Appropriate speed for conditions

Tim Woodall said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4463616.stm

The county's safety camera partnership has reported that more than 150
vehicles were caught travelling at 70mph on Tuesday night in a section
of contraflow near Tebay, where the temporary limit is 50mph.

However, the fog was so heavy that the cameras failed to even make out
the shape of some of them.

If caught by police in the traditional way, I can imagine the defence:

*Your Honour, my clients plead not guilty. They had no way of knowing
that a temporary speed restriction existed as the speed restriction
signs were obscured by dense fog.*

"Tim Woodall" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4463616.stm

The county's safety camera partnership has reported that more than 150
vehicles were caught travelling at 70mph on Tuesday night in a section
of contraflow near Tebay, where the temporary limit is 50mph.

However, the fog was so heavy that the cameras failed to even make out
the shape of some of them.

Yebbut it don't matter if you put your fog lights on. The rears are
especially good, some folks put 'em on when it's raining and can easily top
80mph safely, they look pretty too when they overtake as they turn
everything in your field of view into a big red cloud man.
--
Pete
http:[email hidden]/Stuff

According to Tim Woodall:

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4463616.stm

The county's safety camera partnership has reported that more than 150
vehicles were caught travelling at 70mph on Tuesday night in a section of
contraflow near Tebay, where the temporary limit is 50mph.

However, the fog was so heavy that the cameras failed to even make out the
shape of some of them.

Tim.

Luckily this refers to a stretch of motorway, so has absolutely nothing to
do with cycling.

Bertie Wiggins said:

If caught by police in the traditional way, I can imagine the defence:

*Your Honour, my clients plead not guilty. They had no way of knowing
that a temporary speed restriction existed as the speed restriction
signs were obscured by dense fog.*

A former colleague of mine actually used that excuse when stopped for
speeding. "I didn't know I was speeding because it was too foggy to see
the speed limit signs."

A couple of years later the same colleague wrote off his company car
when he rounded a bend on a country lane and hit a tractor. "It wasn't
my fault, I was doing less than the speed limit."

This was the same chap who was planning to do a loft conversion by
removing rafters from his roof until it started to creak, then putting
one back. He was a good programmer, but really not fit to be let out on
his own.

--
Danny Colyer (my reply address is valid but checked infrequently)
<URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Danny Colyer said:

This was the same chap who was planning to do a loft conversion by
removing rafters from his roof until it started to creak, then putting
one back. He was a good programmer, but really not fit to be let out on
his own.

'Loft Jenga'. A fine pastime I'm sure.

Tim Woodall said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4463616.stm

The county's safety camera partnership has reported that more than 150
vehicles were caught travelling at 70mph on Tuesday night in a section
of contraflow near Tebay, where the temporary limit is 50mph.

However, the fog was so heavy that the cameras failed to even make out
the shape of some of them.

It's one of the very few places there are fixed speed cameras on a
motorway (the M25 has them, but the M4 ones are of the
white-van-parked-on-bridge variety). I believe they're there to catch
the people taking full advantage of the descent from Shap.

Tabloid rumour has it that the new ANPR cameras will be used to enforce
motorway speed limits at some time in future, possibly on the grounds of
environmental benefits as well as safety - the Govt can save millions of
tons of CO2 towards the Kyoto target if people drive at 70 rather than
85. I'll enjoy the Daily Express' mouth-foaming if this does happen ;-)

Zog The Undeniable said:

Tabloid rumour has it that the new ANPR cameras will be used to enforce
motorway speed limits at some time in future, possibly on the grounds of
environmental benefits as well as safety - the Govt can save millions of
tons of CO2 towards the Kyoto target if people drive at 70 rather than
85. I'll enjoy the Daily Express' mouth-foaming if this does happen ;-)

I don't understand how they can measure how much CO2 is saved. I
mean, it's not like it all goes into a big bag and they can see if
there is more or less than last month.

How do the figures work?

Judith

Judith said:

Zog The Undeniable said:

Tabloid rumour has it that the new ANPR cameras will be used to
enforce motorway speed limits at some time in future, possibly on
the grounds of environmental benefits as well as safety - the Govt
can save millions of tons of CO2 towards the Kyoto target if people
drive at 70 rather than
85. I'll enjoy the Daily Express' mouth-foaming if this does happen
;-)

I don't understand how they can measure how much CO2 is saved. I
mean, it's not like it all goes into a big bag and they can see if
there is more or less than last month.

How do the figures work?

From fuel sales, I'd imagine.

--
Ambrose

Quoted message said:

I don't understand how they can measure how much CO2 is saved. I
mean, it's not like it all goes into a big bag and they can see if
there is more or less than last month.

How do the figures work?

From knowing that fuel consumption rises with speed and by how much. It's
not a particularly difficult calculation to perform.

vernon levy said:

Quoted message said:

I don't understand how they can measure how much CO2 is saved. I
mean, it's not like it all goes into a big bag and they can see if
there is more or less than last month.

