Speed camera detector ban

I'm sure they could agree on a compromise. Maybe motorists would agree
not to use detectors and the government could agree to remove the
cameras.

--
Who needs a life when you've got Unix? :-)
Email: [email hidden], John G.Burns B.Eng, Bonny Scotland
Web : http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk - The Ultimate BMW Homepage!
Need Sun or HP Unix kit? http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk/unix.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is obviously a new form of scientific research..............<<<

'course it is! and jolly serious you should take it too..... Marvellous
work! Almost as credible as all those important scientific breakthroughs we
see from those nice people who make ladies' face creme........ And if you
rub you headlights with new oil-of-underlay with added bochotox and
slipozones not only can you be 28% less likely to crash, if you do, the
front of the car will wind up 14% less crinkly.......

John Burns said:

I'm sure they could agree on a compromise. Maybe motorists would agree
not to use detectors and the government could agree to remove the
cameras.

ITYM "Maybe motorists would agree not to *break the speed limits and
the government could agree to remove the cameras.

A

chris French said:

'A Mori poll has proved conclusively that a radar detector's user is
28% less likely to have an accident than a non-user'

I can just hear the interview now...

So, Mr Smallpenis, are you a numpty or do you use a radar detector? Good,
good. And are you a clueless flat-capped menace to society or do you have
an unblemished driving record? Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Smallpenis.

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

LaoFuZhi said:

'course it is! and jolly serious you should take it too..... Marvellous
work! Almost as credible as all those important scientific breakthroughs
we
see from those nice people who make ladies' face creme........ And if you
rub you headlights with new oil-of-underlay with added bochotox and
slipozones not only can you be 28% less likely to crash, if you do, the
front of the car will wind up 14% less crinkly.......

I've still to work out what a micro-oil (heard on a recent advert) is. Is it
a very small amount of oil? a very light oil? Do modern cycle chain lubes
give the same benefit? What if we apply the micro-oil to our chains
instead? Are they interchangeable? ITWSBT.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.

Quoted message said:

What if we apply the micro-oil to our chains
instead?

They'll become 28% more shinyer and women will immediately start falling at
your feet......

's true! honest! ..been skientifikelly proven so it has!......

JohnB said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

John Burns said:

I'm sure they could agree on a compromise. Maybe motorists would agree
not to use detectors and the government could agree to remove the
cameras.

ITYM "Maybe motorists would agree not to *break the speed limits and
the government could agree to remove the cameras.

uk.tosspot has exploded on this issue.

That anyone should have the gall to suggest they should keep to the
speed limit seems to have shook them right up :-)

What a surprise. Are they putting forward any good arguments for doing
so, apart from "because I like it" and "I don't like being told what
to do, even if I'm endangering others by being too reckless"?

Ambrose Nankivell said:

John Burns said:

I'm sure they could agree on a compromise. Maybe motorists would agree
not to use detectors and the government could agree to remove the
cameras.

ITYM "Maybe motorists would agree not to *break the speed limits and
the government could agree to remove the cameras.

uk.tosspot has exploded on this issue.

That anyone should have the gall to suggest they should keep to the
speed limit seems to have shook them right up :-)

John B

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

Quoted message said:

Looks like the government intends to ban speed camera detectors:

<http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040716/344/ey55n.html>

I bet that will get uk.t**spot going :-)

Of course the motor industry is already complaining,.........

<http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/industry_news/news-55h8n03k6i>

The Govt can ban them all they like - they're very easy to hide and the most
effective type - those that use GPS to locate known camera locations don't
fall into the proposed ban anyway which is only proposed to ban those based
on radar detectors.

Another waste of Govt time and money but it'll catch a few votes I suppose.

Russ

Ambrose Nankivell said:

What a surprise. Are they putting forward any good arguments for doing
so, apart from "because I like it" and "I don't like being told what
to do, even if I'm endangering others by being too reckless"?

As a near aside - does anyone know the speed limit on the dual carriageway
road sections at the north of Leeds where the A61 meets (geometrically, if
not logically, mutter grumble one way system) the inner ring road?

Coming down the A61 you're presented with a 30 sign, but coming the opposite
way off the ring road it seems there's no similar reduction in speed limit.
Given the width of the road, noone does 30 on it, in fact I was keeping up
with the traffic today and was overtaken by a small lorry which must have
been above 50.

The same small lorry had stuck on my tail coming off the ring road, to which
my typical reaction is to ease off the accelerator a bit. Its amazing how
many people drop back.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.

James Hodson said:

We are regularly told that having to look at one's speedometer too
aften is incredibly dangerous. How does the use of these devices
differ?

Perhaps only looking at the speedo when the radar detector beeps to tell
you to watch your speed is the reason.

Tony

chris French said:

'A Mori poll has proved conclusively that a radar detector's user is 28%
less likely to have an accident than a non-user'

This is obviously a new form of scientific research..............

We are regularly told that having to look at one's speedometer too
aften is incredibly dangerous. How does the use of these devices
differ?

.... Or could it be that some just wish to speed and to hell with the
consequences.

James

Tony Raven said:

Perhaps only looking at the speedo when the radar detector beeps to tell
you to watch your speed is the reason.

Don't they also give audible warning, in which case wouldn't extending the
database to cover all speed limits, not just those with cameras on, be a
good thing? It would be so easy to do with current GPS technology. I'd
stick at the verbal warning, rather than enforcing the limit, as there may
be reasons to hit transient high speeds that the system cannot know about.

Alternately, there's always the Heads Up Display idea, which would be
suitably funkey, but presumably either too expensive or considered unsafe.
GPS navigation with heads up display would be good if it could track your
head movement and actually point to the road you want to take, but you
could put a fair amount if information you'd normally look down for there,
such as speed at the minimum, and fuel perhaps only if it starts getting
low - ditto for oil and other warnings.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.

