mph. But this would have to be an iron limit - no instrument tolerance and padded margin nonsense. And on the motorway in the fast lane, posted max limit would be 60 mph, with prosecution without tolerance at 70 mph. Of course, it goes without saying that around schools, the posted limit would be 15 mph, prosecution at (a generous) 20 mph.


You'll find only the graveyard is fair. Also, peculiar is the number of people who are ‘highly-skilled drivers’ – nearly everyone on this site.


Coppers need to eat, which means high taxes. I don’t like taxes.



Actually, politics also helped to bring about civilisation - pity about the speed!




Hm... I've pondered on this for a bit. There are all the usually explanations about public transport, safety (rail is a hundred times safer than cars), and the green issues and the parking and problems with congestion and then you get on to the fact that trains allow you to work while you are travelling or ponder the meaning of life etc. etc. Ferraris, on the other hand, appear to perform no real function at all, although they could be used for the school run, as per my maximum speed recommendations above!



I think a copper came online to explain that one.





Fair comment - I was referring to contributory factors in accidents, speeding, alcohol, mobile phones etc. But you are right, speed is a special case because it is so easy to monitor and enforce.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Yes, we saw this with the Internet as well. Initially, the bottleneck was in the backbone. We increased the backbone to gigabit speeds, and the bottleneck ended up in the local lines, at 56 kbps modems. Now broadband has opened up the local lines, and the bottleneck goes back to the backbone! It's the same story with road networks - no matter how much bandwidth you have, you need more, because the extra badwidth itself generates more traffic. The general problem is known as Malthusianism, check out:
http://www.landandfreedom.org/econ/terms.htm

One solution to it is to increase the cost of motoring via (for example) fuel taxes or tolls.

_________________
I stole this .sig

So to carry your internet analogy to its logical conclusion, we should increase the costs of using the internet five-fold (say) and pass the extra money to the Government? Problem solved!

Sorry, but I prefer to think of the development of society should follow a positive path, rather than a negative one. For instance I don't think we should be artificially restricting use of the road network so that we pass on an intrastructure to our children that permits them less mobility than we've enjoyed.

No, your intranet analogy is actually a good one, and shows us that the correct path ahead is actually a very simple one: we just continue to improve the weak links in the chain as they become apparent, knowing that to do so can only serve to improve the capacity of the system as a whole.

