Conference terri::cars_uk

RE: .0

>>    o CAUSING DANGER to road users: Jury - 7 years jail, unlimited fine. 
>>    Magistrates - 6 months jail and/or �2000 fine or 8 penalty points.

What is the difference between this and dangerous driving - other than the fact
that you can go to jail for 2 extra years? And why is it higher than causing
death?!

Steve

    Don't know why it's higher but the obvious difference from first glance
    is you don't have to be driving.
    
    JK

    Sometimes I wonder what is happening to the UK...
    
    Laurie.

>    The prediction of the Roads minister is that cameras will catch
>    2.5 million speeding drivers a year.....  I presume that 'nick rate'


FLAME ON

What the hell do they hope to achieve by nicking so many drivers?

FLAME OFF

The cost of all this trap technology will soon exceed the cost of the accidents
that they are supposedly preventing!

mb

.0>   o CAUSING DEATH by carless driving under the influence of drink/drugs: 5
.0>   years jail. 2 years disqualificatioun, unlimited fine.
    
    You would have to be under the influence of *something* if you were
    driving CARLESS ! ;-)
    
    Terry

    An interesting point about the camera traps is that machines will
    analyze the photos and issue the tickets - no human intervention.  The
    police will only know who has been nicked from a dailey/weekly
    printout.  Isn't technology wonderful ;-) ?
    
    Errors will be made during the process and the police say that it's
    not worth their while to press for prosecution if the victim can
    prove they weren't in the vicinity of the speed trap.  Only the
    number plate is checked, not the make/model of the vehicle.  This
    extra check would consume too many resources, say they !
    
    -Dave.
    

    
    At last the authorities are getting tough! I drive a car and ride a
    bike, and I am totally pi**ed off with the actions of some lunatic 
    drivers/riders (bikers included), who especially:
    
    Exit junctions without proper observation.
    
    Drive too close and too fast.
    
    Maybe these morons will think twice before taking risks with other
    peoples lives. We all could do with a reminder of what the consequences
    are should WE choose to break the law. These new regulations/fines are
    their to PROTECT people. We as drivers have a simple choice.....obey or
    pay!
    
    I know that the motorcycling population will welcome these new
    regulations, as motorcyclists are all too often on the receiving end of 
    the careless actions on the roads.  
    
    Great deterrents, which will ultimately make our roads safer! 
     
    John.

    Well, I just can't understand why there is this air of continual need
    to further and further repress motorists. If the police and the
    government put half as much effort into sorting out other problems with
    Law and Order, the whole country would benefit.
    
    The difference between the UK and Belgium, in terms of the police
    attitude to motorists, is nothing short of ENORMOUS. You can blather on
    about deaths and accidents, but that won't hide the fact that in the
    UK, the whole thing has got completely out of hand.
    
    Laurie.

>The cost of all this trap technology will soon exceed the cost of the accidents
>that they are supposedly preventing!

Ah, but the increase in the number of offenders being caught and fined will
mean that the system could be self-financing and hence cost nothing.

If it leads to safer roads and more careful drivers then I'm all for it.


Ian

I find the new penalties for careless and dangerous driving both timely and 
appropriate.  It seems to be the case that a degree of anarchy has broken out on
British roads,  ie. No-one seems to care at roundabouts any more,  the law of
the jungle is now in force.

I have issue with the automatic enforcements of speed limits :-

1) In the old system the individual officer could make a judgement as to safety
considering road conditions and weather conditions.

2) We will no doubt see a blind faith in these cameras by the legal 
establishment,  how many times have we had bank clerks say "Our computer doesn't
make mistakes Sir!",  all of us who work in the industry know this is absolute
rubbish,  however try telling that to a spotty 18 year old bank clerk!

The only way that I will accept the limits are for road safety rather than 
revenue generation, is when the limits are variable according to road and 
weather conditions.  If we can use technology to catch people speeding,  it is
possible to use technology to check for low visibility and traffic density and
use the matrix signs for legally binding variable speed limits.  Similar systems
do work in Holland/Germany,  the limit is automatically reduced if it is raining
etc...  Now THAT is road safety,  not 79mph or over equals 3 points on the 
license.

70mph is too slow,  the Germans prove that.  However 70mph is too fast in bad
weather or dense traffic.
30mph is too fast in residential areas,  I look forward to 20mph limits.

.... and why do we have dual carriageways in towns with 40mph limits????
	(Revenue generation perhaps....?)

_Richard

    I look forward to driving on roads at 70 ish in the knowledge that some
    idiot is less likely to come haring along at a much higher speed.
    Automatic enforcement is the only way to go. I've never driven in
    Germany but the thought of UK drivers being allowed to drive even
    faster is frightening. Speed may not cause accident but it certainly
    increases the damage.
    I hope that as the technology is installed it is publicised. The
    prospect of catching a few hundred unsuspecting motorists seems a
    little underhand.
    
    Andrew

re .7

>At last the authorities are getting tough! I drive a car and ride a
>   bike, and I am totally pi**ed off with the actions of some lunatic 
>   drivers/riders (bikers included), who especially:
>   
>   Exit junctions without proper observation.

I've spent some time in London recently, bikers and cyclists ignore
traffic lights etc and just do their own thing!

It's about time that people realized that being permitted to operate a
dangerous machine - i.e. a motor vehicle - is not a right obtained by a
one-time examination of the aspiring operator's skills, but something that
has to be preserved by continuing to operate the equipment strictly within
the rules and regulations put in place to preserve safety and order. 

If the likelyhood of people being caught for wantonly disobeying these
rules is substantially increased - which is what the majority of the public 
want - then we should all be more able to use the roads on the basis the
others users are also obeying the rules. 


On increasing the speed limit on certain roads...  A case can be put 
forward for slightly increasing the speed limit during daylight hours.  A 
much stronger case can be put forward for substantially *reducing* the 
speed limit (to 50 mph) during hours of darkness.  The proportion of people
whose vision is significantly less good in the dark is in excess of 25%. 

jb

>speed limit (to 50 mph) during hours of darkness.  The proportion of people
>whose vision is significantly less good in the dark is in excess of 25%. 

Then they should wear corrective glasses.

    
    Re .14
    
    How does on compensate for inferior night vision? Serious Question.
    
    Mark

The Traffic Act now also applies to footpaths, bridleways etc.

Simon

	When did you last drive your Land Rover down a footpath or
	bridleway then Simon???

	JJ.

	P.s. Re night vision - I didn't think you could correct poor
	     night vision with glasses, but then I could be wrong.

RE:      <<< Note 1805.15 by NEWOA::SAXBY "Vote for Perot : He's got $3B!" >>>

�    How does on compensate for inferior night vision? Serious Question.
    
    Oh, that seems to be easy Mark. You legislate to make them, and the
    (alleged) 75% of drivers who do not suffer from night vision problems,
    drive more slowly. A really sensible solution, one that certainly
    solves the problem, not merely addresses the symptom.
    
    Laurie.

Re: .13


>rules is substantially increased - which is what the majority of the public 
>want - then we should all be more able to use the roads on the basis the


... so where do you get these figures from?

A recent survey my the government concluded that 62% of cars on motorways exceed
the 70mph speed limit, so it sounds very much like the MAJORITY would rather
NOT have the rules enforced more vigorously!!!!

mb

	Re .19

	I see... so if the majority of people thought it was ok to
	continually burgle your house, you'd be happy for the law to
	be changed to it was legal for them to do so, would you?

	JJ.

    
    re -1
     
     and you never ever ever bend the rules........I find that
     hard to believe.....
    
    
    
    Peter.

Ahhh Gi'day...�

	This is not out of hand, you can go a lot further than this.

Re: .20

>	I see... so if the majority of people thought it was ok to
>	continually burgle your house, you'd be happy for the law to
>	be changed to it was legal for them to do so, would you?

... you have totally lost me here!

mb

	Re .23

	Well I'll try and explain. Your note .19 seems to be saying
	that if the majority of people think it's desirable to break
	a particular law, then that's ok. I merely applied your principal
	to different context...

	JJ.

    
    Re .24
    
    But isn't that how laws get changed anyway?
    
    Mark

    
    Hands up boys and girls, those who speed and those who don't.
    
    Me, I don't know a speed limit I haven't broken.

    
    Not me. I never, ever, ever break speed limits.
    
    
    
    But I am a compulsive liar! 
    
    Mark

    I don't break the speed limits ...
    
    
    
    
    
    I just cruise down the motorway at 130 mpg and 27 mph !!
    
    
    Shaun.

... do you really get 27mph when doing 130mpg?

(and i mean in the REAL sense of the meaning!)

mine drops to below 20mph above 130mpg

mb

p.s.

and i don't break speed limits either ;-)

    
    
    .........and theres me...
    
    I tried, although in vain, to break a speed limit but...
    
    
    the metal disk only buckled    :-)
    
    Alan
    

    
  �    Not me. I never, ever, ever break speed limits.
    
  �    But I am a compulsive liar! 
    
    
       Oh Flip, if your a liar then you do break the speed limit, but then
    maybe your lieing about lieing !!!!!!!!!!!!!
    

     
    :^)
    
    Mark

    ...& here's a different slant, I was driving home on the M25/M4, which
    is not renowned for fuel stations every 20 miles ( unlike the higher
    standards for motorists sur la Continent), & having encountered road
    works I decided to cut my speed down to conserve fuel. So, I was
    cruising at 50 mph (in the left hand lane 8^) ) when a lorry approached
    at 80 mph from behind, lights on mainbeam, horn on. After I read very
    clearly "RELOOCRETNI OBRUT OVLOV" in my mirror, the driver moved into
    the (empty) centre lane. On passing he waved his fist, sounded the horn
    again & proceded to force me onto the hard shoulder.
    
    And no, I didnt cut him up earlier !
    
    Whilst I believe that 140 mph can be safe on an empty straight
    motorway in dry bright conditions, maybe there is room for a new road
    traffic act "Wantonly intimidating innocent drivers legitimately going
    about their business & bothering no-one". 
    Conviction by Magistrate will result in the punishment of being
    strapped to their own front bumper for a week, or by Jury being
    strapped to the back of my car.

    :-)....Nice one JASPERT
    
    We all know that once a lorry has "got going" it is a pain in the bum
    to slow down because someone alongside won't pull over into an empty
    outside lane...personally I try to anticipate this and let lorries pull
    out..they have a difficult job controlling these monsters as it is
    without moronic car drivers causing them problems...after all..if you
    let them pull out, chances are, you will be able to pass them in a
    short while anyway..so what's the problem..??
    
    but your example shows IMHO a "maniac"...!!!
    
    You should have pulled alogside, forced him onto the hard shoulder and 
    given the driver a damn good talking to..!!!!  <-----JOKE..!!!!!
    
    :-) :-) :-)

Ahhh Gi'day...�

		   Lorries over 4.5 tons should be banned.

ban all those who don't know how to negotiate roundabouts (and then complain 
about those who do !)...

    Use the motorway phones to report him to the police?

Ahhh Gi'day...�

    "Road Traffic Act" as amended, 2000 AD

    The ultimate in road safety.

    All lorries over 4.5 Tons to be banned
    All lorries to be speed limited to 35 mph
    All cars to be speed limited to 50 mph
    No car over 75 BHP to be sold
    Motorbikes to be banned
    Licences for bicycles, speed limited to 10 mph
    Parking offenses to be raised to �500 and 1 year ban.

    Speed limit to be 45 MPH on Motorways, 35 on A roads, 20 on rest

    Overtaking is banned - all roads are now "double yellow"
    All caravans and trailers to be banned, including articulated vehicles
    All offenses to be MANDATORY 1 year ban, second offense LIFE ban
    All offenses on bicycles to count against driving licence
    Drink driving is now 0.01% - first offense LIFE ban and 1 year jail
    Random drink and drug testing, police blanket right to search car.

    NO child allowed in car between hours of 9PM and 6AM
    NO under 30 driver allowed to drive between 8PM and 5AM
    NO under 30 driver allowed under 30 passengers between 8PM - 5AM
    NO driver under 30 allowed within 50 miles of a football match
    Drunken passengers (0.05%) NOT allowed in car (including Taxis)

    ALL cars to be fitted with recording technology. 1 year mandatory jail
    for tampering. Police have warrentless search rights for evidence with
    the device for speeding offenses. Must keep info in device for 1 month

    ALL CB's and phones to be banned in cars (1 year loss of licence)

    Talking about police traps to be banned (1 year loss of licence)

    Motor racing banned (including television coverage) (bad example)

    Smoking, talking, adjusting radio banned (1 year loss of licence)

    Must have two hands on wheel except for vital functions (change gear)
	(1 year loss of licence)

    Driving at night needs special licence.

    Driving in fog ... speed limit 5 mph (1 year loss of licence)

    Driving in rain ... speed limit 15 mph (1 year loss of licence)

    Driving in snow ... banned (1 year loss of licence)



	You may  think  this  is  over  the  top.   Thing is, some of these
	restrictions  are  either  in  force,  or  being  suggested in some
	places.  Of course, this is only the start, next year we get REALLY
	tough...

    RE:.38
    
    Why not ban driving totally!!!
    
    Anyone caught driving will be banned for life!!! 8^)

    Why not:
    
    		If you are alive, (medically speaking), ban you from
    driving....
    
    this will stop all vehicles except for Volvo's being driven...

Re .-2 

Man with red flag must walk in front of car.

Re base note (and others)

I believe a piece of cling film over the number plate fools the cameras 
though I would deplore anyone doing this :-)

First computer issued summonses. Next, when there are too many prosections for 
the courts to cope with, will be computer issued convictions and automatic 
debiting of the fine from bank accounts.


Mark.

Ahhh Gi'day...�

	   Aren't the cameras Infra-red? Cling wrap mightn't work.

    RE increasing the number of speeders caught results in making the roads 
       safer...
    
    Recently the police covered Scotland with a 3 week increase on speed traps
    and caught 6,000 offenders in that space of time.....
    
    you will be interested to note that it had "NO" effect on the number of
    road accidents.
    
    So other measures are required to catch BAD drivers not just more
    tickets.....
    Bob

    re: .42
    
    I think the idea of 'cling film' is to reflect back some of the camera
    flash thereby making the number plate unreadable.  I  understand that
    in Germany, people took to spraying their number plates with lacquer
    with the same end result in mind.
    
    Some guy around Oxford has produced, what he claims, are stealth number
    plates - unreadable under flash.  I'm not sure how this would work. 
    One paper said that it didn't........  Neddless to say, the police
    weren't too happy when they first heard about this product.
    
    High speed revolving number plates, 007 fashion, connected to a radar
    detector may be the answer or even some form of ECM :-)
    
    -Dave.
    

So picture the motorways with a rigorously enforced 70mph speed limit ..
(with none of this poppycock +10%+2mph, the law is the law so stick to it!)

Everybody will be doing between 60mph and 70mph, 'cos lorries will also
be goody-goody and drive no faster than their limit, but very few people
will drive below the limit because even skodas can achieve it.

Thus everyone will be within one or two miles and hour of each other, and
severe bunching will occur because you can't just nip past the car in front;
and everyone will be driving that little bit closer because they feel _so_
safe and besides, they are bunched up anyway.

Meanwhile, Mr Allegro, with his trilby hat and pipe, as usual is up at the
front of all the traffic, doing his 69.9mph because "that is quite fast enough
for this road Mildred", when he decides to brake suddenly because a crow has
flown out of a tree 3 miles ahead.

B A N G !!!!!!

... the whole motorway smashes into itself and everybody gets killed!


The only way that booking every speeding driver is going to reduce accidents
is when every single driver has been banned for life, thus the roads will
be empty (except for push-bikes, but they get sorted on 2000AD!)


mb

    re .38
    
    The place is 
    
    Switzerland!

    re .45
    
    I don't think this is the American experience. Perhaps some of our
    frequent American drivers would care to comment?
    If this scenario does come about then we need some other changes, like
    overtaking on either side.
    
    Andrew

re.47:

In my very limited experience of US highway traffic that's exactly what happens.
I was amazed by the way cars appeared to pile into each other in slow motion
(speed limit is 55mph) as if the drivers were asleep. 

/Dave.