Shaun said:

Perhaps motorists would agree not to hit cyclists if cyclists agreed
to fit lights and look where they are going

My one recent case of being hit, I was on a normal upright bike, with twin
lumicycle headlights, proper reflectors, and bright clothing. The car
pulled out of the side road hitting the rear rack stay, fortunately bending
it and knocking me out into the otherwise empty road rather than bending my
leg and knocking me out into the path of an oncoming car.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.

Richard Corfield <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Alternately, there's always the Heads Up Display idea, which would be
suitably funkey, but presumably either too expensive or considered
unsafe.

Don't know for certain about the safety aspect, but I would have thought it
wouldn't be too bad depending on how much (if at all) you had to change
your focus. I remember seeing a night vision HUD on a Mercedes (I think) on
TV some years back. They said it was set to act as if it was eight feet
away as that was the natural distance that drivers eyes focussed on. I
found that pretty scarey! Apparently this is also the distance that fighter
plane HUDs use (according to my dad, who used to design them) so maybe it
isn't too worrying after all. :-/

You could easily make a super-cheapo one if you had an adequately bright
display to reflect off the windscreen/reflective glass. All you'd need to
do is flip the displayed image to allow for its reflection. I remember
reading an electronics magazine as a kid that had an LED speedo that was
meant to be used in HUD mode, reflecting off the windscreen.

Graeme

Ambrose Nankivell said:

John Burns said:

I'm sure they could agree on a compromise. Maybe motorists would agree
not to use detectors and the government could agree to remove the
cameras.

ITYM "Maybe motorists would agree not to *break the speed limits and
the government could agree to remove the cameras.

Perhaps motorists would agree not to hit cyclists if cyclists agreed
to fit lights and look where they are going

Shaun said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

John Burns said:

I'm sure they could agree on a compromise. Maybe motorists would agree
not to use detectors and the government could agree to remove the
cameras.

ITYM "Maybe motorists would agree not to *break the speed limits and
the government could agree to remove the cameras.

Perhaps motorists would agree not to hit cyclists if cyclists agreed
to fit lights and look where they are going

Problem is they still hit cyclists even if lit up like xmas trees and
looking exactly where they're going.

--

Velvet

Graeme said:

Richard Corfield <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Alternately, there's always the Heads Up Display idea, which would be
suitably funkey, but presumably either too expensive or considered
unsafe.

Don't know for certain about the safety aspect, but I would have thought it
wouldn't be too bad depending on how much (if at all) you had to change
your focus. I remember seeing a night vision HUD on a Mercedes (I think) on
TV some years back. They said it was set to act as if it was eight feet
away as that was the natural distance that drivers eyes focussed on. I
found that pretty scarey! Apparently this is also the distance that fighter
plane HUDs use (according to my dad, who used to design them) so maybe it
isn't too worrying after all. :-/

You could easily make a super-cheapo one if you had an adequately bright
display to reflect off the windscreen/reflective glass. All you'd need to
do is flip the displayed image to allow for its reflection. I remember
reading an electronics magazine as a kid that had an LED speedo that was
meant to be used in HUD mode, reflecting off the windscreen.

Graeme

I've had a few instances that've highlighted this 'common focussing
distance' in the last week, and I've been mulling this over, so was
intrigued to hear you post about the fighter plane HUDs.

As a cyclist, I'm used to not registering on driver's radar till really
quite close, and this can be very worry-inducing. However, until this
last week, I hadn't noticed similar things going on when driving.

But...

Several times at a narrowing in the road, drivers have apparently failed
to spot me (in a car) until I am probably about 12-15 feet away. I can
tell this, because if they leave their car where it is on the road,
we'll collide. If they pull over to the kerb instead of following the
centre line (and in some cases overhanging it) which is the natural line
for the turn-right lane at the traffic lights they are coming up to,
then we can pass safely.

I'm approaching, up hill, having moved out to pass parked cars (in
marked bays, on my side of the road). They are coming down hill, toward
the traffic lights, toward (but not yet entering) the section where
there are two narrow lanes.

The road is such that to negotiate the parked cars (nose to tail) once
you've entered that part of the road, you have to keep going, since
oncoming traffic down the hill toward the lights will not have the space
to pass unless they are close to the kerb.

So, I'm passing the cars, nearly at the end of it, and an oncoming car
heads towards this constriction. Do they show any signs of slowing,
moving over? No, they're focussed entirely on moving to the middle of
the road in anticipation of their right-turn lane that's still ahead of
them and behind me at this point.

It's not till I'm starting to brake and wondering if I need to start
making myself more obvious, and there's 15, maybe 12 foot, sometimes
less, between us that they finally *see* me, and make a dive toward
where they *should* be, which is midway between kerb and white line,
instead of hugging the white line....

It really does make me wonder about a lot of driver's eyesight, or just
plain lack of attention-paying.

Given this effect is exacerbated if you're riding a bike, and they react
only once they're within 6 feet of your back wheel, I'm convinced it's
done on a perception of danger thing - another car's not so large as a
lorry, for example, while a cyclist's so small and insignificant....

--

Velvet

Graeme said:

They said it was set to act as if it was eight feet
away as that was the natural distance that drivers eyes focussed on. I
found that pretty scarey! Apparently this is also the distance that fighter
plane HUDs use (according to my dad, who used to design them) so maybe it
isn't too worrying after all. :-/

As someone who has worked on the optical design of HUDs I can tell you
your Dad is wrong. They focus to infinity because the prime aim is to
prevent the pilot having to refocus between the world outside and
looking at his instruments.

Tony