How would the regional control systems interract safely when vehicles pass from one area to another? Again, this is somethng that works well in aviation, since there's much less to collide with at 30 thousand feet. With any form of central control of road traffic, whether regional or national, the problems I highlighted earlier remain. I can't believe such a system could be operated in safety unless these random elements were removed from the system, and for various reasons I doubt the practicality of that.
I'm not sure the internet is a good analogy to the road network when it comes to safety issues. From my admittedly hazy knowledge I understand that data packets are often lost as they cross the internet, and to deal with the problem computers will re-send the packet 3 or 4 times if they don't get an acknowledgement from the receiving computer in a certain amount of time. I don't have three spare Gatsobaits ready to send out if the original Gatsobait gets killed on the way to shops.
Frankly I can't even work out why you said that. I suggested that I would prefer to rely on my own skills and observations than have some electronics make decisions for me. Having a man with a red flag walking in front of the car is still handing over an element of car control to someone else (not desirable when we should be encouraging drivers to take more responsibility). Also it's as relevant in the modern world as getting patients thoroughly drunk before surgery instead of using anaesthetics(sp?). No account is made for cultural or technological changes, and in any event the red flag law was poorly thought out even as it applied to the early C20th - horse drawn vehicles could go faster because they didn't have a red flag man. I've never been run over by a horse and cart, but I expect it wouldn't be much fun.
Off topic - I tried Win2K after I was told it was inherently more stable than 98 based OS. The bloody thing promptly started crashing daily instead of weekly. I suspect it doesn't get on with the board, but going back to 98SE was the path of least resistance. Mrs Gatsobait works in IT, and everyone hates the XP systems they use now. Most still use 2K or 98SE at home, and quite a few are switching to Linux or getting Macs. For the moment it's better the devil you know... which brings us back to the roads.
Possibly, but in the meantime how many volunteers do you think they'd find to beta-test the M25? Seriously though, it's all very well to say that once fixed bugs stay fixed, but the reality is that we never know where the next one is or what it'll do. How much trouble did they have debugging the air traffic control at Swanwick?
Very true, and up till the early 90's we did indeed have a process of incremental improvements on the roads without any computer involvement (except for traction control and other on-car gadgetry).
Compared to the daily movements of many millions of people in cars and trucks, on bikes, plus pedestrians, cyclists and so on your example is simpler by many orders of magnitude, and yet you say that it requires "millions upon millions of lines of code to enact". In software terms it might be very complex, but in the real world it's actually a very simple system - some people who want satellite imagery, some Canadians controlling the thing and the satellite itself. Now if a simple system requires such complex software it's reasonable to ask if software could cope at all with very complicated systems and many random elements.
I doubt that an automated system would have safety advantages. For reasons I've already gone into I would expect it to be less safe, as automated systems don't deal well with the unexpected. By definition the unexpected is something you can't predict, so I can't see how computers can be programmed to deal with it. It is simply not feasible, and possibly flat out impossible, to remove unexpected events from the road system.
Now electronic systems providing information to a driver is a different issue, and something I'm in favour of up to a point (see, I'm not a total Luddite ). SatNav is becoming increasingly popular, and I see no reason why it can't be programmed to give safety information as well as directions. Perhaps it would be like having an electronic version of a rally co-driver reading the pace-notes. On unfamiliar roads the SatNav would verbally warn you of blind junctions, dangerous bends etc. However, satellite tracking is as much a civil liberties issue as a road safety one, and provides opportunities for abuse. I'd rather run the risk of an accident than know that I'm being tracked wherever I go.

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

All the more reason then to upgrade L-test and insist on assessments which can be carried out by use of ADIs. Graded to encourage, with higher grades giving lower insurance premiums and so on. Assessment should focus on more than just hazard perception - understanding controls, handling, performance, effect of different types of tyre on grip and its knock-on effect on speeds...

You do not need to automate everything - not the answer you think it is = software is fallible - in same way as humans - and what if you had power cut which affected all safety back ups? Happened in Italy not that long ago! Happened in USA as well - not long afterwards! Could happen here!



Yes - people do see limited speed as target speed - we have already commented on this! Again - all thee more reason to encourage continuous learning and improvement from starting to learn to drive!

However, mate. Have clean licence - so has wifey. But know of too many people who are indeed on edge of losing licences for trivial overspeed blips in LanCASH£££re. I habitually drive legally - but I do not feel OK about scams - in LanCASH£££re - as there are so many of them, at fleecepoints - where they can earn most revenue. They are certainly not at blackspots and they are certainly not reducing accidents in the county - because I know what goes through most A&E departments. Suggest you come and drive around this area - and then you will have some insight as to why it is now acknowledged to be area in North West where the most careful driver on planet is in danger of getting a ticket!
My b2 never stops bleeping here. Blackpool - accidents occur when people j-walk into the trams. Solution? 8 scams on promenade - hidden by illuminations.

A583 (Preston New Road - M55 exit) Dual carriageway which used to be 40mph - reduced to 30mph. Speed limit enforced by 10 scameras about 1km apart on each side of the road. Road has slight camber at crown and a slight gradient - both of which can cause minor overspeed blip- which is part of their game plan! . Drive past 5 of them (as the first one at 31-35mph will get you invited to course) and the rest get you a ban!

Now - do you get the picture of why we are up in arms about them - or do you want it spelling out to you again! I have to drive past all of those if I have to visit the hospital here! Not one of my pleasantest drives!



Reduce speed limits even more? Are you mad? 30mph is safe speed limit in urban areas. Around hazards - common sense dictates that you slow down - who wants a bent fender!

Around schools 15mph? You cannot drive faster than that anyway at chuck in/chuck out time! Parked cars and mumpties. And kids do not just walk around site of school - they may walk HOME, catch school buses - which means you would have to have 15mph limit for at least 3.5 miles around the catchment area. And would your proposal be 24/7 for 365 days?