    
    In my experience, driving at slow speeds in modern cars is dangerous on
    wide roads (M-Ways and Dual Carriageways). 70 Mph in most cars these
    days is so far within the cars envelope of performance that the
    driver's attention can't help but wander. Driving at 110 mph+ on the
    other hand is usually quick enough to keep you alert.
    
    Of course, the best solution is to revert to designing cars like those
    common in the 50s and 60s (not E-Types and the ilk, but Consuls and
    Oxfords), which had dodgy steering and brakes and kept the driver
    nicely on his toes! :^)
    
    Mark

RE:      <<< Note 1805.49 by NEWOA::SAXBY "Vote for Perot : He's got $3B!" >>>

�    Of course, the best solution is to revert to designing cars like those
�    common in the 50s and 60s (not E-Types and the ilk, but Consuls and
�    Oxfords), which had dodgy steering and brakes and kept the driver
�    nicely on his toes! :^)
    
    Mark,
    
    I've said this for ages. It's also true that nowadays people are better
    off than they were, and yer average 'youngster' is no longer content
    with a 50 quid banger bought for cash, and run on a shoe-string, but
    gets a few thou bank loan for a hot-hatch or similar. Where once we ran
    heaps and learned our driving skills the hard way, but within our
    limits (thanks to the hardware), and we learnt basic mechanics by
    necessity, the 'modern' youngster doesn't. This, I believe, has
    contributed to poor driving standards, increased accidents among young
    drivers, and hence, increased insurance premiums.
    
    Laurie.

    Re. -a few back.
    
    The early (now defunct) Lotus Elan's had an angled perspex(?) cover over the
    read reg. no. Due to the angle and material used this rendered the
    number plate unreadable to police flash guns.
    
    When this cover was removed� from the cars about 6-8 months ago it was
    said to be ``on the advice of the Police''.
    
    	Rik
    
    �Though it was stangly a no-cost option.

Re: .14, .15 (and some others)

The poor night vision is not really correctable by glasses.  It is not a 
simple condition, but some of the things are slow adjustment to varying
light levels, inability to clearly see things that have low contrast and
difficulty in focusing on moving objects.

Also the 25% figure I quoted is probably low - I'm sure that I have seen
much higher figures - in the 40% + range - somewhere, but cannot remember
where.


Re: some other

I thought that it was now an offence to drive in a way to intimidate people.


Re: yet another

The reason why the maximum penalty for endangering road users is so high is
because the offence includes within its remit things such as removing or
interfering with traffic signs and removing barriers and so forth around
excavations.  These things - especially the latter - could have very serious 
consequences.

jb

Well according to last nights free Birmingham newspaper, the West Midlands
Police are so short of money that they can't offord these speed-trap cameras!

They stated that each camera costs around �20,000, which seems an awful lot
of money to spend taking pictures of anonymous Elans :-)

mb

Another new thing is that it's illegal to have *anything* hanging from
the rear view mirror.  Obvuously this is to annoy the furry dice brigade,
but it applies equally to things like air fresheners that some people use.

jb

    Ah ,
    
          But it will probably keep the traffic wardens happier that the
    	motorists. No more little toys with ropes round the neck hanging
    	from the mirror.
    

    That's one change I have no problem with. Did they outlaw those
    ridiculous 'blinds' brain-dead people insist on putting in their back
    windows too?
    
    Laurie.

    
    Laurie.
    
    Thanks for reminding me that I'm brain dead. I was under the
    impression that these things were quite useful, especially if
    you purchased a good quality pair.
    
    I was obviously wrong. I will remove them at once.
    
    JN.

    
    Is my 4 week old daughter brain-dead too?? She certainly won't appreciate 
    laying in the full sun in her car-seat.
    
    Still, looks like I'd better remove them immediately... I'll explain it
    to her when she grows up.

Those blinds are specifically designed so as not to obscure the driver's 
vision. What is your problem with them?


	Ian

    
    Well, whilst I don't doubt they're great for people in the car, they do
    seem to be pretty effective at cutting down the visibility of people
    following.
    
    Mark

    Mark says it all. In actual fact, I fail to see what purpose they
    perform, aside from obscuring the back window such that it is
    impossible to see through them from behind. Any benefits they might
    perform as a sun blind can only be fleeting at best. in my view,
    they're more of a danger than anything else.
    
    Laurie.

I have to disagree on this one. Having spent some time living in the
south of France, I have to admit that the sun blinds do help a lot
to keep both the occupants, and the inside of the car cool.

With children in the car, this is very important.

Yes it does make visibility through the car for following drivers
difficult, but no more so that being behind a van, lorry or any
high vehicle.

Well I have sun blinds in both rear passenger windows when carrying our children
They are much lower in the seat than an adult and suffer greatly from sun in
their eyes if not protected.

Brain-dead Dave.

    
    Re .63
    
    Presumably you mean side windows? These aren't anything like as much of
    a problem as those in the rear window (which I think Laurie meant, and
    I certainly did).
    
    Re .62 (?)
    
    I agree that the visibility is no worse than a van, but imagine if
    EVERY vehicle on the road was as difficult to see round/through as a 
    van. I believe that there would be a lot more accidents, and certainly
    like to know what the car(s) in front of the one in front of me is
    doing. Forewarned is forearmed...
    
    Mark

    
    There was a little about the new act last night on television. It
    seemed to me that a lot of the effort was in putting the roads right
    in terms of saftey. I personally don't have a problem with making the
    roads safer. Maybe in the wilds of Hampshire or Berkshire the roads 
    are safer but here in central London, the standard of driving is
    diabolical. The speed limit is 30, strangly enought the same as
    anywhere else, but I would probably say the the only time I travel at
    30 or less is when stopped or the road is empty for me to do as I
    please. Road conditions and traffic dictate that, but having said that
    I suspect there will be a few people who would that the speed you drive
    is up to you. I would go along with that most of the time ,but if you
    are a motor cyclist in London you have to have eyes in you back and
    also stay in the main flow of traffic or run the risk of getting pushed
    off the road or killed. 
    
    I do not like being dictated to but, there are some aspects or trends in
    driving today that are quite simply dangerous. Thats not to say that
    that is the majority case , but I feel that it is right an proper to 
    legislate against the minority. For those who drive within the there's
    no problem , but for who's wish to drive like utter cretins ,better
    watch out.  If people cannot adult and sensible when driving, and this
    kind of behaviour is causing accidents, deaths etc, then they should be
    educated as to the correct way. If that fails then punishment. I really
    do object having to pay silly insurance premiums year in year out based
    on what someon else does. If the road become safer , and insurance
    premiums go down then it can't be all bad.
    
    If people want to drive unrestricted, no speed limits, no redlights,
    go faster stripes, I suggest they get a racing licence . 
    
    
    
    As for the rear sun blind , what does it do???? I never get blinded by
    the sun from behind. If they really want to get sensible then what
    about cassette radios. How many have felt a car behind then because of
    the ridculously load music, Now that is sonething that must distract
    the driver and must to some extend be dangerous, for a start you can't
    hear anything other than the music.
    
    
    If stopping people jumping red lights and doing silly speeds makes the 
    road safer then I vote for it.
    
    
    Garry
    

    
    Nosey sods. Concentrate on your driving instead of looking
    into other peoples cars.  
    
    Seriously though, I can't say I have to look through other
    peoples cars to see whats happening ahead. At night its
    impossible to see through the car in front anyway.
    
    If you can't see around the van or lorry in front then you
    are too close.
    
    Rear sun blinds do help for the kids.
    
    JN.

    
    How can you possibly see what's beyond the car in front of you without
    looking through it? I'm not sure I believe I read the last note.
    
    CAR1 -----> CAR2 -----> CAR3 
    
    Explain how you can see CAR3 from CAR1 without looking through CAR2?
    
    This I've got to see!
    
    Mark

    
    re: .65
    
    >                 -< Just stay a little further behind >-
    
    
    So some other bonehead will slot into the gap?
    
    It's not the answer - I agree with Laurie, but then I suspect most
    drivers couldn't anticipate Christmas.
    
    A few years ago I remember people using a sort of (non-adjustable)
    venetian blind, which kept the sun out of their cars without obscuring
    ALL vision from behind.
    
    Mike H.
    

    
        >>                 -< Just stay a little further behind >-
    
    
        > So some other bonehead will slot into the gap?
    
    
    	Yes, probably... but at least *you'll* be safer. Let the "bonehead"
        have the shunt.

    
    As I've said Mark, (and to use your simplistic diagram) if you 
    can't see car 3 without looking through car 2 then you are too 
    close. If you have to look through each car to see whats in front
    then thats bad driving in my opinion.
    
    I've read a few of you notes about the Marcos you are rebuilding.
    Is that the Mini Marcos ? If so then aren't these things rather
    low to the ground ? Again if thats the case then how on earth will
    you be able to look through the car in front ? You won't be high enough
    for a start. Still I suppose you can always look underneath the car
    in front to see whats happening.
    
    How do the sports car drivers manage then ? The F40 and Mondials of
    the world and maybe even the Minis not to mention God knows how many
    other low slung sporty road cars.
    
    Again using your diagram what is there to gain by being able to look
    through the car in front ? Queing up in traffic where cars are close
    to each other doesn't bring to mind any obvious advantages apart
    from being able to see what the inside of car three looks like and 
    maybe even car four.
    
    Even driving at a distance doesn't give me any clues either and I
    laugh to think that you could be 20/30 yards behind car two looking
    through his windows to see car three when all you need to do is look
    either side of car two.
    
    It can be difficult driving behind a lorry or a van but only if
    you are too close but when I am behind either of these I don't find
    myself trying to look through it.
    
    If there is any advantage from looking through the car in front then
    fine but to complain when that advantage is taken away is, IMO, wrong 
    because that is NOT how people are taught to watch the road and traffic
    around them and particularly in front.
    
    Isn't the Calibra a lowish slung car as well ?
    
    JN.

    I meant rear window blinds only.
    
    Laurie.

    
    � As I've said Mark, (and to use your simplistic diagram) if you 
    � can't see car 3 without looking through car 2 then you are too 
    � close. If you have to look through each car to see whats in front
    � then thats bad driving in my opinion.
    
    It doesn't matter how close you are. In fact, the further away you are the 
    worse the effect of convergence is!
    
    In my example Car 3 will always be obscured (from Car 1) by Car 2. you can 
    be two miles behind or two inches, you will ONLY be able to see Car 3 (in 
    my, admittedly, simplistic example), by looking THROUGH Car 2 (unless you 
    move out into the oncoming lane, which could be very dangerous if you don't
    know what is going on ahead of you). 
    
    � I've read a few of you notes about the Marcos you are rebuilding.
    � Is that the Mini Marcos ? If so then aren't these things rather
    � low to the ground ?
    
    No doubt you drive a Range Rover (which has the advantage of looking
    over other cars! :^)), in which case you don't need to see through the
    car in front, but I'll continue to be a bad driver and keep an eye on
    the traffic ahead of me by looking through cars (where possible) as it 
    has served me well so far. (Actually it isn't a Mini Marcos, but it is 
    very low slung).
    
    � Again using your diagram what is there to gain by being able to look
    � through the car in front ? Queing up in traffic where cars are close
    
    Well to revise my diagram slightly :-
    
    CAR1 ----> CAR2-CAR3 ----> CAR4
    
    By looking around CAR2 you could probably see CAR4, but it's doubtful
    that you could see CAR3. As CAR2 is following too closely he might well
    plough straight into CAR3 if CAR3 was to stop suddenly. In my case, I'd
    be prepared, because I'd know they were there, you probably wouldn't be
    aware of CAR3.
    
    � If there is any advantage from looking through the car in front then
    � fine but to complain when that advantage is taken away is, IMO, wrong 
    � because that is NOT how people are taught to watch the road and traffic
    � around them and particularly in front.
    
    Really? Because YOU weren't taught to use good observation and
    anticipation, it's the wrong way to drive? How, pray, should I watch
    the road and traffic in front of me in future?
    
    Just one final question (Well two). Do you consider it useful to see
    what cars ahead of the car directly ahead of you are doing? HOW do you
    achieve this without looking through the car in front (presumably by
    moving out of your lane.)?
    
    Mark
    

    All I can say is that if you want a clear view though the car in front,
    why stop at removing sun blinds, who about all the other obstructions to 
    your line of sight such as front/rear head restraints, rear view mirrors,
    car occupants heads, etc ,etc.  I personally find rear sun blinds very
    useful for several reason:-
    
    o It stops my 7 month old draughter screaming from having the sun on
      her head for long periods of time, especially as the Orion has a wrap
      around style rear window so your head is under the glass and not the
      roof, which is very distracting when trying to concentrate on what going
      on around me. 
    
    o It keeps the car cooler during the day.
    
    o Cuts down reflections from the car behind.
    
    o At night reduces the amount of light from the car behind reflecting in
      the rear view mirror and into my eyes, which means I don't get eye
      strain and lose my night vision quite so badly.
    
    
    Neil
    
    
    P.S. Mark show me a road in this county that has not got any bends in
    it, where car 3 in your diagram would be clearly visable.

I thought the idea of those irritating brake lights set in the rear window
was so that you could see them through the car in front and so have
more time to brake. It does help being able to see through the car
in front, but sun blinds help my little girl go to sleep when I'm driving
so I get some peace and quiet!

Ian

    You're wasting your time Mark.
    
    Laurie.

    
o   In my example Car 3 will always be obscured (from Car 1) by Car 2. you can 
o   be two miles behind or two inches, you will ONLY be able to see Car 3 (in 
o   my, admittedly, simplistic example), by looking THROUGH Car 2 (unless you 
o   move out into the oncoming lane, which could be very dangerous if you don't
o   know what is going on ahead of you). 
   
    
    CAR1 ----> CAR2-CAR3 ----> CAR4
    
    You don't need to move out into the oncoming lane to see car three. I
    can actually picture myself driving behind two cars where I can plainly
    see car three without looking through car twos' windows. I don't know
    if you play football or not but another simplistic view of angle and
    field of vision is this.... attacker with the ball only has the goal
    keeper to beat. Attacker is running towards the goal, if the keeper
    stays on his line this means that the attacker can see ALL of the
    goal mouth and will stand a good chance of scoring. Therefore....
    
                        ===========    Goal
    			     **        Goal Keeper
    			      	
    
    
    				
    			     o	        Ball		
    			     +		Attacker has good field of vision.
    
    So we could say that the goal is car three, the keeper is car two and
    the attacker is you or I. As you are at a distance you can see the
    the whole of the goal mouth.
    
    Now what happens if the goal keeper comes of his line towards you ? He
    is narrowing down the angle that you presently find yourself with and 
    therefore you field of vision is restricted, you can no longer see all
    of the goal (car three) because the keeper (car two) is now about four 
    times the size and is closer. Therefore....
    
                        ===========    Goal
    			     			      	
    
    			    **	       Goal keeper
    						
    			     o	        Ball		
    			     +		Attacker has bad field of vision.
     
    If the keepers father was a rather clever glass maker then the
    attacker could still see all of the goal. So if you are at some
    distance behind car two then you are telling me you will still
    concentrate your vision through car twos' windows to see car three ?
    I don't buy that as you would have more chance of seeing car three
    at a distance without window shopping even if car two was following
    too close to car three. So if you were up close to car two then how
    much of car three would you see by looking through car twos windows ?
    Not alot. The point I'm making is that distance is the key and if
    you are at a safe distance then the car in fronts windows will appear
    rather small. At a distance you can see more of what is happening
    around you.
    
    
o   No doubt you drive a Range Rover (which has the advantage of looking
o   over other cars! :^)), in which case you don't need to see through the
   
    I don't drive a Range Rover. 

  o  By looking around CAR2 you could probably see CAR4, but it's doubtful
  o  that you could see CAR3. As CAR2 is following too closely he might well
  o  plough straight into CAR3 if CAR3 was to stop suddenly. In my case, I'd
  o  be prepared, because I'd know they were there, you probably wouldn't be
  o  aware of CAR3.
    
     If I could see car 4 by looking through car 2 then why would I not
     see car three. If I was following at a distance then not only would
     I see car 4 but I would also see car 2 kissing the rear end of car
     three.
    
  o  Really? Because YOU weren't taught to use good observation and
  o  anticipation, it's the wrong way to drive? How, pray, should I watch
  o  the road and traffic in front of me in future?
    