How do the figures work?

From knowing that fuel consumption rises with speed and by how much. It's
not a particularly difficult calculation to perform.

But there would seem to be so many variables. Unless the ANPR cameras
were on *every* road in the country, who's to say that the speeders
don't just go a (longer?) faster way round to avoid the cameras?

I suppose it's all based on averages and extrapolation.

Judith

"Judith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I suppose it's all based on averages and extrapolation.

Seems the most likely explanation.

T

Tony W said:

"Judith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I suppose it's all based on averages and extrapolation.

Seems the most likely explanation.

Averages and interpolation would be more likely.

...d

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suppose it's all based on averages and extrapolation.

Seems the most likely explanation.

Averages and interpolation would be more likely.

Given most government figures I suspect Judith was partially correct.

Guestimates and extrapolation to absurdity might be closer

Tony W said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I suppose it's all based on averages and extrapolation.

Seems the most likely explanation.

Averages and interpolation would be more likely.

Given most government figures I suspect Judith was partially correct.

Guestimates and extrapolation to absurdity might be closer

I considered looking up the word before posting but CBA.

Judith

Judith said:

Zog The Undeniable said:

Tabloid rumour has it that the new ANPR cameras will be used to enforce
motorway speed limits at some time in future, possibly on the grounds of
environmental benefits as well as safety - the Govt can save millions of
tons of CO2 towards the Kyoto target if people drive at 70 rather than
85. I'll enjoy the Daily Express' mouth-foaming if this does happen ;-)

I don't understand how they can measure how much CO2 is saved.

That's easy. It's directly proportional to the amount of fuel used.
That's regardless of factors like engine efficiency: the only thing
that could affect it is fuel spilled, or deliberately not-burned
(e.g. used for cleaning your chain instead). But that's going to
be statistically negligible amongst petrol and diesel sales.

--
not me guv

Judith said:

Tony W said:

Quoted message said:

>>I suppose it's all based on averages and extrapolation.
>
>Seems the most likely explanation.

Averages and interpolation would be more likely.

Given most government figures I suspect Judith was partially correct.

Guestimates and extrapolation to absurdity might be closer

I considered looking up the word before posting but CBA.

Judith

Well, I would think that an organic chemist could know to fair degree of
certainty how much CO2 would be produced by combustion of a standard
volume or mass of petrol. If someone knew that (say from VAT returns by
filling stations) precisely how much fuel was sold in the UK in a given
time, they could work out fairly precisely how much CO2 was generated
across the country, assuming that everyone who filled their tank
actually used the fuel to drive somewhere.

The uncertainty would come from the precise relationship between driving
speed and fuel consumption, and it would be difficult to pin down the
CO2 production of any individual vehicle, but I think the overall
national figure could be determined quite accurately.

Apologies if there are any are still present in the above.

Memo to myself: Don't post after visiting the pub.

Mike

Nick Kew said:

Judith said:

Zog The Undeniable said:

Tabloid rumour has it that the new ANPR cameras will be used to
enforce motorway speed limits at some time in future, possibly on the
grounds of environmental benefits as well as safety - the Govt can
save millions of tons of CO2 towards the Kyoto target if people drive
at 70 rather than 85. I'll enjoy the Daily Express' mouth-foaming if
this does happen ;-)

I don't understand how they can measure how much CO2 is saved.

That's easy. It's directly proportional to the amount of fuel used.
That's regardless of factors like engine efficiency: the only thing
that could affect it is fuel spilled, or deliberately not-burned
(e.g. used for cleaning your chain instead). But that's going to
be statistically negligible amongst petrol and diesel sales.

If any is spilt or allowed to evaporate because it is used to clean s
bike chain things get worse since the Global Warming Potential of the
vapour is much higher than that of the combustion products.

--
Roger Thorpe

My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!

Roger Thorpe said:

If any is spilt or allowed to evaporate because it is used to clean s
bike chain things get worse since the Global Warming Potential of the
vapour is much higher than that of the combustion products.

So what is the least environmentally-damageing way to dispose of petrol
that's been used for cleaning? Is it better to burn it in an engine,
after filtering out the [censored], or burn it in a suitable open container?

R.

Richard said:

Roger Thorpe said:

If any is spilt or allowed to evaporate because it is used to clean s
bike chain things get worse since the Global Warming Potential of the
vapour is much higher than that of the combustion products.

So what is the least environmentally-damageing way to dispose of petrol
that's been used for cleaning? Is it better to burn it in an engine,
after filtering out the [censored], or burn it in a suitable open container?

R.

I wish that I hadn't written that so quickly, because I ought to check
my facts, but yes I think it would be best to burn it in some useful way.

--
Roger Thorpe

My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!