Sheer nonsense. Education for drivers, Green Cross Code instruction for all road users. That is way forward!

You find that many Germans choose to drive at 90mph on derestricted A/bahn. But then - they are not like repressed kids in a sweetshop!



Graveyards are not fair - have you tried to purchase a plot recently?

Perhaps most of us highly skilled drivers are attracted to sites like these because of genuine love of cars, and genuine interest in improving road safety for all. In fact, many of things I read and discuss here seem to be more in favour of good advice, improving driving standards and promotion of safety rather than a call for abolition of speed limits.



Coppers do not just deal with traffic. I do not like taxes, but if necessary I would pay higher taxes to have more cops on our roads, and to protect me from crime in general. For that matter - if you do not like to pay taxes - then I suppose you would not object if I decided not to treat you because you begrudge paying the same taxation which pays me my salary In fact - Wife and I pay me my own salary - which I pay back in tax - judging by what they hike off both of us jointly!

Civilised society and the politics you so admire require these taxes. Our problem is that they waste so much of our taxes on silly flawed projects and non-sensical Noo Labia jobs which do not require any IQ, or competent skills at all!

No doubt "In Gear" will give you an ear bashing over not wanting him larking around - I have had it before from him over the council tax hike!



Politics has also caused civilisation to break up and revert to anarchy due to silly laws!

Bad politics cause wars! Speed helps wins them!




Nice car to look at and nice to drive around a track. Family car Four kids of my own and two fostered - on the school run - I'd get done for overcrowding. Then the mumpties would no doubt have pique of jealousy - just because of its sassy cleavage! No mate - as babemobile and totty tempter - fine. But proud happily married Papa now!


Trains? Safe? Leaves on track.... stations you can get mugged in....finding car park space at station.... train drivers who are colour blind ... number of train crashes in recent years - cause by driver and on-board computer error (Swiss train)

Work whilst I am travelling on train? Last time I travelled by train -- train arrived 2 hours late (delayed by wrong kind of rain which affected the wrong kind of leaves on the track and it had the wrong kind of driver.)

Could not work because twazak couple of seat away kept nattering nonsense on his mobile phone "Yup Yah Aha and snoggy kisses ) Then there were the tunnels, swinging around corners and all my papers went fly about, I felt motion sick , and there were the personal CDs, cassettes and radios clickering away in the background. The tea was expensive and undrinkable and heaven only knows when thos butties were made! Added to that it was delapidated and the heating did not work properly. Only thing I contemplated on this journey was "If only I was in my nice comfy car!"

And I would have got there quicker even in respective M6 and M1 carparks Gosh - might have even got to my medico conference on time!



Could be wrong - but I think it has something to so with farmers ploughing fields in middle ages which impacted on where coachman sat and drove his horses. UK chose left and continent chose right. According to my Granny!



First true utterance! And all down to a speed camera which cannot detect really dangerous driving. Whereas a copper can address severity of speeding offence, give advice, and most importantly, prosecute the really dangerous twazaks out there

Yes, and it's not too bright when you think about it. They're treating symptoms instead of causes. The answer is to treat the cause and make the limit a realistic one. If you set too many stupid limits then more and more drivers will lose faith in the system and ignore all limits regardless of how realistic they are.
:? What makes you think that the 85th percentile speed on motorways is as low as 60mph? Rush hour aside I'd estimate that it's 20-30 mph more than that (and in rush hour possibly 20-30mph lower on some motorways). I'd certainly agree with making the posted limit a soft limit, and having a hard limit above this for dishing out fines. But both limits need to be set so that only the fastest 5% or so of drivers are targeted and that would involve more limits being raised than reduced.
[sarcasm]AHA! Trams kill! Slow 'em down to walking pace. No, even better, just ban trams. Thery're obviously too dangerous to be allowed. And while we're at it let's ban sharks as well. Bloody sharks are a menace for any swimmer who might choose to go snorkelling with thirty pounds of rare steak strapped to his arse. [/sarcasm]Of course, very few swimmers really take thirty pounds of steak into shark inhabited waters, and any that do would probably only do so very briefly. Perhaps we could just suggest that pedestrians start acting more sensibly as well.