     I was taught to use good observation and anticipation but remember
     I was only venturing my own opinion when I said that window shopping 
     was bad driving. How can you watch the road ahead and in other lanes 
     plus whats going on behind you if you are looking through the window
     of car two ? I would say that you were limiting your ability to
     anticipate the actions of other drivers to ensure your own safety.
  
    
      Just one final question (Well two). Do you consider it useful to see
  o  what cars ahead of the car directly ahead of you are doing? HOW do you
  o  achieve this without looking through the car in front (presumably by
  o  moving out of your lane.)?
    
     I try to make sure that I keep my distance therefore increasing my
     forward field of vision. Car two is alot smaller at a distance and
     therefore doesn't obscure my view anywhere near as much as what it
     would do if I was close. I try to anticipate whats happening two
     or three cars ahead to give myself more time to take any required
     action. For example car four in an emergency (or whatever) will apply 
     his brakes before car three and then two and then myself. You see this
     happen in everyday traffic. If I see that car four or three is having
     to slow down then I will have more time to prepare than what I would
     have if I relied purely on car two despite the fact that I am watching
     him. If I was too close to car two then my options to help me
     anticipate are greatly reduced whether or not car two has a glass
     dome for windows and roof or not. If he hits his brakes then what time
     do I have to anticipate.?
    
     Another example. Cruising along the M4 I can see quite away ahead.
     All of a sudden I have seen that 10/15 cars along have had to stand
     on their brakes for something or other. My action is to slow down or
     brake if required and turn on my hazard warning lights. Meanwhile 4/5
     cars in front of me haven't even seen what happening ahead and yet
     I've taken action before them. Now thats anticipation and I do it
     without looking through car windows (apart from my own of course).
    
     Don't get me wrong, I'm not a perfect driver. I would fail my test
     if I was to re-take it of that I'm sure. I do the above to try and
     make sure that I don't smash up my car and to warn other drivers
     behind that something is afoot up ahead.
    
    
     JN. 

    I agree with Mark 
    
    Surely it's better to anticipate the actions of those further in front
    as well as those immediately infront so you can react as quickly as
    possible.
    
    Chris.

	The goal mouth is much bigger than the goal-keeper.

	If you equate the goal mouth with a lorry, then I agree, I can see the
	lorry in front of the car in front.


	If it was another player behind the player  (ie a car in front of a car)
	then the player would be obscured.


	Heather

    
    What a great discussion this is !!
    
    I'm getting very confused about all this distance vs angles stuff, but
    from my sketch on my whiteboard it looks like the further apart the cars 
    are, the *more* likely you are to see them all when they move even just 
    slightly out of a dead straight line.
    
    I actually tried looking *through* the car in front on my way back
    to the office just now, and I certainly couldn't see anything useful in
    the way of indicators, brake lights etc on the car in front of him.
    
    And I agree with the earlier comment about head-restraints, rear-view
    mirrors etc.

    This seeing through cars seems a bit silly to me. Ok , its nice , might
    even be helpfull but ,to depend on it to see what's going on in front,
    come on , that a bit thin. If we're going to ban window blinds because
    you can't see through then clearly, how about Mr 2.4 with family estate
    packed up and off on Holiday. Can't see through that can you???? Or
    maybe Mr moneybags who can afford a Limo with the rear window Silvered
    or just plain smoked glass , can you see through that clearly ????
    And a final example , what about Mr ok-yar with his range rover that
    has the back loaded up, We can't see through or over this, I got it ,
    he has to make the car higher so you can see underneath.
    
        What do you do with 40' articulated lorry , can't see through,
    round or over that . How do you cope with that???????
    
    Garry
    	
    

    Another thing to remember is that you sit on the right hand side on the
    car, therefore you can see down the side of the car in front and see the 
    cars in front of that. This is the idea of having right hand drive cars
    and driving on the left of the road, it enable you to see what is
    coming towards you as well as what is in front. Try driving a right
    hand drive car on the right of the road you can't see much of the
    oncoming trafic but you can still see past the car in front.
    
    Neil

    
    Some of this is twaddle... 
        
    Anyone who has driven abroad, when you're sitting on the 'wrong'
    side will know that to get a clearer picture of what's happening 
    in front of you you need to be further from the vehicle in front. 

    Agreed it would be better if these blinds were used as sparingly
    as possible and weren't the "suction" kind, but it seems a storm
    in a teacup when compared with the number of other vehicles on
    the road who offer no 'thru' visibility at all.
    
    Richard.

    ps. High intensity rear brake lights completely obscure what's 
    happening at night and their users are definitely brain dead. As
    in Germany, they should be banned.

    

    
    Final note on this (as Laurie says, this is a waste of time - You do it
    or you don't).
    
    What are all you people who need blinds doing in your cars, that you
    DON'T want other people to see? :^)
    
    Mark

    
    What about the people who have smoked/mirror windows on their cars,
    mainly the customised I admit, but surely the same thing as having
    blinds.(although I can't see anything wrong with blinds)
    
    I seem to recall the ASTRAMAX van had a mirror glassed rear window!
    
    I reckon that if I was looking through the car in front of me, I would
    probably end up going somewhere I didn't want to go.  :)))))
    
    mac
    
    
     

 	Blinds should be banned, because they prevent you seeing the driver!
It is vital that you can see the car in fronts rear view mirror and drivers head
. It gives vital clues to both cars and bikers behind. You can tell if the
driver is paying attention to whats going on behind, or is another Zombie, or is
paying attention to the child in the passenger seat.  With Vans and lorries
you look in their big side mirrors to see if they are looking at you.
	If you dont use these clues or use the extra visibility by looking 
through  the car if possible, then not only are you a turkey, but a dangerous
turkey. If you take actions which prevent  others using these vital signs
you ought to be shot, plucked, stuffed and roasted.
	


P.s. I've seen these blinds on the drivers side window!!!!!!!

    
    
    anyone tried looking through the rear window of the Lotus esprit or 
    Ferarri 348, F40, Lambo's etc looking through the rear window is a help
    not something that should be relied on.
    
    Garry, almostrearwindowless
    

    
    Why should blinds be bannded ? Probably so some stupid pratt can look
    through your car, assume its all safe and perform a dangerous overtaking
    move and risk other peoples lives.
    
    -Tony

    RE: SUN BLINDS FITTED TO CARS.
    
    The other day I spotted a Ford Capri with a "home-job" semi-darkened
    car windows "modification?" This guy also had blinds fitted on the rear and
    side windows too. How on earth he managed to see out past his furry dice 
    and gonks is beyond me.
    
    The point is....I like to take a quick glance (check) through the windows 
    of the car in front, before overtaking...just in case. Fortunately in
    this instance I was on my motorbike at the time and could see over the 
    top of this guys Capri, but even so, I don't like blinds on car
    windows, except of course when the car is parked up, then blinds are 
    great if you have kids in the car.
    
    After the car blinds, we'll be seeing double glazing, fitted kitchens and 
    roof extensions being fitted to our cars. We are intent on making life 
    more comfortable for ourselves, while driving past each other at 100mph on 
    our way to collect our new MFI supplied, portable, fully flushing car 
    toilet seat in the sales.
    
                                             
    
    
          
    
    

    
    One other point to note, when a large powerful motorbike is "wound" up and 
    begins to safely overtake the car in front, it is a dangerous action to 
    try and slow down/alter the direction of a large powerful bike mid-way 
    through the overtaking manoeuvre, because the guy in front has been
    p***ing around with his radio, and moves out over the white line when a
    bike is half way past him.
    
    Observing what a car driver is doing prior to overtaking is ESSENTIAL for 
    defensive motorcycle riding. Anything that takes away this reassuring, 
    additional safety measure, may cause problems for OTHER road users,
    such as motorcyclists and in some instances car drivers. 
    
    We don't need to add to the problem, by fitting blinds on the rear
    window of the car whilst it is motion. 
    
          

    
�    After the car blinds, we'll be seeing double glazing, fitted kitchens and 
�    roof extensions being fitted to our cars. We are intent on making life 
    
    
     Take a look at the new Mercedes, already has double glazing.
    
     If you come up to a truck do you :
    
     a) not overtake
     b) Pull along side and stand up to look in the windows to see what
        he/she is doing 
     c) Overtake cautiousley (sp) after first seeing if the road is clear
        ahead by pulling out into the centre of the road
     d) None of the above.
    
    

    
    As a biker myself, I always work on the principle that just 'cos a
    driver *looks* like he's seen me... doesn't necessarily mean he *has*.
    
    However, I do agree that this is one of many "clues" that you can pick
    up to enable you to make a sensible decision about overtaking etc.
    
    As another example, when a car is likely to emerge from a side-road into 
    my path, I was taught to watch the car wheels to see if they start
    rotating as well as watch the driver.
    

    re.91
    
    Clearly you don't ride bikes, but 2 million UK citizens have a full bike
    licence and deserve all the help they can get to stay alive. Also, you 
    missed the point completely.....
    
    By fitting blinds to your car you are ADDING to the problems faced
    by other road users. Lorries and some vans are designed for a specific
    purpose, and most riders will acknowledge the fact that in general, lorry
    drivers are better/more understanding than car drivers, are easier to deal 
    with on the roads, pay more attention, and will go out of their way to 
    make a motorcyclist ride safer. Unlike like some of the morons that are 
    all too often found wanting at the wheel of a car.   
    
    As I have been driving cars and riding large capacity bikes for over 12 
    years now I feel qualified to comment on this matter.
    
    
      

 >>   b) Pull along side and stand up to look in the windows to see what
 >>       he/she is doing 
   
 Trucks have their mirrors angled down to see you.

  LOOK!  to drive safely you must use all information availible. This includes
the behavior of the driver in front. 

>>      c) Overtake cautiousley (sp) after first seeing if the road is clear
>>        ahead by pulling out into the centre of the road

 You can still get killed by the vehicle in front  wandering out even if road
is clear and you leave plenty of room.


Even the behavior of pedestrians is important. If they are looking at you
or even intently at something else it can help. If they are looking at you
theres a better chance they have seen you. If they are looking across the 
road they might be about to step into the road. 

	Do you know one of the biggest reasons you do all the over
the shoulder observations for the bike test? 

	ITS  to TELL the DRIVER BEHIND you are thinking of changing direction
or speed.

When driving a long a road with the right of way. If a driver on a side road 
arrives and doesnt look your way, then SLOW DOWN he might just pull out in front 
of you.

You shouldnt do anything which will prevent the flow of information
from you to the drivers around you. 

I'll save my breath. a lot of folk just dont want to know how to drive or 
overtake in safety
  

If you can't overtake safely because the car in front has blinds in the window
(or any other obstruction) then don't overtake.

/Dave.

    
    If you can't overtake safely then don't overtake

    re.95 
    
    I won't even bother to reply to the comment in 1805.95.
    
    There are of course a few apt words that could be used to best sum up that 
    wonderful one sentence reply, but as this is a notesfile I'll shut my mouth.
    
    John. 
    
     
    
    
    

    
    Ok I will. Why on earth should the rest of Britains road users be held
    back from making progress by the "blind" brigade, or any other people
    how all to often display a total disregard for the safety of other road
    users.
    
    Imaginary quote from a typical blind lover....
    
    "Hey you on that bike, remember that I have a blind fitted to my car, so 
     spend the next two hours behind me waiting until it's safe to overtake.
     I don't care, I am quite secure in my 10 x 4 metal box, and can't be
     bothered with anyone else's safety. As long as my wee dog on the back
     seat does not get too warm, or my Tesco chocolate biscuits don't melt, 
     who cares.......I know I don't" 
    
     "Handy things these car blinds!"
                                     

    
    I ride a motor cycle and have ridden one for about 15 years. I don't
    trust any one, even other bike riders. Having said that you must base
    your trust on circumstance that present themselves. As for lorry drivers
    being better I beg to differ. On the whole drivers of Articulated
    lorries are thoughtfull and will make a motorcycle's passage as safe as
    possible, small 7 ton type vehicles I would be far less likly trust.
    
    I wouldn't accept that being able to see the driver in the car in front
    is much of an advantage. If the driver of a car turns his head, how do
    you know he looked or for that matter saw you. If you take the view
    that the driver didn't see you and later find he did, it's a bonus
    rather than a disaster when you are pulling along side to overtake
    and Bang,' Oh, sorry mate I didn't see you' .  I would rather back off
    and let the moron drive as he sees fit , than try and get past and have
    an accident.  
    
    However if a car has not got these blinds then I guess if the driver is
    nervously looking about, probably a fair bet he/she wants to turn off
    somewhere. But then I don't see who you can legilate against that if
    a percentage of the traffic on the roads , by its construction,
    prevents you from seeing the driver ,let alone throught the vehicle.
    Assuming that you are not sitting on the bumper and giving plenty of
    room even that should not be too much of a problem.
    
    
    None of this would be nessesary if folk were to :-
    
    1. drive within the Law
    2. drove with consideration for other road users
    3. allowed more time to get from a to b rather that rushed.
    
    
    Garry

    
    re .93
    
    Clearly your wrong. I'm one of those 2 million, (although I'm no longer
    in the UK) who have a full bike license. I dont have blinds in the back
    of my car, and looking through the back of my cars window will show you
    absolutely nothing of the road ahead as its a very small window and
    in relation to other road users a lot lower than most peoples eye
    level. However I can see other peoples requirements for blinds and dont
    see why they should be banned as some have said, just because they
    obstruct the view. Do we also ban 3 people in the back or estate cars
    filling the back up with boxes.
    
    Also when I said pull towards the centre of the road to see if its
    clear, I didn't mean along side the vehicle you want to overtake I meant 
    a safe distance behind.
    
    If you cant see for whatever reason before manouvering wait until you
    can, wether its because of blinds, lorries , horse boxes or fog.
    

My turn...:-)

First, a lot of people DON't fit these blinds, they come STANDARD fitting on 
an EEC and UK egs approved car.

second, the benefit to kids is NOT just when parked. You try doing several 
hundred miles away from the sun with it burning through the rear window onto 
the necks of small children sitting correctly in the rear of a car with a 
sloping rear window. If you do your a sadist to your children.

Third, aside from driving further back you can also drive to one side of the 
road or the other (no I don't mean waeve from side to side before some 
sanctamoneous biker claims I'm the personal cause of half the accidents in 
the world) I mean with the full width of the road to use, you can nearly 
always see everything there ever is to see ahead with some sensible 
positioning. 

And a car, even if you can't see through it, doesn't present as large an 
area to see round as even the equivalent model van as the sides are usually 
more sloped (e.g. Astra against Astramax). So I don't believe blinds are 
a hazard, the hazard is those who use the blind as an excuse for poor 
driving.

Richard

(NO I don't have blinds in my car, but they were standard on my previous 
model and I did use them in the summer, particularly in the south of france, 
but never used them at night or in the winter)

    
    So if there are blinds up in the rear of the car and you are
    riding your motorbike then you won't know whether to over take
    or not ? Well if there were no blinds up (or down) and you were
    travelling at a safe distance, which btw should be alot further
    back than other cars, then how much of the driver would you be
    able to see ?? At that distance how can you tell what he/she is
    actually doing or thinking of doing which will help you anticipate
    your next move ?
    
    Up to the age of 21 I had nothing but motor bikes for transport and
    after nearly being killed by a car driver decided to give up riding
    all together, apart from off road.
    
    I had just exited the M4 at junction 10 (the Bracknell and Winnersh
    exit) and I was about 50 yards behind a car. Speed was about 45/50.
    There was a light drizzle but it was bright. Nevertheless I had my
    lights on. I approached the car at the same speed who was indicating
    to head off towards Winnersh, he was on the inside lane.
    
    As far as I was concerned it was safe for me to move into the outside
    lane (out of two lanes). All indication was that this guy knew where
    he was going. I indicated my intentions well ahead of the move but
    as I was about 10 yards away from the car but too his right AND in
    the outside lane he indicated to move to the right and just swung over.
    There was nothing I could do as I was banking slightly around the left
    hander. Anyway I ended up hitting the barrier and fortunately for me
    the bike had a full fairing (had being the operative) and crash bars.
    