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

And basingwerk - there was this little snippet in the press (MOS - 23.05.04 - reporter Richard Allen)

Traffic planners in Wilthire are testing 13 locations in urban areas. Latest figures show that accidents have fallen by more than a third on torads with NO lane markings, and speeds have dropped by up to 7mph! How funny, the accidents at these test sites have also dropped by 35% - same figure as that at scam sites ----

Apparently, supporters reckon this could spell the end of the speed cam because " it proves that drivers regulate their own speed when given more responsibility"

In Bath, transport consultant is overseeing a smilar scheme with simialr results. "The growing clutter on our roads is affecting driver concentration! The centre line keeps driver focused on centre of road and prevents him from seeing the ball bouncing from the kerb or the drunk staggering off the pavement"

The paper reported that Holland and Scandinavia have gone even further -- Um....
They have removed signs and traffic lights? Accidents have fallen by 50%?????

Yes, I would not think that central or regional control would offer any way forward - any such system (and we are talking about 10, 20 or 30 years away) would almost certainly be highly distributed.



Agreed - one of the main objectives of automatic control is to systematise the random elements. Right now, the most unpredictable component of a car is the little nut behind the wheel.



I agree here. Reliability on the Internet is arranged in the TCP layer with packet re-sends - this is not a valid analogy of how transport reliability could be implemented. Other parts of the TCP/IP protocol are quite useful, though. Routers seem to offer analogies to physical routing issues. Also, the distributed logic approach that the original network designers took could be a way to offload responsibility from central controllers to the cars themselves, in much the same way that drivers are responsible today.



Some cars already make decisions for you. ABS monitors you skid rate, esoteric cars already send driver signals via electronic data buses to actuators on the brakes and steering. Cameras monitor your speed, and traffic snags, accidents and snarls ups. History suggest we can expect more of this, including greater levels of monitoring and control. Each of these layers will have errors, bugs, deficiencies etc, yet they will be ironed out and yet more of these gizmos are coming one line. That is why I can’t understand this issues with scameras – this is much broader, and my concerns are not constrained to selfish drivers – the civil liberty issues might be greater.





Good analogy – the equivalent of 8 full Jumbo jets full of people are killed each day in car accidents. Swanwick appears to work somewhat better than the road system.



If it works, it gets implemented, if it doesn’t, it doesn’t. This is how this technology flows. Expect more on-car gadgetry, including automatic parking/toll/road usage monitoring, tax/mot/insurance database linkups, automatic fault diagnosis, drunk driver shutoff intelligence, then some contentious ones once the technology is in place, such as biometric keys, enforced routing diversions, entry point stoppages on the on-ramps during congestion (as on M6 at Birmingham), constant CCTV and high throughput screening to detect driving violations automatically at known blackspots. Also, expect audible warning on speed violations, followed by lower insurance rates on cars fitted with enforcement devices, etc. etc. All of this is leading to the on-ramp for intelligent highways. After that, hm… we’ll have to see, won’t we. I take your point, Gatsobait, that this is difficult, but wireless through to the mobile phone took 100 years to work out.



Agreed, but with our system, we are loosing 3000 people dead every 24 hours, over a million each year. That is a broken system. You may think that this is more safe than an automatic system, but there is also a political process involved here. 3000 people per day is a lot of death, greater than world war two, for example.



And you are welcome to have your accident, but please try not to run into my family or me.

_________________
I stole this .sig

You missed my point completely. Putting it another way, when you get a situation where most people drive at the limit, or just over, you'll probably find that the speed limit is set too low for that road.



Again you missed my point. Most drivers can be trusted to judge their speed correctly, and so will drive at speeds well below the limut when the conditions warrant it. The few who can't be trusted to judge their speed correctly will probably be driving at the limit, when they should be going a lot slower.




In case it wasn't obvious, I was referring to the majority who can,and do, set ther speed correctly.



Probably because a lot of limits are set too low nowdays.



Which are? (disregarding the legal implications)




I'm not necessarily talking about anybody on this site - although I suspect they number at least a couple of Police Class 1 drivers - and they would probably take exception to some of your remarks.
If they set the limits to cater for the worst drivers under the worst conditions, you'd probably be limited to 20mph on motorways and 10mph everywhere else. But then a PC1 driver could be banned for doing 50 on an empty motorway, when he/she could possibly do three times that speed in safety.




If the railways carried a comparable amount of people/goods traffic, the safety etc problems would also be comparable. Besides which, it's funny how trespassers and suicides never seem to be included in rail safety statistics - but they invariably are when they're talking about the roads.
What do you mean by 'green issues', anyway? Have you ever tried crossing a footbridge at a station while a diesel train is standing at the platform - and tried to breathe at the same time?



My point was, Ferraris are built to do high speeds in relative safety, whereas trains aren't - and they're spending a fortune trying to make trains do what they weren't built to do, for the small minority of those who can benefit from rail travel. The rest of us have to drive at speeds which are, in many cases, far below the capabilities of our vehicles.

Shouldn't we then also increase public transport fares to stop overcrowding on trains and buses?
And how about supermarkets charging more for their goods at the times when the checkout queues are the longest?

Besides which, if 400% tax on fuel hasn't gone any way towards solving the problem, just how high do you propose fuel tax should be? £20 a litre, perhaps?
We'd all pay a very high price for this, in greatly increased costs of goods and services, wage demands, etc etc etc. Not to mention hugely inflated house prices as everybody attempts to buy a house within walking distance of work.
If you don't believe this, take a look at a graph of the CPI over the last few decades, and compare it to a graph of fuel prices.
The more it costs to move people and goods, the more it costs the country as a whole - a point which our politicians seem not to be able to grasp.

Now compare that figure with the total number of people who die unnecessarily, or otherwise before their time, from all causes. I think you'll find that figure is very large in comparison.
I'm not in any way trying to downplay the tragedy of death on the roads, just trying to put some perspective on it.

Er? How come you drive a car if you are that afraid of the "what ifs" One member of this family died in a plane crash - caused by air traffic control system failure!

One member died when artic with dodgy everything hit him and one nearly died when a man did indeed have heart attack behind his wheel.

Not frightened any one of us off driving, flying and given the number of falls on ski runs etc - they still do that too!

By the same token - you could get mugged in the park, run over by a tram (run by computer), run over by car - again controlled by computer if pedestrian sensor gizmo or whatever failed!

Are you seriously trying to tell us all that computerised cars will stop numpty cyclist, suicidal pedestrian, over twitchy horse, a mad dog, from crossing road in dangerous fashion? Because they will still cross in grunting trance with mobile glued to eardrum, still run in the path of oncoming traffic just the same. The difference being that nut inside the car will not have the control to stop it because your central computer bus lane doo-dah wotsits cannot get to the controls in the 0.7 sec reaction time ! Which at least even the numpty behind the wheel does achieve in here and now and not in some twilight zoned captain Kirk mentality world for twazaks!






You have to understand how ABS works for it to be of benefit. Cameras notify of snarl ups - so how come the Matrix signs, etc always giving incorrect data if they are so wonderful? Computer systems are only as good as the software and then again only as good as the nut sat at the workstation. In other words - open to human errors!


As for the problems with scameras - my patch does not have them, has less accidents than anywhere else, but enforces common sense policing and idiots get copped! BY TRAFFIC POLICE!

You know - the ones you do not want to pay taxes to pay for. How pray, will you fund your system? you would still need monies from the public purse. Incidentally, we catch murderers, rapists, disturbers of the peace, and the odd terrorist and burglar. Occasionally - these people pull guns and knives on us - and some very tragically die - as was the sad case over the weekend! We do do other things besides lark around in side streets awaiting the odd speed merchant!



Two members of this family (WildCat and the teacher cousin) lived in GDR for a while - both work related. They found they were tracked everywhere and it made them feel criminal even when they were innocent.

Your idea of heaven - which deskills people, tracks them everywhere regardless is our idea of hell! And remember - I am employed to enforce law and arrest people when necessary - but not that way!