    Because of the fairing and the bars my right leg was still intact but
    I had broken three toes in my right foot. My little toe is still larger
    than what it was because of the break. Amazingly though I managed to
    stay on the bike despite being forced to release my grip on the handle
    bars on barrier impact.
    
    The point is that I made all reasonable calculations before making my
    move but to what gain ? Blinds in the rear windows or not would not
    have made any difference.
    
    As well I was learned to watch the driver when approaching them
    from side on, ie, them moving from a side turning but not when 
    approaching from behind as little could be gained.
    
    But it is quite simple, if you think that its not safe to overtake
    then don't do it. 
    
    JN.
    

It could be an unmarked traffic police car, and they'll be after you if they 
think your're sppeding.

About 2 years ago there was an unmarked Capri with the sun-blinds being run by 
the Oxfrod police, and they caught quite a few on the Oxford ring road.

Dave

    
    If I'm reading this right, the sunblind complaint came from someone who
    drives RHD cars in Brussels.
    
    Surely not!

    
    What was wrong with .95 (or .96 for that matter?). Too succinct?
    
    For those that can't see to overtake cars with blinds, here are
    a few tips...
    
    1. Find a copy of Yellow Pages
    		(If you can't see well enough, get a friend to help)

    2. Look up "Opticians"
    		(If you can't see well enough, get a friend to help)

    3. Now you're getting the hang of it :-)
    

OK, you've persuaded me! It's not often I'm swayed by arguments put forward in
notes conferences but this time I'm really convinced!

Where can I buy this rear window blinds?

/Dave.

	Okay, who wants to go into business to produces see-through blinds that
	also keep the sun out?????????

	Looks like there's a large market!


	Heather

    re.105.
    
     
    Reducing ANY form of safety check on our roads is wrong...or do you
    disagree with that basic statement? Some but not all road users, 
    utilise a variety of defensive driving/riding methods. Personally speaking,
    I myself like to have a quick glance at the driver of a car whilst
    overtaking. It is MY opinion, that in some instances, nasty accidents
    can be avoided if a drivers actions can be anticipated in time.
    
    Q:
    
    If you were driving along a road, and the car driver in front began
    constantly looking from side to side, and appeared to be ready to turn
    off, either on the left or right. Would you risk overtaking him even if
    the road ahead was clear?
    
    I suspect you would not. If blinds were fitted to the same drivers vehicle,
    there is a possibility that you may take that risk....and you're history!
       

    Ah but Heather, those blinds are see-through, FROM THE INSIDE...
    
    Laurie.

    >> If you were driving along a road, and the car driver in front began
    >> constantly looking from side to side, and appeared to be ready to turn
    >> off, either on the left or right. Would you risk overtaking him even if
    >> the road ahead was clear?
    
    You mean you'd overtake when approaching turn-offs... where someone
    could equally well pull out into your path???
    
    Under those particular circumstances I wouldn't overtake regardless of
    what the driver in front was doing.
    
    

    >> Ah but Heather, those blinds are see-through, FROM THE INSIDE...
    
    But that's no use if you arn't in the car and are behind it.  Otherwise
    you could tap the driver on the shoulder and politely inquire if he/she
    was about to turn off as you were considering overtaking.  Using this
    information you could then proceded to overtake safely, only to be
    involved in a head-on collision with a mad driving instructor in his
    gleamy red XR2 who was obsquered by the car in front's "blind" spot :-)
    
    Gary.

    re: -1
    
    	You more or less answer you own question . If you can see the
    driver in front and it does appear to be looking from side to side, the
    vehicle will have proably slowed down , even if only slightly, and
    there is probably a junction coming up. Unless this is on a motorway ,
    it a normal road why are you overtaking on a junction???????
    
     As for the blind , example. Last night in London it was hissing down
    with rain. I tried out this practice of looking through the car
    infront. The car was a Golf and I was on a Big Powerfull motorcycle.
    With the rain , reflection off the windscreen etc etc, I could see
    better over the top , this car did not have a blind. Other vehicles 
    it was plain difficult without if not impossible to do. 
    
    And re a couple back.
    
    	Taking a look at the driver of the vehicle you are overtaking is
    	more dangerous than having blinds. for 1 you are no paying
        attention to the road in front, 2. what happens if something
        happens infront of you and 3. difficult to prove but I would go
    	as far as saying that is driving without due care and attention.
    
    	Garry

RE: .89

>>    After the car blinds, we'll be seeing double glazing, fitted kitchens and 
>>    roof extensions being fitted to our cars. We are intent on making life 
>>    more comfortable for ourselves, while driving past each other at 100mph on 
>>    our way to collect our new MFI supplied, portable, fully flushing car 
>>    toilet seat in the sales.
  
My car has got all of this (except that it is not capable of 100 mph).
Apparently, my only saving grace is that I don't have blinds fitted ;-)
                                             
    
    
          
    
    

    
    I wish they would ban car blinds...especially those silk ones that come
    complete with tie-back hooks.
    
    What's wrong with letting your kids or granny fry in the back seat on a
    blistering hot day?. Imagine how quiet it will be in the car as they
    sweat it out in the back seat while you direct all the air vents onto your
    body. If you do it right, they probably won't be so keen to jump in the car
    ever again on a hot day, thereby leaving you free to enjoy yourself and
    to play your favourite music up loud!
    
    Honestly, there are some passengers that are never happy.
    
    
    
    
    
     

    
    Several contributors to this 'blind' topic appear to have a firm grasp
    of the 'wrong end of the stick'.
    
    The point is NOT that you consciously 'peer' through the car in front,
    but rather that you focus your eyes on a point which (depending on the
    road configuration) may be up to several hundred yards in front.
    Obstructions to your vision reduce the overall amount of information
    which is available. A car in front with blinds has that effect; though
    not to the same extent as a van or lorry.
    Any reduction in this information must reduce one's ability to
    anticipate what the traffic is going to do in front (and thus to take
    appropriate action) and is, therefore, a factor in road safety.
    
    I do not claim that sun blinds are positively dangerous, only that they
    CAN (in some circumstances significantly) reduce the overall visiblity 
    and thus adversly affect safety.
    
    The REAL problem is not the blinds, as such, but their inappropriate
    use. If you are heading north on the A6 towards Lyons in the middle of
    the day (in July with the temp at 30 Celsious) then their use is quite
    appropriate. If you keep them in place (and fully deployed) in Reading
    on a horrid day in February then their use is TOTALLY inappropriate.
    
    As for darkened/mirror windows they should be TOTALLY illegal in ANY
    circumstances (except on ambulances), any driver detected using a car
    fitted with such windows should be hanged from the nearest road sign as
    an example!!!
    
    Re: a notes from KENNEDY_C a few back - sounds like the pot calling the
    kettle black. Hi Colin.
    
    Mike H.
    
     

    
    I was going to reply but can't be bothered this topic is becoming a BIG
    yawn.
    

    I would have thought that having blinds would have been classed as a
    safety feature.  After all if the person behind can't see the road/any
    obstacles ahead, they a a lot less likely to try a dangerous overtaking
    manoeuver !
    
    LONG LIVE REAR SUN BLINDS !
    
    
    Shaun.

    Clearly there are two intransigent camps on this one.
    
    For me, the best way I can describe it is that I don't realise what a
    difference those blinds make to my visibility until I'm behind a car
    with them fitted, and in use.
    
    As discussed with Mike Harrison a few minutes ago, they do serve a very
    important purpose. They, like *anything* hanging on the rear-view
    mirror, any sucker-feeted cuddly toy, stickers in windows, add-on body
    kits from Halfords, add-on high-level brake-lights, disco-display-type
    indicators and brake-lights, etc, etc, simply identify a car and driver
    to steer well clear of.
    
    As Mark said earlier, you're either for 'em, or agin 'em.
    
    Laurie.

re.118:

Actually Laurie, I was begining to see your point about the reduced level of
visibility, anyway I've postponed buying rear window blinds until I'm decided.

/Dave.

Laurie,

 I agree with all the objects in your list, APART FROM THE BLINDS !!!
 They do serve a purpose.

 As for the previous inane examples of how it is impossible to see
 car 3 from car 1 without looking through car 2, from experience of
 driving everyday a right hand drive car in France, I know for a fact
 that I often have a far greater visibility of cars and the road in 
 front that by driving on the wrong side of the car (or is that the
 right side of the car :-)

 The reason for this is that most drivers tend to try to look AROUND
 the car in front to see what is going on. When I arive behind a group
 of cars like this, being that I'm sitting on the other side of the
 car from them, I see right down the inside.

    When I see a car with both high level brake lights and the sun blinds
    feel the driver is being hypocritical, blocking the view of others
    whilst wishing the extra brake light to be seen by more than the car
    behind.
    
    Brian 

    
    Well since this seems to have stirred up a hornets nest of people 
    who support the use of these blinds, I'll ask another question.
    
    Sorry to be stupid, inane or whatever, but are you all seriously trying
    to tell me that when you CAN see through a car you DON'T look through
    it? If not, have you ever considered that there is a great chunk of road
    that you can't see (at any one time)?
     
    Also while on the subject of inanity, only a person of severly limited 
    intellect (or inane pettiness) would choose to read what I said as saying 
    that one should ONLY look through a car. Obviously, one should look over, 
    under or around a vehicle if such a thing is possible. Any and all 
    information that would make driving safer should be used (as virtually 
    EVERYONE in this note has said at one time or another). Quite what LHD, 
    RHD, driving on the right or left have to do with it escapes me, but I'm 
    sure it makes sense to those of you who go to great lengths NOT to look 
    through the cars in front of you (Of course, you probably DO look through 
    the cars in front of you when it is possible and when you do you have a 
    clearer view than you would following a van or a lorry or a car with these 
    blinds in use.)
    
    Anyway, a bit of further examination seems to reveal that the really
    annoying blinds are the white (or light coloured) ones. The black ones
    with lots of holes (unsuprisingly) don't reflect light and therefore
    rarely become opaque. Having said that, these blind are only 1 of many
    ways in which children (but perhaps not so much adults) can be
    protected from the sun in a car - Were all our parents brain dead for
    not fitting them before they became a trend? Were those amongst us old
    enough to have had children a few years ago brain-dead for not fitting 
    them before they became commonly available? Presumably so.
    
    Finally, someone commented how they didn't use these blinds in the
    dark. Bravo to that person. They seem to be saying that they use them
    when they are needed and not at other times. Having read other notes
    it's fairly obvious how the majority of you feel (with justification)
    about people too lazy to turn off their foglights. Some of us feel the
    same about these blinds. They serve a purpose, but at a cost to
    following vehicles visibility (I won't mention the reduced visibility
    that the driver has through his interior mirror, as I'll be told you
    can see more in the door mirrors than you can in the 3 mirrors
    together!).
    
    Mark

>>     <<< Note 1805.122 by NEWOA::SAXBY "Vote for Perot : He's got $3B!" >>>

>>    Anyway, a bit of further examination seems to reveal that the really
>>    annoying blinds are the white (or light coloured) ones. The black ones
>>    with lots of holes (unsuprisingly) don't reflect light and therefore
>>    rarely become opaque. Having said that, these blind are only 1 of many
    
    The one's with a white outer surface *ALSO* are perforated. Just
    because you can't see in don't assume that the driver therefore can't
    see out. 
    
    
>>    not fitting them before they became a trend? Were those amongst us old
>>    enough to have had children a few years ago brain-dead for not fitting 
>>    them before they became commonly available? Presumably so.
    
    In those far off days, 
    a	Car back windows were more vertical
    b	The seats tended to be further forward 
    Hence this was much less of a problem than now when cars have steeply
    raked back windows with the seats set far back into them.
    
>>    following vehicles visibility (I won't mention the reduced visibility
>>    that the driver has through his interior mirror, as I'll be told you
>>    can see more in the door mirrors than you can in the 3 mirrors
>>    together!).
    
    The visibility is actually not that much reduced, as your in a dark
    space viewing into a very light space through holes that are close to
    you and thus appear relatively large. Very little different from tinted
    windows. 
    
    We don't all act brain dead or put up fatuous arguments so I sauggest
    you drop doing just that!.
    
    Richard

    re.122

    I could not agree more. Lets round up all the car blind and eye frying, 
    window mounted, rear brakelight brigade, and watch them breakdown in tears 
    as us "sensible" road users rip up stupid car blinds and stamp on
    4000 watt brake lamps in front of them.
    
    Has anyone tried the new motorcyclist sun blind, which fits onto the helmet
    visor? The problem is, you can't see very much, but then again, neither can 
    anyone else on the road nowadays!!
    
    John
    

 >> Has anyone tried the new motorcyclist sun blind, which fits onto the helmet
 >> visor? The problem is, you can't see very much, but then again, neither can 
 >> anyone else on the road nowadays!!
    
    
    Surely they stop bike 3 seeing bike 1 through bike 2
    
    :-)  :-)

    
    Mark, 
    
    
�    Sorry to be stupid, inane or whatever, but are you all seriously trying
�    to tell me that when you CAN see through a car you DON'T look through
�    it? If not, have you ever considered that there is a great chunk of road
�    that you can't see (at any one time)?
     
    
    Sorry to be stupid, inane or whatever, but are you all seriously trying
    to tell me that when you CANNOT see through a car you DON'T look AROUND
    it? If not, have you ever considered that there is a great chunk of road
    that you can't see (at any one time)?
     
    
    
    Also , I think what people are quering is the attitude that  "People with 
    blinds are brain dead and blinds should be illegal/banned because I
    can't see through them to overtake".
    

	This discussion is pathetic. Anyone who bases a driving maneuvre
	on what they think they can see through the windows of another
	car deserves to have their licence revoked permanently.

	As for blinds, my car has them (they are fitted as standard on
	Golfs sold in Germany I believe), and I use them when its sunny
	and I have something in the back I don't want fried. If I thought
	that my using them was stopping some nerd from overtaking because
	he can't see some reflected/refracted/distorted view of the car
	or road in front of me, I'd have them up permanently.

	As for those high-level brake lights, they're extremely dangerous
	imho. Haven't we got american "car safety" regulations to thank
	for their existence?

	JJ.

Re: .124

>  Has anyone tried the new motorcyclist sun blind, which fits onto the helmet
>  visor? The problem is, you can't see very much, but then again, neither can 
 

John,

	sorry you are wrong there, the motorcyclist sun visor fits on
	the *back* of the helmet (to keep the sun and heat off the back
	of your head) and thus doesn't interfere with your forward
	vision!

	There are also high level brake lights for helmets  ;-)

	mb

p.s.

	Can we PLEASE get back to topic?

    
    Blimey, this moves quick! :^)
    
    � We don't all act brain dead or put up fatuous arguments so I sauggest
    � you drop doing just that!.
    
    Excuse me for expressing an opinion, Mr Davies.
    
    Just because you don't like the argument, it doesn't make it fatuous.
    I've driven a car with these blinds on and they do restrict the drivers
    vision, albeit not as greatly as the followers. Equally, I know lots of 
    people with children who don't feel they need these blinds, presumably 
    these people are 'acting brain dead'?
    
    Frankly I can't really understand quite what it is about this issue
    that invokes such passions amongst the pro-blind lobby.
    
    Gary and JJ, I don't (and never said I did) consider people who have
    these blinds to be stupid or brain-dead. I simply find they restrict
    the visibility to a degree. Equally (again), I don't rely 100% (or
    probably even 50%) on the visibility through the car in front, I just
    don't like losing part of the forward visibility. My car doesn't have
    them, and I probably won't ever fit any. If I do, I'll make sure I
    only use them when the weather is particularly suited to their use.
    Someone made these points (Mr Harrington?) a while back in calm,
    measured tones, but he seems to have been swept away in the name
    calling.
    
    Mark

     
    re.125
    
    I am sure YOU would be riding in the number 2 position?
    
    :-) :-)
    

    well......
    
    Phew..!!!
    