It's highly distributed now. One individual controls each vehicle.

You are missing my point. I am not talking about the most unpredicatable component of a car, but unpredictable elements of the road system. Taking human control out of cars is quite pointless unless you also remove all the other random elements that occur on our road system. This means you must absolutely ensure that the roads will be completely clear of pedestrians, cyclists, loose dogs, horse riders, wildlife and probably motorcycles too. Short of enclosing the entire road network top and sides to prevent any access to it (except for crossing points and designated areas for entering and leaving vehicles) I see no way of doing this. Without the ability to segregate all road traffic from these other random elements taking the "nut behind the wheel" out of the equation is a wasted effort.

As a very basic example, consider the effects of alcohol. Not on drivers, but on pedestrians. People do still get legless and stagger out into the road, and some of them get run over. I think there's a TRL report somewhere that covered pedestrian vehicle accidents, and while i can't recall the figures the majority were found to be the fault of the pedestrians, many of whom were over the limit for driving. Now, assuming we can automate road traffic how do we then deal with pissed up pedestrians? Ban alcohol? Hmm, didn't work too well in the US when they tried it. Breathalyse people as they leave pubs? Intrusive and a logistical nightmare, and anyway I might slip out of the toilet window .
No, the only sure-fire way of eliminating the random from the road system is to have a physical barrier preventing access to the road. This in itself creates other problems. Since access from the road is restricted the emergency services are going to have huge problems away from the openings in the barriers. Make sure you're near one of the gaps if you have a heart attack, get mugged or find yourself in a burning building, 'cos otherwise they won't be able to get to you. Deliveries would be similarly restricted, and of course no-one would be able to have a driveway anymore as people could simply enter the road at that point, so we'd have to walk to large communal car parks which would have access to the road.
It's not all bad though. I'd get more exercise popping over the road to the newsagent as I'd probably have ten times as far to walk. WTH, I need to lose a stone anyway.

I'm going to leave the internet analogy there if you don't mind. I used up all my knowledge of it in my previous post. Shall we just say that regardless of your choice of analogy I remain unconvinced about relieving drivers of the responsibility of car control until you can suggest a way of controlling the behaviour of non-motorised road users.

I know. I mentioned traction control myself as an example of electronic intervention. However, there's two important differences with ABS, ESP, TCS and so on (let's just call 'em TLAs for the moment).
Firstly, since I mentioned intervention, we must remember that the TLAs generally operate only after things have already gone pear shaped. In other words they do not actually control the car, nor do they make decisions for you. Instead they work to restore control to the driver after it has already been lost by performing an action on the driver's behalf.

Second, the job each TLA is asked to do is actually fairly simple, e.g. rapidly apply and release the brakes on the offside front wheel until traction is regained. As more and more are fitted to cars then the various TLAs have to be designed to cooperate with each other, but what they have to do is still infinitely simpler than asking them to drive through Croydon without running anyone over.

Let's leave the civil liberties aside for the moment and talk about the safety issue. The accident rate tells the story. We had several decades of improvement without cameras and that's more or less stopped since the cameras turned up. Now, correlations do not mean causes, but what else changed? (Besides, there's been plenty of ideas put forward as to why cameras and current policy may have stalled the improvements. Strange how no one seems to want to research them.)

Now the civil liberties issue. We have the right to silence if accused of any offence on the books, with the exception of speeding when caught by a camera! I believe that some US states have ruled that speed cameras are actually unconstitutional, at least where they have been used the same way we use ours (I'll try to find articles). What does it say about our society that Harold Shipman had rights that are not available to someone pinged at 31mph? Some have worried that it's the thin end of the wedge, and with ID cards on the horizon and plans to restrict trial by jury I'm beginning to think they're right.

In an ideal world, yes. But I think we'd both agree that the world is far from ideal. The cameras aren't working, and yet more are being installed anyway. I reckon politics are playing the biggest part in the implementation of this particular technology, so don't expect logic in the technolgy flow.