    If I may summarise this topic:
    
    If you have blinds in your car rear window:       You are a moron
    If you don't have blinds in your car rear window: You are a moron
    If you don't let motorcycles have ALL the road:   You are a moron
    If you wear blinds on your M/cycle helmet:	      You are a moron
    If you treat M/cycles with courtesy:              You are a moron
    If you attempt to overtake:	 		      You are a moron
    If you don't attempt to overtake:		      You are a moron
    If you are a lorry driver:			      You are a moron
    If you are not a lorry driver:	              You are a moron
    If you do/don't live in France/Switzerland:       You are a moron
    If you do/don't live in Reading at night:         You are a moron
    If you write silly notes that repeat themselves:  You are a moron
    If you attempt to reply with your opinion:        You are a moron
    
    carry on:
    
    
    Hutch
    

    Sorry...forgot...
    
    :-) :-) :-) x 1000's..!!
    
    
    Hutch

    Re.115
    
�    Re: a notes from KENNEDY_C a few back - sounds like the pot calling the
�    kettle black. Hi Colin.
    
    Brit plates Mike, ever notice where the steering wheel was??? Want to tell
    everybody where your steering wheel is for driving in Brussels?

    The ultimate sunblind must be on Mercedes. Electrically operated from the  
    dash, if  I had one, I'd paint a nice finger on it for the a**eholes who 
    sit too close to your back bumper.
     

    
    The blinds I happen to have are white on the outward facing
    side which I imagine would reflect car headlights. The white
    side is after all designed to deflect the sun.
    
    At night though would a car driver behind me be dazzled by his
    lights bouncing off my blinds ? I suppose it would depend on
    what the car in front is and headlamp alignment and how close you
    were to the car in front.
    
    The rear window on my car happens to be rather small due to the
    design of the rear of the vehicule. The gear box/clutch and axle
    are over the rear wheels therefore the rear passenger seats are
    an awful lot higher than the front seats. Those rear seats also
    have head rests fitted and do take up alot of room in front of the
    window. My view out of the back of the car is adequate but not the
    best I've had but I use my side mirrors alot so its OK. When the
    blinds are in operation then, due to their design, my vision is not
    really reduced.
    
    If you were driving behind me and my blinds were NOT in operation
    I seriously doubt that you would see anything useful by trying to
    look through my car. You wouldn't be able to see much of me either
    as I would be obscured by the head rest both on my seat and the rear
    seat which has a high back anyway.
    
    This morning, as an experiment, I tried looking through the car in
    front. I gave up on a couple because the windows were filthy (now that
    is inconsiderate -|) but those cars that I managed to catch glimpses 
    through basically told me sod all about what was happening on the road 
    ahead. Now don't forget that I was really looking for something here
    but as Mark says you wouldn't concentrate on this one thing to help
    your vision, anticipation et cetera.
    
    Anyway I gave up but I did try just to see if this additional method
    gave me assistance but I have to say that I could not see any benifit.
    
    BTW did someone mention that car blinds are in the same mould as furry
    dice and football boots ? Depends who buys them really, take the Capri
    for example that someone mentioned. I bought them just after my
    daughter was born last August (summer) to keep the sun off her. I also
    bought another pair for the side windows on the rear passenger doors.
    OOOOOOpppps, should I have mentioned those ? Will I get slapped about ?
    I haven't used them this summer, honest guv.
    
    JN.

    Ah ha !!! Now if you are talking about those white blinds, or
    reflective ones, or ones with silly pictures on them, then
    I have to agree that they are akin to fury dice anbd the like.
    
    The ones I have used are the black ones, and yes, it does allow
    almost total visibility from inside the car, and SOME visibility
    through the car from outside.
    
    Although the car 1,2,3 story did not state that cars always drive
    exactly behind one another in a line, the comments and discussion
    which followed fairly much implied that it had been taken to mean
    that.
    
    I assume we all agree that observation is a very important part
    of driving (perhaps even the MOST important). But reducing the
    possible means of observation by the installation of a blind
    does not make the person who installed it a moron. It would be
    nice if we could all agree on that too ...

    > Ah but Heather, those blinds are see-through, FROM THE INSIDE...
    

	Well then, put them on the other way around, the people wgho want blinds
	have them, and the people behind can see through them

	Heather

Re .128)

	When did high brake lights become dangerous? I think the flashing ones
are particularly pleasing to the eye.

Gordy.

May be blinds should be electrically 'rolled up' when a following vehicle
flashes its lights directly onto them. The winder mechanism could be based upon
what has already been (almost) perfected on car windows, and would cost no more
than the average ABS system to be fitted.

Also, it would be a good way of combining two rat-hole notes into 1 and saving
some disk space.

    
    I rarely become involved because of the rat hole syndrome
    but most topics end up as a rat hole anyway.
    
    JN.

>>     <<< Note 1805.131 by NEWOA::SAXBY "Vote for Perot : He's got $3B!" >>>

    
>>    � We don't all act brain dead or put up fatuous arguments so I sauggest
>>    � you drop doing just that!.
    
>>    Excuse me for expressing an opinion, Mr Davies.
    
>>    Just because you don't like the argument, it doesn't make it fatuous.
    
    And I quote:
    
>>>>    following vehicles visibility (I won't mention the reduced visibility
>>>>    that the driver has through his interior mirror, as I'll be told you
>>>>    can see more in the door mirrors than you can in the 3 mirrors
>>>>    together!).
    
    Sounds fateous to me! It does not sound like a valid argument
    
    
>>    vision, albeit not as greatly as the followers. Equally, I know lots of
>>    people with children who don't feel they need these blinds,
>>    presumably these people are 'acting brain dead'?
    
    I have children, I don't need these blinds  *BUT* my car does not fit
    in the category I was referring to with the appropriate placing and
    positioning of the seats in relation to the rear window.
    
    If it did I *WOULD* get sun blinds to protect my kids.  You cannot call
    "Someone doesn't; therefore no one should"  a valid argument.
    
    Richard

        

        

        

        

    
    � Sounds fateous to me! It does not sound like a valid argument
    
    I wouldn't describe my comment (to which you replied) an argument, more
    of an aside.
    
    Oh well, it's horses for courses and notes is sometimes handy for
    letting off a bit of steam. Instead of belting someone in the mouth! :^)
    
    Mark

    I think, considering the fact that my note sparked all this off, that I
    can make a legitimate claim for the "Rathole of The Week" award.
    
    Laurie.

    
    The award is yours Laurie and what a rat hole it was too.
    Congratulations.
    
    JN.

    
    re: .122
    
    > it's fairly obvious how the majority of you feel (with justification)
    > about people too lazy to turn off their foglights. Some of us feel the
    > same about these blinds
    
    The difference is that 'inappropriate' use of 'fog lights' (either 
    high-intensity rear lights OR high power front lights, mounted below a
    prescribed height above the ground - can't remember the exact figure
    but about 2ft) is illegal.
    Appropriate use is in Fog or falling snow.
    
    Don't know the last time the fuzz 'did' anyone for that! Recently a car
    overtook me with low level (VERY bright) fog lamps on at the front, on
    a very clear night; it was a police car!
    
    Mike H.
    

    
    re: .137
    
    > possible means of observation by the installation of a blind
    > does not make the person who installed it a moron
    
    Agreed, on the contrary it's being a moron that made install it ;-)
    
    
    Mike H.
    
    

>><<< Note 1805.147 by BIS1::BHD161::HARRISON "International Band Of Smugglers" >>>
>>                                    -< ;-) >-

    
>>    re: .137
    
>>    > possible means of observation by the installation of a blind
>>    > does not make the person who installed it a moron
    
>>    Agreed, on the contrary it's being a moron that made install it ;-)
    
    Anyone able to translate that sentence??
    Richard

    Would this be a pertinant time to bring up the issue of rear window
    slats ?
    
    I know this is a subject very close to J.R.'s heart ;^)
    
    
    Shaun.

    I've been thinking... This rathole has not only spilled over to other
    notes in this conference, but to other notes in other coferences too!
    
    I think it's just about qualified for rathole of FY92
    
    Laurie.

    Returning to the subject of this topic....
    
    Anyone know how much film the roadside cameras hold?  How often will
    the cameras be emptied or what might be the time delay before receiving
    a summons?  I guess this depends on how many speeders are "flashed",
    but are we talking a week or a couple of months?

    >I've been thinking... This rathole has not only spilled over to other
    >notes in this conference, but to other notes in other coferences too!
    
    >I think it's just about qualified for rathole of FY92
    
    Laurie
    
    This award...are you sure it's not another tactic for starting another
    rathole?
    
    Dave
    
    

    I'm afraid it doesn't qualify for FY92 as it wasn't booked in time.
    
    JK

    
    I read somewhere that someone is driving round to the cameras with a long 
    ladder and a can of black spray paint, spraying over the lenses!!

    
    I heard someone was putting blinds over them! :^)
    
    Mark

    
    
      It was the Granny and kids on the back seat......
    
    

    
    
    Does anybody know if its possible to lose your licence on one journey
    if the road you are travelling on (speeding on) has several of these
    cameras or is there going to be some kind law to say you can be only 
    fined once in a day..
    
    I know it sounds a stupid question but its frightening to think that
    you get a pile of letters one morning saying that you have been 
    caught speeding 5 times in one day..
    
    Gary..
    
    PS. I have a blind to keep the sun off my one year old son and I 
        don't think any "reasonable" person/driver would object to 
    	such uses.. My saving grace is that if its not sunny or he 
        isn't in the car I take it off or roll it up.. Does that
    	class me as a moron or a considerate driver..

    Good question,
    
    	In and around London they have had the big grey boxes on stalks for
    quite some time. I have never seen them close together , but thats not
    to say I've never passed 2 on 1 journey. If you came out of london on the
    Brompton road there used to be a red light jobbie at the junction of
    the talgarth road and Northend road and later down the A316 on
    Twickenham bridge there was a speedie one. I don't know for sure, but I
    suspect that , allbeit 2 different or maybe 3 offences could be
    committed on the same journey. I bet you would get done for all the
    offences that you commited.
    
    I've never spied one on a motorway , but I would think they are quite
    some way apart if there more that 1. I bet they would view that as once 
    as an offence , twice taking the Pee. Out of intrest the one on the
    A316 never triggered under 50mph, that stretch of road is a 40 limit.
    
    Garry

    
�    caught speeding 5 times in one day..
    
    
    I would say that assuming some minimum distance say 5 miles on a
    motorway, 2 miles on a dual cabbageway or 50 feet down a play street 
    anyone caught speeding 5 times should be banned. Different roads would 
    almost certainly incure this result. 
    
    However I once got a parking ticket near a cinema (In Stockholm, so maybe 
    not relevant to the UK) 5 minutes after the film started, 1 hour later 
    they gave me another, fortunatlety it was a short film, so I didn't get
    a third but 2 tickets @ 50 quid a throw was a bit much, I complained 
    about this and they let me off with paying just one.
    
    Moral of the story, speed all the way from London to Newcastle on the
    M1 and you might get away with only 1 fine, then again maybe not.
    
    
    

	Reading to Welwyn, and back in one day is quite a common trip for me.

	Thats Eastbound M4 - 25ish miles, 
	clockwise M25 - 40ish miles
	A1(M) - 5ish miles

	and reverse in the evening, on the busiest sections of the M25 and M4
    
	Assuming the traffic actually allows you too go faster than 70, this 
	could be a prime routes to pick up half a dozen tickets in a day!
    
	This could be fun!

	Heather

	The newspaper report that I read (Independent) said that you
	could get banned in one day if you generate enough points.

	Dave

    Yes, made sober reading that Independent article. Though the policeman
    being interviewed did say that if the cameras were close together you
    were unlikely to be prosecuted for several offences, but you would if
    they were on separate "stretches" of the M1 (for example). All we need
    to know  now is "How long is a stretch ?".
    
    What I want to know is : are those tall poles with cameras on that have
    appeared around Preston on the M6, and are about to appear on the M62
    around Warrington, for taking photos of speeders or just monitoring
    traffic flow ? I wish I could be sure they were for traffic flow, then
    I could ignore them.
    
    Driving to work is a real pain now. People just bunch up together all
    doing about 75, about 3 feet apart. I keep falling asleep as well. I
    think I'm just echoing sentiments already expressed so I'd better
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
    
    
    Dave
                  
    

    
    If the cameras are at Junctions I would suggest that they are traffic
    monitoring one's. The M11/M25 Junction has had several camera pointing
    in different directions, also at the A10/M25 Junctions there is a
    camera. There have been camera's on busy parts of motorway's for
    ages,purly for monitoring.
    
    To change the subject slightly, Last night Plod was out doing his
    worst. A stretch of road in walthamstow were the speed limit is 30 but
    I would say the average speed is 50. When I went out he had the
    hairdryer out but no takers. On the way back about 1 1/2 hours later
    there was a gagle of them and just as many members of the public,all lined
    up to take a ticket. I thankfully was not one of them.
    
    	Garry

	Yup, listening to radio 4 this morning, and also clarified in the
	Daily Mail - you can build up enough in one trip to loose your
	licence.

	M4/M25/A1(M) looks like a dodgey return trip to make!

	Heather

    As I do Leeds to London once a week, I wonder what the record is for
    most points in one week....
    
    :^)
    
    
    Greg

To all you speedsters, the answer is obvious, only speed on minor roads where
they will not be installing cameras.

/Dave.

    
    Maybe not so wise. I suspect that Yesterday plod was having a purge in
    the Walthamstow area , but also yesterday My neighbour was
    seen to have been nabbed on a relativly minor road. What for I don't
    know but I know that the vehicle he was driving has no road fund
    licence, He has openly boasted he has no insurance in the past, I've 
    no reason to suspect anything has changed, I doult the vehicle is Mot'd
    and that does not include anything that may also have been wrong with
    the Vehicle. He normally tears around so he may have been nabbed for
    speeding. I would be  most upset if he gets stung ( I don't think ) .
    So it seems at the moment nobody is safe anywhere, on public roads that
    is.
    
    Garry

    
    Perhaps the answer is to remove your numberplates!
    
    That would be an offence (against the Road Vehicles Licencing and
    Registration Regulations), but it is not an endorsable offence - and
    probably a small fine.
    
    But without plates the camera boys might find it hard to trace you.
    
    Mike H.
    
    

    Better still, drive a foreign registered car.
    
    Laurie.

    Why not just pretend to be Ayrton Senna?
    
    Gary.

    RE. .167
    
    But Garry, Isnt the whole point making the roads safe?  :-)
    
    I can't see why you shouldn't be banned in one trip. If someone shoots
    5 people in a cafe, does he only get charged with one murder " 'coz
    they were all in the same place M'lud"
    
    Huw.

    
    How are these camera's going to catch speeding motorbikes as they don't
    have reg plates at the front. Or is it the case that the camera's are
    designed to take snaps of both the front and rear profile..
    
    Gary..
                                                               
    PS. I do quite a bit of travelling between Newcastle & Warrington and
        I also noticed the amount of camera's popping up around the
        Manchester end of the M62 (approx 6 in less than 20 miles).
        Needless to say I dare'nt open my mail in the morning. Anybody
    	have any Police friends in the Greater Manchester force who know
    	if these are used for traffic flow or as speed traps or as both..
    PPS.There isn't any when you get into the Yorkshire side of the M62
        I presume they are one of these forces that are skint.. 

    
    re .171
    
    I suppose it depends if they were killed by one bullet (ie all stood in
    single file and the murderer uses an elephant gun or something).
    
    If you do a steady 85mph (once over unofficially acceptable) on a
    motorway say for example the M62 from Warrington to the A1 turn off
    how many time have you exceeded the speed limit ???
    
    A speeders answer............... Only once !!
                                          
    Gary

    
    
    I don't know how the motorway camera do the dirty , but the one's around
    here nab you from behind. The grey box is mounted fairly high and
    angled down , I don't know what triggers it but the most you ever know
    is that something flashed behind you.
    
    The officially accepted level of error in speed is + or - 10% , so
    upto 77 is sort of ok.
    
    
    The way to avoid it all is to.
    
    	1. Have no number plates.
    
    	2. A non uk driving license.
    
    	3. Don't get put on the electorial roll (Bonus, can't catch to for
                                                    poll tax)
    
    	4. No speakie de inglish
    
    
    	or 1 simple way , Become a gypsy. 
    