Pretty shocking if it were true, especially as it would be a hell of a lot higher than the annual birth rate (about 11 per 1000 people). However, I'm pretty sure it's 3000 people per year, not per day. Actually closer to 3500, but still nothing like the level you suggest. If that many were dying I'd expect that everyone would know one of each year's dead personally (I've never known anyone die on the roads, though I did once know someone who was permanently disabled in a crash). The system is far from broken, although there is plenty of room for improvement. The big issue is that we stopped improving more than a decade ago, and are showing no signs of starting again.
(Edited to add: sorry to have repeated this. I hadn't noticed that this had already been brought up when I hit submit).
On the other hand, I would be prepared to believe that 3000 people really could die in a single day if an automated traffic control system keeled over.

I don't intend to have one near you, your family or anyone else. Please re-read what I said and note the word 'risk'. To put it more plainly, I consider the very low risk of someone running into me (rather than the other way round as you seemed to suggest) preferable to being monitored for every mile I drive. Remember that accidents are actually fairly rare when compared to the distance driven by the entire UK fleet each year.

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

Basingwerk, some info for you from RoSPA.

In 1999 there were 3500 deaths on the road, and 4000 accidental deaths in homes.
On average between 1994 and 1996 10% of injuries treated in hospital were caused on the road, compared with 13% from sport, 23% at work and 33% at home.
There are about 500 more fatal falls each year than road deaths.

On that basis if we consider driving to be dangerous, we should also quit work, sell the house and get a tent, wear safety goggles when playing tiddlywinks, and avoid standing on anything higher than a book.

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

If the speed limit is badly wrong it should be challenged. For example, sometimes near schools and hospitals and residential streets, a lower limit may be required. You might think a higher limit might be appropriate in some places, but that is a political decision, and not for drivers alone to decide.

Aside: If the true cost of speed related accidents were levied onto drivers (for example, hospital treatment, which could be recouped by the NHS on the drivers' insurers, and police/ambulance costs, and costs to society in general for road closures etc.), we might find more drivers lobbying for lower limits and speed monitor devices.



It doesn't matter whether some drivers can be trusted to judge their speed correctly - the rules have to assist all drivers, some of whom judge their speed incorrectly. Sounds harsh, but so is death. The maximum appropriate speed is the lesser of the safe speed for the conditions and the maximum limit, else expect a ticket - that is the basic message.



You seem pretty sure of yourself.



That's your opinion. I know, I know...



Do you disregard the legal implications? OK, glossing over the legal implications of fines, points, and the safety ones related to injury, death, hospital costs etc via F=MA etc.

One pitfall of breaking the limit is that society is obliged to cap your speed with cameras and monitoring. We reap what we sow.



Help me out here - what remarks do you mean? That it is peculiar how many people on this site are ‘highly-skilled drivers’ ? The coppers you are talking about would be pretty thin-skinned to take exception to that, wouldn't the? They are coppers, not ballet dancers. Apologies in advance to any ballet dancers offended by my remarks.



I haven’t driven on an empty motorway since 1977.





The cars are OK - it's the little nut behind the wheel that is not capable.

_________________
I stole this .sig

People in LanCASH£re have challenged decisions to change speed limits on 50mph dual carriageways with no serious accident history. They get zero response! They also risk fine and points for driving 1mph above the speed limit in this area. You really need that b2 when driving through there! The rank and file cops are not in favour as it is alienating them from the public.

Manchester's Labour Party propose blanket 20mph past each and every school in area. Stockport I believe already has this, as does St Helens. Have not problem with this - except if it is enforced after school hours. Because to fine someone for driving at 23mph at midnight past the school on the East Lancs Road (50mph limit with steel barriers separating school from carriagewya plus schools own six foot high fencing) would be a tadge daft even from a Pratnership's perspective! But - heck- money, low IQ and zero common sense - that is what they would doubtlessly do!

There is 20mph limit which goes on for miles each side of many lakeland villages now. Have no great issues with it - except they go on for far too long, and the cycle lanes in Ambleside That is their idea of safety I ride a push bike sometimes - but no way would I even think of cycling around there and using the darned things! Not safe!