           
    
    

	Sounds to me that you should all take a leaf out of the French lorry
	drivers book, and go and park on the motorways until the the government
	comes up with a better solution for you.

	Me I'll stick to Spanish plates .....

	BTW, if it's sunny, I'd recommend some sunblinds ....

    Sunblinds over the number plates or in the back window?
    
    The latter I cannot condone :-)
    
    Gary.

    That's raised an interesting thought. Given that the law states that a
    rear number-plate, besides being of regulation pattern etc., must be
    visible from the rear. I'm sure there's no mention of the angle from
    which it must be visible. How about a cowl over the plate, a bit like
    those external sun visors that used to be fitted on 50's cars, sized
    and positioned so the plate is visible from another car, but obscured
    from above and behind...
    
    Laurie.

    
    Or a little more subtle a white reflective strip along the bottom of
    the plate. That would presumably reflect a large amount of the light
    generated by the flash , hopfully obsuring the number.
    
    Garry

    
    Or a slave flash unit on the vehicle that gets triggered by the camera
    flash... 

    How about a polaroid type strip over the number plate so it can't be
    read from above.

    How about cling film over the plate ?

    Re: .-1
    
    It would have to be a fast acting sensor and flash!
    
    How about LCD numberplates,  random changes every 3 mins etc....?
    
    _Richard

    
    	Coming down the M3 yesterday after noon, just before the Odiham
    Junc., I whatched a Helicopter hovering above the car in front. I
    thought he was heading for the airfield, (sorry dont't know the name),
    then saw a flash. He turned round and headed up towards london. As he
    turned I saw the sign on the side ...  P O L I C E !. Hampshire Police
    must be confident in raking in the money, if they can afford a
    Helicopter on motorway duty !!! 
    	
    	They just DONT follow,the rules now !!
    
    
    				Richard P
    
    	

    I think it's pathetic that they are reduced to this to keep the 'crime'
    figures up this way. If they spend that money on a few bobbies on the
    beat, it would be much better spent.
    
    Laurie.

    re .182
    Any slave flash unit should be fast enough to trigger will the camera
    shutter is still open. If you leave a powerful flash on your rear
    window shelf it might dazzle the camera. It is likely that a flash unit
    in the camera would have a fixed output, so you wouldn't be able to
    confuse it into shutting off early.
    
    I would expect the cameras to be mounted 10-15 feet up, and to take a
    picture of the rear of a car (You dont want to let off any kind
    of flash into the drivers eyes !). This would allow them to be
    positioned the other side of bridges and other such places ! There are
    some traffic light cameras in the midlands. These have quite large
    'chunky' boxes (may be 50cm * 50cm * 30cm), on a pole about 10 ft high.
    I would expect a similar box for a speed trap camera. I would also
    expect these to operate for just one lane of traffic (otherwise there
    could be a doubt about which vehicle was speeding). This might mean
    that you could speed in the left lanes without being detected, which is
    good when the motorway is empty !
    
    I wonder if they are using infra-red film though ? That would mean you
    wouldn't see a flash, which would be good for road safety purposes.
    It would explain why some of the techniques for masking the
    registration would work, while the plate would still be perfectly clear
    for normal reading.
    
    Traffic monitoring cameras will be place much higher up - they have to
    take in quite a large field of view, over all lanes of the traffic. The
    boxes are also smaller, as they just contain a TV camera.
    
    Another technique for avoiding being caught is to follow a fast moving
    car closely. That way the lead car gets caught, but the camera doesn't
    have time to wind on and reset itself before you are past. About 40
    feet should do :-)
    
    Andrew

    re .185
    
    Agreed,  it may well dazzle the camera,  however the light gradient in
    daylight might make it very difficult for the slave flash unit to
    detect the original flash in a sea of daylight.  Or perhaps you know to
    the contrary,  I know very little about photography.
    
    As for infra-red,  it would make the most sense,  it is possible to get
    infra red CCTV tubes etc...,  and I am sure that I read somewhere the
    fact that the police are not going to use film etc..,  they are going
    to use OCR recognition of the plates,  and use the printouts to create
    the summons etc...,  this also means that they have no record of what
    sort of car it was etc,  and confusion could possibly occur with
    unclear plates.  The reason given for not taking 'real' piccies was
    cost and manpower to interpret,  I really do think that they expect to
    be nicking lotsa people! :-(
    
    The description of the cameras sounds good, I too don't think that the
    cameras on very high poles on junctions are anything to do with this. 
    The only ones that I have seen so far have been the Gatso red light
    cameras which are chunky and at about 10 foot up,  and the sensors
    mounted over the outside motorway lanes on bridges... Are these cameras
    or transceivers for some traffic info system that was publicised a
    while ago..???
    
    Does anybody know where these stealth plates can be purchased??
    
    _Richard

    
    OCR? Hee hee, I can just see that being 100% reliable, especially on
    these dubiously spaced number plates so popular in note 24. Also there
    seem to be a lot of strange shaped lettering appearing on number plates
    these days, which OCR may have trouble recognising. A nice shiny rear 
    plate may well be all that's needed! :^)
    
    Mark

    
    Yeh, I saw a plate the other day PEC BP, and it was not a 1 and 3 back
    to back, it was a B. Chances are it was PEC 13P but who knows?
    
    Garry

    RE: Lots about number plates.
    
    I saw a black Sierra on the M3 this morning with sort of oblique
    characters on its number plate, I couldn't read the numbers/letters as
    it went past me (at 90+mph). I eventually ended up behind it at the
    Winchester traffic lights and had the opportunity to sit an admire the
    rear plate for about two minutes - I still couldn't decode what its
    registration number was supposed to be! I think it ended in a 5, or
    there again, maybe it was an S, there was an 8, or on second thoughts
    perhaps its a B, is that screw cover obscuring the bottom of a B or is
    it an R...
    
    - John.

.186�                                                       and the sensors
.186�    mounted over the outside motorway lanes on bridges... Are these cameras
.186�    or transceivers for some traffic info system that was publicised a
.186�    while ago..???

   The little grey boxes out on an arm looking down are indeed the speed
sensors for the Traffic Master system. They're only interested if you're 
going less than 30mph!

The cameras use infra-red.  I would suspect that the IR output of an 
ordinary flash is negligible.

There is a camera on the M4 eastbound just at the start of the elevated 
section (50 mph limit there).

jb

If you really want to know what the camera looks like, and you work in 
Solent then here's how.

As you travel along the M27, part Eastleigh airport on your left, glance to 
your left immeidately before you pass under the bridge; look at the 
grey cube with sides of about 18" partially concealed by grass, about 24" 
above the ground.

And if you're doing over 79mph - smile.

M.

    
    
    Maybe we should start a new note giving the locations of all known
    speed cameras.
    
    
    POL
    

>>> Maybe we should start a new note giving the locations of all known
>>>    speed cameras.


I suspect that might be illegal....anybody know for sure ?

Ian

    For the Sake of not wanting to break the law.
    
    I would never jump the lights at the junction of Bury Street on the A10
    Great Cambridge Road , Enfield .
    
                      KR

.194�>>> Maybe we should start a new note giving the locations of all known
.194�>>>    speed cameras.
    
   I agree. FWIW, I haven't noticed any on the M25 between the M40 & J13
(Staines), which regularly has a traffic flow of 80mph+. Where would they
normally be located?

.194�I suspect that might be illegal....anybody know for sure ?

   I can't really see why.

� .194�I suspect that might be illegal....anybody know for sure ?
� 
�    I can't really see why.
    
    I guess on the warning people of speed traps type of offence. It is,
    for instance, illegal to flash oncoming cars to warn them of a hidden
    speed trap ahead, although I'm unsure of the exact offence.
    
    Maybe we should call it the 'How to get from x to y note'?
    
    It could go something like :-
    
    How to get from Junction 1 to Junction 2.
    
    o Enter at junction 1.
    
    o Go past the speed trap cameras (200 yards East)
    
    o Arrive at junction 2.
    
    Mark :^)

Found the perfect solution to poor visibility through rear screen blinds ...
... bought a Range Rover. Now I just look over the top of the cars infront.
Also it's LHD, so the RHD in a LHD country solution doesn't work any more ...

	On CB radio it can be seen as an offence to warn other drivers
of radar traps, but I believe that it is not an offence to inform other
drivers of locations where they can "watch the police in action" so that
they can see how their poll tax is being spent... But I think that
a comprehensive list of radar cameras on a notes conference, whilst
invaluable, would contravene the spirit of use of such a public
conference...But I would love to be proved wrong.

    [FX: Dons train-spotting anorak]
    
    Well, all I want is a few suggestions as to where I might see one!
    
    :-)

    
    Does anyone know if I can see one of these devices in action along the
    A4, Reading to Newbury ?

    Re a few back:
    
    Speaking from experience (in Switzerland at any rate) Flashing your
    lights at oncomming cars to warn of a radar is categorised as "improper
    use of the car's lighting installation" and is fine 90 Sfr. 
    
    Radio Lac, the local radio station warns people of rador locations
    thoughout the area, mentionning that they hope people will consider
    driving with more care and regard for other road users. Reminding
    Auditors that the local police do 20 "flying" speed controls a week...
    
    The local paper (La Tribune de Geneve) publishes the locations of all
    fixed speed traps and lights traps once a year.
    
    Paul 

    Re: .192
    
    Mark, I had a look at your "grey cube" on the M27 yesterday.
    
    What makes you think its  a camera ?
    
    Roy

Did you try looking back at it ? 

The side which will face the rear of your car has a square glass covering 
what appears to be a lens. 

Also, a couple of days ago, two motorbike cops were stood there looking at it 
and then watching traffic; I assume, therefore, that that is what is is.

    RE .198
    
    I've found a similar solution...I have a spitty and so I just look
    under all the leading cars !
    
    barry
    

    Notes (and our Committe d'enterprise - I believe) here in Valbonne 
    regularly warn users of radar traps approaching the site.
    
    Can't be illegal here. I would think that it would be an aid to keep
    traffic flowing smoothly and safely. I'm not sure that the fuzz are out
    there to just collect money.
    
    		George Frost
    

    
    Why do those of you who do want to know where these cameras are? Is it
    so you can jump lights and drive at stupid speeds and not get caught? 
    
    Come on... lives are at stake.
    
    Ian.
    
    

YES

Re: .207

Don't tell me you *NEVER* break the speed limit.

I don't want to know where the red light cameras are,  I don't play chicken at
junctions.

However I think that automated speed traps are the pits,  I bet you will complain
if you lose your license/job when going at 34mph in a 30mph limit!

We ALL break the speed limits at some time or another,  get real!

_Richard

Is it my imagination, or have the motorways been moving a little 
slower the last week or so (i.e. since the cameras came into use)?

..and how long do we think it will last ?   


Ian

    According to last weeks Auto Express or Autocar (can't remember which)
    it seems that only one area in London is currently using cameras to
    catch speeding motorists. There was a picture of where one was
    positioned, and it seemed to be in quite built-up area of London. That
    seems like a better place to be catching speeding motorists - in built
    up residential areas.
    
    As for the little grey box on the M27, there is and has been one
    exactly the same on the road between Twyford and the Hockley traffic
    lights on the A33 at Winchester. I've been trying to decide what it is
    for a good few months now.  My bet is that it's some kind of camera to
    monitor traffic flow/congestion. It definately isn't like the camera
    positioned in London to trap speeding motorists.
    
    Any guesses ?
    
    Andy

Re .191,

> There is a camera on the M4 eastbound just at the start of the elevated 
> section (50 mph limit there).

Are you sure that's a speeding camera?  The M4 elevated section has had
police video cameras on it for ages so they can respond to obstructions
quickly as there is no hard shoulder.  I was told this by a police officer.

Jon

    There are several traffic flow cameras on the elevated section of the
    M4, they are on gantries and the top of some of the buildings. The
    cameras are monitored at the police office at the Heston services. They
    used to be the outdoor type camera with the windscreen wiper on the
    front. Anything else is probably a speedie camera.
    
    	Garry

�    Why do those of you who do want to know where these cameras are? Is it
�    so you can jump lights and drive at stupid speeds and not get caught? 
    
    1. jump lights - no thank you
    
    2. drive at stupid speeds - not necessarily stupid, but against the
       rules (or laws) of this country, which can be classed as stupid.
    
    J.R.

re .210;

since there was a 16 car pile up in the rain last night on the M25 at 
Potter's Bar I'd say the effect didn't last very long!


Peter.

RE:     <<< Note 1805.215 by HEWIE::RUSSELL "HAL -> IBM; VMS -> Windows/NT" >>>

� re .210;
� 
� since there was a 16 car pile up in the rain last night on the M25 at 
� Potter's Bar I'd say the effect didn't last very long!
    
    That seems a classic case of not understanding the arguments against
    these cameras, and yet more evidence in favour of variable speed
    limits.
    
    To re-iterate... Ok, so the speed limit on a motorway is 70mph, and the
    law currently states than those who exceed this (and are caught) will
    be prosecuted, and has been altered to allow automated detection. This
    law is an ass. There are many occasions when it clearly madness to even
    try to drive at 70mph, adverse weather conditions is just one example;
    there are also times when it's perfectly safe to exceed the 70mph
    limit in safety, 3am on an empty road, for example.
    
    Laurie.

Re: .216

Well said that man!

    Interesting Laurie, is it not in France that the speed limit drops in
    the rain or fog ? - it seems sensible.
    
    Next time you are on a road driving along, ask yourself - can I stop
    this car in the space that I can see in front of me ?...
    
    Paul

Re: .216

Whats the use of saying these things here - write to your MP - in fact maybe
we should all write.

Tony.

    It's all very well arguing for variable speed limits, but it already is
    illegal to drive too fast for the conditions !
    
    Terry

    
    Re -1
    
    "Too fast for the conditions" is the classic reason for not having a
    70mph limit. Since January, I have driven approx 18k miles on
    continental autoroutes, 6k on British roads.
    
    There is a (theoretical) limit on many autoroutes, but one that is
    almost never obeyed or enforced -- at no risk to the vast majority of
    road users. Wide, clear, roads, good surfaces, normally light traffic.  
    
    Always a problem with those folk who have so little lane discipline or
    road sense that they should never be on the road in the first place
    .... Luckily, in France, themass that fit that description tend to
    wobble around the villages & are reasonably predictable!
    
    The fact is that when I'm gently heading between Calais & Valbonne
    again at a steady 110mph on cruise control on a clear road many folk come 
    ambling past at all sorts of speeds. Big deal. No risk to them, no risk to
    me ... but illegal.
    
    Let's lobby MP's to ensure that we can travel as fast as the conditions
    safely allow -- ie be enablers rather than restrictive. The spirit of
    the red flag lives on ..........
    
    Colin
    
    (BTW, the speed at which I can average from Calais to VBO with no risk
    is considerably greater than average lap speeds when I was racing for
    many years in the '60's. Not only that, also much safer 'cos of
    current road design (at least in France), & current motor car design.)
    
    
    
    

    .221 only addresses going faster than 70 mph ( when the conditions
    allow ).
    
    My point in .220 was in response to the earlier point that speed limits
    come down in France when conditions dictate. I don't think that there
    is a need for a law giving variable speed limits (reducing from 70 mph)
    when it already is illegal to drive too fast for the conditions.
    
    Terry

	Re .206
	>> Can't be illegal here. I would think that it would be an aid to keep
	>> traffic flowing smoothly and safely. I'm not sure that the fuzz are 
	>> out there to just collect money.

	The answer to that comes from my brother who happens to be a judge
	in M�con (France): there are two types of radar traps action, with 
	two very different objectives.
		@ The first kind of action consists in setting radars 
		  conspicuously in dangerous areas during "delicate" 
		  and long periods of times (e.g. summer holidays). Main 
		  objective is of course security on the road.

		@ Second method consists in setting invisible radars on 
		  portions of roads where there's no special danger (e.g.
		  long straight tracks with excellent visibility) but 
		  where almost ALL drivers exceed the speed limit (you 
		  know those long and wide avenues with no traffic lights,
		  no round-abouts, no cross-roads, and you automatically
		  drive some 15 mph over the speed limit like everybody
		  else). Order to position radars is given by the "Pr�fet
		  de Police" when he badly needs money (has spent all
		  the budget allowed by government, or wants to organize
		  a banquet for his 20 years in office). All this is 
		  perfectly legal, he doesn't need to justify his action.

	There, you see!

	BTW: my brother "took" France record for "driving over the speed limit:
	     three weeks ago, he was presented with a bloke who was caught
	     at  259 k/h (160 mph ==> 100 % over the speed limit) with a 
	     Porsche on the motorway. He is going to ban him for 2 years.
	     
	Cheers!!

		Pierre

    
    re .209
    
    I didn't say I never break speed limits, nor that I exceed them. I have
    met one person who has never exceeded a speed limit when I have been in
    his car - I don't rate his driving very highly. It's not that it is
    bad, just not, in my view, very good.
     
    Noone who drives at 34 mph in a 30 limit is going to be prossecuted -
    hope!
    
    Excessive speed is a cause or factor in many accidents. This is the
    view of the people who have to clear up the mess. Note that excessive
    does not mean faster than the speed limit. I agree with the view that
    almost any speed can be excessive depending on the conditions, and 
    everyone drove to Highway Code rules 49, 50, and 51 the roads would be 
    a safer place.
    
    Speed limits only exist to keep the DIFFERENCE in speed between road
    users to a reasonably safe level. This is the reason the 70MPH limit
    was introduced (early 1960's I think). Yes, there was a time when there
    was no limit on motorways.
    
    Too many people are pushing their luck, and mine. Some measure needs to
    be taken to combat it - hence the cameras and new law.
    
    BTW I read that only a proportion of these "boxes" will have a camera
    in them and the cameras will be moved from time to time. I also believe
    that driving too slowly can be just as dangerous as too fast. I comes
    down to the DIFFERENCE again.
    
    Seeing a 17 year old dead because the person driving decided that the
    law (as well as common sense) did not apply to him is very real....
    
    Ian.
    
    

August's edition of Fast Lane magazine contains a two page article on the
new speed cameras - it makes interesting reading. Sorry, but i don't have
time to summarise the words!

mb

Seen this morning on the M40 in Oxfordshire at approx 7:20am

Purple 205Gti, normal spec, 2 rear view mirrors,  driver travelling in 
lane 2 at 76mph (I know it's true because I have police calibrated speedo)
taking pictures using SLR of every car that passed him.

I have a problems with this :-

1)	Lane 2 at 76mph is provocative,  most people will pass you.

2)	Using handheld SLR is dangerous as then you only have one
	hand on the steering wheel.

I saw no radar system,  so I expect this will be a case of "In my opinion
he was going over 77mph etc..."  You can be nicked for that!

At this rate we will all need speed limiters or 2CV's

_Richard

BTW:  Not sure if he got me,  I did pass him and then slowed down
to let him pass and observed for 20 miles or so, be assured,  if I do get
a ticket in the post I will report the driver for careless driving,  it 
stinks of entrapment. Somebody has got to fight this sort of policing.....

So lets count the number of offences that the Purple 205 is committing ...

1 Exceeding the motorway speed limit
2 Not keeping to the left hand lane of the motorway
3 Dangerous driving (or whatever the new offence is called)
4 Conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace

... any more anyone?

    What was his number ?
    
    Jason.

    Does anyone know which frequency these new radar camaras use ? I see
    adverts in the appropriate magazines for radar detectors (illegal, of
    course) specifying the various radar frequencies that they operate at,
    and a friend of mine was wondering which one would be suitable...!
    
    I read that the police were planning to put cameras in one in eight of
    the boxes. An empty box is quite cheap but just as effective as a full
    one - very sneaky.
    
    Graeme 

re -.1 
Ka Band 34.300 GHz
Factory shop - SUPER CHEAP 
Dynatech
Five Liberty Way
Westford 
MA.
These people have a super variety of toy's including their "stealth" models
(no emissions).
I have a set of brochures from my last trip to Ma, that are sat in Newbury 
right now if anyone is REALLY interested.
Find someone going over, 'cos the price difference is amazing (and the 
U.S. is WAAAAAAAYYYYY out in front on technology)



Ownership and carriage is not illegal.
Use is (Though I have yet to see a successful proscution).

Jim Gay
Newbury

    That's very true what you say about the cost in America.
    My Uncle brought 6 back with him to give to his sons and flog the rest.
    2 band detectors were something like 55 dollars and 3 band a bit more.
    VERY cheap when you compare the cost of a 3 band over here - 229.95
    squid!
    
    Gary.

    Can someone explain why they use the different frequencies and which
    ones are used in the U.K
    
    
    Jason.
    

    I see a UK company (Magic Numbers I think) has just ceased production
    of "camera shy" reg' plates on "legal Advice!"
    
    I thought these might be our only hope of "driving to the appropriate
    road conditions"....ie maybe a bit over 70 at 3am on an empty motorway!
    
    Oh well....
    
    
    Nig.
    

Re: .227

Count 1 dismissed - exceeding the speed limit.  Vehicles being used for
police (or fire brigade or ambulance) purposes are not subject to speed 
limits.

jb

Re: .234

My understanding on emergency vehicles is that they are subject to speed limits 
if they are not responding to an emergency.

    re: emergency vehicles and speed limits
    
    I asked a traffic policeman about this and he smiled and assured me
    that they are not restricted to speed limits at all.
    
    I don't know about unmarked cars.
    
    Roy

    Saw a good way to beat the speed cameras.  Have one of those bike
    racks covering your rear number plate.  Illegal I know, but how often
    would they stop you and what's the fine anyway (probably not
    endorsable....) ?
    
    -Dave.
    

    .236� I asked a traffic policeman about this and he smiled and assured me
    .236�  that they are not restricted to speed limits at all.
    
      I think that as long as it's in the course of executing their
    duties, they're OK. There was a case a while back where a couple
    of high-ranking officers were caught speeding on the M4 on the way
    to a rugby match ...
    
    ...they got off by claiming that they were going to study crowd-control
    tactics!

    
    I think -1 is correct. Whilst you have the police policing the police
    then how many actually get a dab for whatever offence is questionable.
    However It used to be in London, that even if the vehicle was going to
    an emergency , if it had an accident and the driver of the could be 
    procecuted if it could be proved he/she was negligent. An accident 
    involving police car used to be a big deal, independant office to
    investigate the accident, no matter how trivial , and the driver
    suspended. If there was an offence committed , speeding or whatever,
    he could be done, if that became reality , well your guess is as good
    as mine.
    
    
    Garry

re -1

About 18 months ago, I was a witness to an accident involving an police car at
J 12 on M4. The police car was rushing (i.e. doing a ton) west on M4 and left
at J 12 to go eastbound. At the roundabout, the police car - still travelling at
speed - hit a metro already on the roundabout leaving to go down the A4 
towards Theale. Fortunately, nobody was hurt.

When Sgt Plod came to take my statement, I asked what measures where likely to
be taken against A police officer involved in an accident. He said that a
police driver would only be procecuted (by the police) if a member of the
general public would be prosecuted for dangeroeus driving in the same 
circumstances. As I heard no more, I assume that the matter was sorted out.

FYI, the weather was damp and the road surface very slippery. 

	Dave

re .239;

there was also the case a couple of years ago, of some Police officers
travelling to Heathrow, who got stuck in a traffic jam on the M25 in an 
unmarked police car, who decided to use the hard shoulder to make sure they 
caught their plane to some conference or other.

The driver was found guilty.

Peter.

	Police officers do get have to face an enquiry when they
	have accidents.  My sister in law (in the Mets) managed to
	write-off 4 cars when chasing an offender (he lost it down
	a narrow road with parked cars either side, she rammed him).
	She was suspended from driving and was subject to an 
	enquiry.  They're also in trouble for driving accidents whilst
	not on duty...

	Dave

    Talking of illegal numberplates (which we were, in here and also
    regarding illegal spacing, and latest illegal reversion to the pre-seveties
    white-on-black style on post-sixties cars)......
    
    My friendly office of the law says that as from Jan 1, all numberplate
    manufacturers will require a license, and that the license id must be
    displayed on the plate.
    
    Illegal plates will result not only in the prosection of the vehicle
    owner(driver?) but the manufacturer will lose their license to make
    plates.
    
    My question was, but what about illegaly maunfactured plates, how will
    you stop those. his reply was, over time they will be eliminated.
    Presumably the previously mentioned MOT item will contribute.....
    
    JK

    I would;
    
    Get loads of police in un-marked cars, 
    
    send them along to accident blackspots, 
    
    and prosecute dangerous drivers.
    
    --
    
    If a stretch of road has a zero or very low accident rate, who cares
    how people are driving? 

On police vehicles and speed limits.

The vehicle doesn't have to be owned or driven by a police officer to be
exempt from speed limits.  If a police officer were to stop you and ask
you (and you agree) to take him somewhere you would be exempt from speed
limits while you took them there as your vehicle would be being used "for
police purposes" as defined by the Road Traffic Act. 

jb

However, whilst the officer (you, your car, etc) are exempt from speeding 
limits whilst on this poilce business, he (you, etc) are not immune from 
charges such as careless/dangerous/reckless driving. You can be (and will be 
if you are involved in an accident) charged and prosecuted for these offences 
whatever the reason for your speeding.

M.

Re .-1

Perhaps you might be exempt from the speed limits,  however I am sure
the same rules that apply to fire engines etc.. would be in force.

ie.  It's ok if you don't have an accident,  if you are unlucky
enough to have an accident whilst "On Police Business" then you are
nicked :-(

_Richard

So let me get this straight, Your friendly bobby gets off his bike,
and into his car, and says "Follow those crooks".

You break the speed limit in doing so, and drive carelessly (because
you have broken the speed limit). He apprehends the criminals, and then
apprehends you!

Doesn't sound fair to me.

Apart from that I quite like the sound of it. Didn't Michael Foot get
a 120mph police escort on the M4 on election night a few elections ago??

I would love to have that!

Mark.

I've been thinking about these camera thingys.


What happens if....




Say you've got 3 cars across the carriageway as they go under a bridge where a 
camera is mounted.

One doing <=70 mph
One doing 79  mph
One doing 100  mph

It gets triggered by the car doing 100, takes a picture...

How can a single camera figure that one out ?   Do they all get prosecuted for 
doing 100 mph ?



As far as I can make out, the above scenario is not impossible...

    Are the cameras focused on one lane only perhaps?
    
    Probably the outside lane if this is the case.... but then you never
    know.
    
    Gary.

    
    I believe the cameras are only focused on one lane - the pictures I've
    seen are fairly tight around the back of the car with little else
    showing. No idea which lane though. Maybe the camera has the ability
    to zoom in on the moving object? Then it wouldn't matter which lane the 
    offender was in.
    
    The other thing that really pi$$es me off about this camera lark is
    that it's only going to catch cars... it will only snap lorries if
    they are breaking the car speed limit... and it'll do well to find
    the number plate on a motorbike....
    
    If they are going to use character recognition on the pictures, I
    wonder if it will be able to detect number the 'square' style of
    number plate like you see on the back of lorries with the three letters
    below the three numbers.
    
    Richard.

Re: .251

>    The other thing that really pi$$es me off about this camera lark is
>    that it's only going to catch cars... it will only snap lorries if
>    they are breaking the car speed limit... and it'll do well to find
>    the number plate on a motorbike....
    
That is incorrect.  They are mostly able to detect whether a vehicle is
over a certain height and trigger at a speed related to the HGV speed limit
if the vehicle is more than about 2 metres high. 

>    If they are going to use character recognition on the pictures, I
>    wonder if it will be able to detect number the 'square' style of
>    number plate like you see on the back of lorries with the three letters
>    below the three numbers.
    
From what I have read the pictures will be processed manually.  If however 
an automatic system were to be used it would be relatively easy to process 
any style of number plate once it had been located in the picture.


Re: some other

These devices use a very narrow (much narrower than in other systems) radar
beam that crosses the road at about 45 degrees facing forward from the
camera.  This is fairly well able to discriminate to a single lane provided
the traffic is not very dense.  In addition they have the advantage that 
they are harder to detect with a radar detector. 

The technical boys are working on systems based on laser beams that are for 
all practical purposes impossible to detect.  These are already in service 
in North America for manned units.  Only a matter of time before they begin 
to inhabit automatic detector/camera units.

If there's more than one vehicle in the picture and it isn't very obvious
which of one or more vehicles is the offender the picture won't be used. 


jb

Re: 252

B*ll*cks,

	since when have speed cameras has height detection apparatus installed?
or more correctly vehicle WEIGHT apparatus installed. The HGV limit is based on
weight and not height!!!!

They are simple units, with a radar scanning one, two or three lanes - which
implies that the previous argument is valid. Read August's car magazines (Fast
Lane i think) for more details.

I too object to the blatant emphasis on CARS and not HGVs, coaches, motor-
cycles, electrically powered vehicles etc.

mb

    I don't recall where I read it but I've also heard of these having a
    lower speed setting if the vehicle is over a certain height. As a
    general measure I don't see why they should't use the height as the 
    photos will be looked at later...
    
    BTW, most of the GATSO's that I know of are either on the North
    Circular or the 1st 3 junctions on the M4.

What happens if I borrow some one elses car? Presumably they get the fine, and if
it takes a month for the notice to come through what are they chances that they
can honestly remember who borrowed the car.

Gordon

    The answer to .255 is that the owner of the car is responsible for 
    the persons he lets borrow it.  
    
    --Dale

    In the May/June issue of "IMAGE PROCESSING" magazine there is an
    article on how cameras/imaging are employed to help monitor speeding
    and general traffic flow.
    
    I have not read the article in full and so I have no idea of the exact
    detail of how these cameras work.
    
    There is photograph taken from one of the cameras that reads number
    plates... it shows the rear end of a Sierra (in a car-park) and 'camera
    thingy' has written the number plate of the car in the corner of the
    photo to illustrate that the plate has been read (and understood).
    
    A second photo is taken by a 'traffic flow' monitoring camera. This
    picure shows the rear view of all three lanes of moving traffic on a
    motorway somewhere. Superimposed on this picture is some lettering
    giving 3 separate statistics for each of the three lanes... The first
    piece of information indicates how full the relevant lane is
    (percentage wise of traffic); the number of vehicles per minute
    travelling in each lane is also shown; the third and final statistic
    shown is the average speed of the traffic travelling in each lane. (And
    yes, the statistics were different for each lane... I emphasize again
    that all three lanes were being monitored by one camera.)
    
    My point is this... is that someone/some machine monitoring the three 
    lane view could surely focus a camera capable of reading number plates 
    on (one of) the lanes with the traffic whose average speed is above the
    legal limit?
    
    The second reference point taht I have is this month's CAR magazine
    which in its news section states taht the only stretch of mortorway
    with speed cameras in operation is the raised section of the M4 into
    London... although plans are afoot tom cover the whole network
    eventually. The article also states that not all cameras are loaded
    with film and that police were only prosecuting those people well over
    the legal limit... ie 60mph in a 40mph stretch; someone doing less than
    50mph would be let through the net.

Re: .257
>    yes, the statistics were different for each lane... I emphasize again
>    that all three lanes were being monitored by one camera.)

I always thought that the SPEED was determined by RADAR, and the camera just
took the picture. If the CAMERA is capable of calculating speed (which i doubt
very much) then so much for all the radar detectors!!!

I am guessing that the "traffic flow" cameras are connected to the monitors
that hang from motorway bridges (one over each lane), and superimpose the
speed calculated by the assocoiated monitor.

mb

    Re: .253
    
    What a considerate and tolerant response to someone trying to supply
    information.
    
    JK

But i am always tolerant ;-)

Seriously though, current technology is VERY simple, otherwise it would be very
difficult to use in a court of law. If you _really_ believe that these cameras
can detect the height (weight, drivers age, radio station being listed to!)
then buy a sky-crane.

mb

    I heard from a friend at the weekend that there is still a company
    makeing *stealth* numberplates, he quoted about �80. He is going to try
    and find the address for me. Anyone know if they do actually work ? and
    is there any reason they couldn't be made in the old style black and
    silver plates ?
    
    Jason.

    
    MN had an ad for these last week. Price was �69.99 (Inclusive, I
    think).
    