An what makes you think we in NHS do not recoup this money already? Work in NHS mate. My wife was seriously injured after a no-fault episode some years ago now. Took years to sort out insurance wrangle (did he die before, during or just after he went through his windscreen and through my wife's rear?)

A large chunk of the damages settlement went to repay the NHS for my wife's treatments (ICU, medications, physiotherapy sessions etc, etc.)

Net result: we retained very little from the pay-out which did include loss of earning (She was only weeks from turning 26 at time, and climbing up the career ladder) and personal injuries in its settlement.)

Net result - our premiums were just more than a little bit on the high side for a while!

You may be very knowledgeable about computerised doo-dahs - but you know surprisingly little of the real world! But then - to quote Cousin In Gear - you seem to be in "twilight never-never land!"



True - numpties are unpredictable. All the more reason to encourage them to undertake some periodic retraining sessions, with the carrots we have already discussed.

You keep banging on about the twazaks - but you offer no constructive suggestions to improve the twazaks to at least above numpty status!

Your only offering? Computerise and automate completely. But your wonderful system does not take into account the numpties walking on the pavement and the idiots who refuse to take responsibility for their children on public highways!

Know how many accidents are caused by people walking into trams? other people? doors? falling off escalators?




Corrective stimulus is encouragement to learn from mistakes. Fining someone for driving past a scamera at 31-35mph in LanCASH£re and elsewhere is not the way to do this! Then saying they are too dangerous to drive a car if they manage to do this 4 times (and surprisingly not that difficult in LanCASH£re) - that is also not the way to do this.



Society has seen that this is good way to make money. They are supposed to monitor blackspots and not fleecespots. The Prats and not the Police decide where to station these darned things.

Interestingly, some scame in Manchester (sited correctly by GMP have been removed and new ones installed at fleece spots. Locals are saying "But there have been no accidents here!" That speaks volumes from a new Pratnership - who have managed to get one or two things right and then spoil the overall effect by joining Dick under that stone!



Like I said - perhaps highly skilled drivers are attracted to sites such as these out of genuine love of cars, and genuine interest in raising driver standards. Many of the posts I read here seem to point in that direction. Yours do not!

But then you do appear to have blind faith in a machine. Perhaps when your human machine breaks down - I should plug you into the computer and let it misdiagnose you!



Only early morning and late at night.

But agreed - motorways are chocka and sometimes you are lucky if you get to drive at 30mph - let alone 70mph. The empty m'ways do not exist in Germany either. Funny - how they have less accidents than urban roads on aggregate. Funny how Germany appears to have more accidents on limited stretches than derestricted. But then - they do not drive a frightening speeds all the time. They drive at the speed which the road conditions prevalent at the time dictate.

The high speed stories? Part of Germany's folklore to a point!



Like I say - you offer nothing to suggest how to improve the little muppet. At least the hard core petrol heads here have made quite sensible suggestions.

Not seen that from you mate!

Now tea break is over and I am due in theatre soon! (Not an RTA! )

Thanks!



Sorry you feel that way, but I know now why you get zero response.



I'm sorry about that, it's not right.



Yes, that would be right. Give them the option of points or a course on driving.




The twazaks are just instruments. The only suggestion I have is to obey the limit.



It's only right to say what's in store - the scameras are the tip of the iceberg. Clever road engineers are thinking up any number of high tech 'solutions' to shove down the throat of the Highways Agency. I don't know whether they'll do what they say on the tin, but pretty soon, we'll look back on these days with amazement that we ever had such freedom. Enjoy them while you can, Moggie, but try to avoid children on public highways.



Quite a few, but scameras have no impact on those.




People get four chances to drop out of 'thumb in bum, mind in neutral' mode, and they still grumble about it. Hmph.


I agree - there's one near where I live that is half covered by a pole, and the other half is stuck in a hedge. They damn near got me the other day, while I was poodling along.



Yes, you are right. But also cry babies who have been pinged by a scamera are attracted here to grumble and moan about how hard life is. Tough luck.


I could argue about that, I lived in Munich for 8 years.



I have one suggestion, but instead, here are two sensible ones - try to obey the limit and love women instead of cars.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Edit: Removed.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..