    They claimed to be indistinguishable from normal plates, but I don't
    recall if they said if silver/white on black were available.
    
    Mark

So,  go and get the mag and post a note with the number for credit card orders!

_Richard (Who would paint his car with matt black radar reflective paint if
          it would stop those bl**dy cameras!)

Has anybody considered ECM for these cameras...?

It used to be possible to purchase radar jammers in the states,  you got the
complete kit except for the Gunn oscillator,  which you could buy from Tandy etc...

It must be possible to swamp Ka band (34.2 - 35.2 GHz) with lots of RF,  that 
would surely confuse these pernicious devices.

Any designs out there?

_Richard

    
    Re .263
    
    Well sadly I work in Newbury and live in Fleet (sadly to the first
    rather than the second! :^)). If you can wait until tomorrow and my 
    memory works I'll post it then.
    
    Mark

Although these "stealth" plates are currently legal, from next January they
are NOT!

The company that makes them has been "advised" by the Police to cease production,
even though it isn't yet illegal.

From next year, all number plates MUST be made by LICENCED companies, and will
be stamped with that companies licence number (or something). If any plate is
made that is illegal (stealth, incorrect spacing or lettering etc) then that
company loses its licence, thus loses its ability to produce plates.

The only thing left is to buy a Lotus Elan, with the perspex cover intact!!!!

Your tolerant chum,

mb

Martin,

Just because it will be against the law doesn't mean that I and numerous other
people won't be doing our best to cheat these cameras!

It would be like saying,  "Oh well,  better buy a 2CV,  that way I cannot break the
motorway speed limit."  How defeatist can you get?

Long live the upcoming technology war against the Police ;-)
Long live no catalytic converters,  extra leaded petrol and large engines.....
I guess that there is no hope for me...?

Your intolerant chum!

_Richard "No surrender, No compromise!"

    Thats the sad thing.....even 2CV's could break the speed limits....well
    at a push anyway !!
    
    I think about the only thing that cant is a Sinclair special or me on
    me peddle cycle (and thats a close thing !!)
    
    Barry
    

    and in due course (as has bee nsaid before) vehicles with registration
    plates produced by non-licensed plate makers will fail their MOTs.
    
    Now of course, it will be possible to have two sets of plates and swap
    them over ..........
    
    A thought occurs....... For those with vanity plates, what's to stop
    them displaying two sets of plates. One with legal spacing, and a
    second with the mishapen characters, etc.?
    
    (Doesn't solve the stealth problem though!)
    
    JK
    
    p.s. Back to silver on black plates. Can anyone state what year it
    became illegal to use non-reflective plates on a new car?

    
    Does anyone know of a company that makes METAL British plates? Seems
    like some Belgian has been bumper parking on my car again, and the
    first thing that gets it is the number plate. A metal one would take
    the biffs a lot better.

RE:    <<< Note 1805.269 by VOGON::KAPPLER "Dover, Rising more slowly, Good" >>>
    
�    p.s. Back to silver on black plates. Can anyone state what year it
�    became illegal to use non-reflective plates on a new car?
    
    I *think* it was 1973.
    
    Laurie.

    I don't know which year it is but the last letter you can have with
    black plates -legally- is L'reg.
    
    Jason.

    
    Photo Flash reflective number plates.
    
    �69.95 inc VAT & P&P
    
    Dispatched 48 hours from order.
    
    TEL (0707) 665565
    FAX (0707) 49925
    
    These plates appear normal in every respect.
    
    THIS IS THE AD AS  IT APPEARED IN LAST WEEK'S MN.
    
    Mark

RE .273
    
    >Photo Flash reflective number plates.
    >�69.95 inc VAT & P&P
    >These plates appear normal in every respect.

    Well is anyone intending to invest �70 and roadtest these plates?

    Anyone got ideas on how to prove/disprove the manufacturers claims?
    
    I have visions of Lord Litchfield or David Balley emulating a GATSO.

    Dave (Who is slightly sceptical)

    
    1973 on the L' Plate is the final year of the Black and silver plates
    although most police forces do not enforce it very often.
    
    				Alan.
    

Re: .275

So does this mean that i can buy a personalised plate with an "L" on the end,
and have it made in black and white?????

�So does this mean that i can buy a personalised plate with an "L" on the end,
�and have it made in black and white?????
    
    No, you aren't allowed -
    	and it will be more obvious if you drive a 'modern' car !
    
    J.R.

    
�                       -< So what's the point anyway ? >-
    
    Good question. Why would anyone want to put old style plates on a new
    car?
    
    Admitedly I'd rather keep black and white/silver plates on the Marcos,
    but that's 23 years old and the plates are in keeping with the car. 
    
    Mark

Reading our local "freebie" paper, it appears that there is even more to the
new Road Traffic Act.

Copied without permission from the Sutton Coldfield Observer:

"Trouble could be in store

Turning a blind eye to road signs in supermarket car parks could land innocent
motorists in legal troubles.

Recent changes to the Road Traffic Act states that drivers can now be
prosecuted for driving carelessly, dangerously or without due care and
attention in any of Britain's 4.500 out-of-town shopping centres and super-
store car parks.

This means that motorists must obey the one way and the entry signs, as well
as speed limits - even if they are not on a recognised public road.

They can also be arrested for drink-driving.

Convictions for dangerous driving now carries a large fine and automatic
ban for at least 12 months, plus an extended L-test before the licence
is returned.

The law change applies to private roads, waste land and car parks as well as
public highways."


I personally believe that we should always be trying to improve road safety,
but things like the above worry me for two reasons.

1)

How exactly do you define a "one way" or "speed limit" within a car park
(or any other area covered by the Road Traffic Act). On the public highway
road signs must meet exact specifications to be legal, but most car parks
just have white arrows painted on the ground (what if it snows?). Sounds
like another "illegal wheel-clamper" opportunity coming up.

2)

If these laws are intended to improve safety, then WHY ARE THEY NOT WIDELY
PUBLICISED, SO THAT DRIVERS HAVE SOME IDEA WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO, AND
THUS ADAPT THEIR DRIVING STYLE ACCORDINGLY?


mb

    While not the new Traffic Act, the new Criminal Justice Bill becomes
    law on October 1st.  A number of offences (certainly motoring) will
    carry fixed units.  To assess your fine, the number of fixed units plus
    your monthly disposable income will be two variables in an equation.  I
    believe you hit the maximum fine if your income is approx. �18,000.
    Someone earning above this figure could find themselves forking out
    �2,500 for the joy of travelling at 90mph on the M4.  For a young
    unemployed person driving uninsured, with minimal disposable income, 
    committing the offence will work out cheaper than taking our insurance.
    
    -Dave.
    

    Note that it is from *today* that these new laws come into effect.
    
    
    Also, parents may now be fined for offences committed by their offspring.
    
    Does this mean that parents of a joyrider may get a photo of their
    child showing just how fast they were going, plus the cost of the fine
    which they then have to pay ?  (not that I'd disagree with that case)
    
    J.R.

    Disposable income?
    
    Does that mean things like your mortgage etc are taken into account
    first?
    
    Also, say on a long run (eg from Scotland) you are "snapped" several
    times in one journey - will you be done for every time?
    
    
    Xtine

    I think the question of multiple snaps was talked about some time ago.
    
    On the question of disposable income, anyone know who and how they work 
    that one out? On the face of it it sound a good deal for the less
    fortunate but I can see that it is open to abuse, I can see it now,
    
    "Oh! Company director aye, you must have bags of spare money, �2500 for
    for you!!!
    
    I they intend to do it properly and work out fairly what each
    individual can afford to pay, it will cost more than the fine to do it
    , Brilliant idea. I be it is more like if you earn x, have a morgate of
    x, x number of children you pay x, or single chap no kids, you pay xx.
    
     

    The whole thing stinks.
    
    I can see Joe Unemployed working out that risking the minimal chance of
    getting caught, with a 15 quid fine, is cheaper than insuring his car.
    Mr. Middle-Class however, will get fried for the same offence.
    
    Laurie.

    
    I was on the M25 yesterday morning listening to Capitol Radios
    flying eye Russ Kane in his silly little plane. He comes across
    alot of useful information down to his contacts with the police
    et cetera.
    
    One Gem of a snippet was that on one stretch of road in the Kingston
    area (either the bypass or the A3) there were 22,000 speeding offences.
    All of these offences took place within one month. There will soon be
    enough revenue from this method of trapping offenders to buy Gatsos
    for the whole country.
    
    JN.

	...but apparently, the police are not going to prosecute until
October the 15th...

Re: .285

>   area (either the bypass or the A3) there were 22,000 speeding offences.

... it was Twickenham bridge, and it was a two week period (i think), for
that number of speeders (over 60mph in a 40 zone).

    
    Just imagine the admin behind all of this when the Law start
    prosecuting. 22,000 on one stretch of road is amazing. Multiply
    that by God knows how many and that equals an awful lot of brown
    envelopes. It will take months to chase up the non payers.
    
    JN.

    That one on twickenham bridge was taken down, that if it is the one that
    was there some time ago. Nevertheless at times of the day when the
    traffic was not at a standstill the average speed must have been about
    50. If anyone can clarify its location, the one I'm thinking of was
    actually on twickenham bridge on the A316 and it was monitoring traffic 
    going west bound. There are serveral 40 mph signs along that stretch of
    road.
    
    Garry

    Is that really one of these cameras on the bit of three lane road
    leading from the M4 to Heathrow? It's in the central reservation.
    
    Nigel

    >> Is that really one of these cameras on the bit of three lane road
    >> leading from the M4 to Heathrow? It's in the central reservation.
    
    Yes, apparently it is. I'm also informed of the existance of another
    one between J11 and J12 on the M4.
    
    Steve
    

    < Yes, apparently it is. I'm also informed of the existance of another
    < one between J11 and J12 on the M4.
    
    Is that the rusty old box in the central reservation on the east side
    of the bridge ?  That's been there for years......
    
    I've seen Gatsco cameras at the start of the elevated section of the
    M4 going into London (on the nearside), on the A40 in the 40mph zone 
    near the Hoover building and again on the A40 where the M40 ends
    and the 50mph limit starts (travelling into London).
    
    The papers were reporting the trial use of the speed trap cameras
    over a London bridge.  I believe they clocked something like 22,000
    folk speeding in a 40mph limit, over a 4 day period.  I understand
    prosecutions will start from the 15th of this month.
    
    -Dave.
    
    
                                                                      

I hear that the rusty box was a test by TRRL of the concept of speed cameras...

It has been decommisioned for years,  I hope?

_Richard

    I can't comment on the age/serviceability/condition of that box,
    Richard.
    
    My information (admittedly third-hand, but coming from a source I
    normally regard as extremely reliable, and originating from a "boy in
    blue") was simply that a speed trap camera had been installed between
    J11 and J12 of the M4 and would start to be used during this month
    (i.e. October).
    
    Steve
    

Steve,

I would not be surprised if they install a new camera on that stretch of motorway,
it would certainly yield a lot of revenue in fines!

The box I refer to is the very old white'ish Orbis box that is just by one of the 
bridges.  It used induction loops in the motorway to sense speed and then take 
pictures of naughty people ;-)

The new Gatso technology boxes are always? grey and sited up on a pole about 10 
feet high?

_Richard

>> The new Gatso technology boxes are always? grey and sited up on a pole about
>> 10 feet high?


 There is one of these cameras opposite the dissused gravel pit that is now used
for jet skiing.

	Barrie.

According to the Sunday papers, a camera set up on some road or other leading
into London was activated without any film to determine approximately how
many drivers would be nicked.

The film can take 400 photos without a reload, and the police reckoned that
it would be enough to last a WEEK. During trials outside rush hour (when you
just _can't_ speed) it clocked 400 drivers in ONE HOUR!!!!!

mb

p.s.

I have heard that there is an improved GATSO, capable of nicking drivers
for up to a month between film reloads. Unfortunately it is the size of
a detached house, and doesn't fit on top of existing poles :-)

    There are two on the elevated section of the M4 going into town
    ("Chiswick Flyover"), which is a 50-limit, and one on the Great West
    Road between the Hogarth Roundabout and the Hammersmith Flyover (also
    inbound). 
    
    There's also a Gatso red-light-jumper camera on the junction with
    Sutton Court Road (lights before you get to the Hogarth Roundabout).
    
    D.

    I've just spent 3.5 months in Australia where red light cameras and
    speed radar/sensor cameras are the norm.
    
    It is amazing how everyone maintains the speed limit.  Why?  Because
    the fines for exceeding the speed limit are punative.  Approx GBP 65.00
    and penalty points per infringement, and the first thing you know about
    it is the letter in the mailbox.
    
    What makes it all so ludicrous is that in Victoria, the state speed
    limits (as elsewhere in Australia) bear no reality to road conditions,
    etc.  60 kph in a built-up area is fine, but on 4/6 lane roads is
    ridiculous and everyone bumbles along at just about 59 kph!  Out on the
    freeways, the limit is 100 kph.  The freeways are rather like our dual
    carriageways with, generally, two lanes in either direction.  The
    difference is the density of traffic (very low), the distances involved
    (huge), and road conditions generally (straight, good visibility and
    surfacing).
    
    It is a well-known fact down under that speeding fines and red light
    fines are the major funding of the police authorities - indeed they 
    rather depend upon it for their income!
    
      

> It is amazing how everyone maintains the speed limit. 
              
How does the above reconcile with;

> It is a well-known fact down under that speeding fines and red light
> fines are the major funding of the police authorities - indeed they 
> rather depend upon it for their income!

?

Dave.  
  

    Well, if you're going to nitpick (!), it was a generalisation of
    course!

    I've just received a ticket (for $96 US) for doing about 60 on the New
    York Thru'way. This road is over 550 miles long, 3 lanes each way
    (mostly) and has a rigidly-enforced 55mph limit. 
    
    When I was stopped, I had just seen, slowed down for and passed one
    trap. Assumed that was it - wrong! There were three more traps in the
    next 5 miles (they got me because I was the SLOWEST car in the bunch!)
    
    Dave.
    
    (PS - the name of the town was Brutus, NY :-))

    After these camera's being featured on last nights Top Gear, where they
    showed the M4 one (without referring to where it was) I was able to
    identify it as it was behind a bridge centre pillar and low down, just
    taller than the crash barrier.
    
    If you leave DECpark, join the M4 westbound, it's THIS side of the
    further (or second) bridge facing East, looks quite old. 
    
    The way cars tail-hog on that stretch, they haven't got a hope of
    catching a clear shot of the back of you!
    
    Richard

So who saw Top Gear last night?

The article on speed detection was interesting (something that CANNOT be
said of the presenter).

Did anyone notice that on the Police video, during the "capture" of the
MR2 (it wasn't me, honest) the Police car was INITIALLY travelling at
82mph in the lefthand lane. This was before the MR2 passed, so they were
speeding themselves!!!!

Also, how did that VASCAR determine the speed of the MR2 (133mph), because
it was so far ahead that any attempt to time it over a fixed distance
would have been incredibly inaccurate?

It was also interesting to hear about the HGV that was nicked doing
77.12mph, but in court the tacho said the vehicle has travelled at a
maximum of 66mph, and the engine itself was restricted to 60mph - case
dismissed. It was then pointed out that the COST of this failed (fiddled)
prosecution comes out of the public coffers. If they catch you - YOU PAY,
and if you get away with it in court - YOU PAY!!!

mb

    Re Top Gear and Police Cameras
    
    Surprised me that the Top Gear opinion was that these cameras
    are the 'wrong' thing to do.  They did mention (as has been stated
    in this Notesfile) that their use in Australia appears to be
    mainly for the revenue that they bring in.
    
    J.R.

RE: <<< Note 1805.305 by BRUMMY::MARTIN::BELL "Martin Bell, TCC, Birmingham UK" >>>
� Also, how did that VASCAR determine the speed of the MR2 (133mph), because
� it was so far ahead that any attempt to time it over a fixed distance
� would have been incredibly inaccurate?
    
    Well, speaking as someone who was 'done' for doing 103mph in a Manta
    GT/J (pretty well flat out), when I *know* I was only doing 80-85, I
    wasn't in the least bit surprised by that.
    
    I tried, but there is absolutely no defence (aside from a tachograph,
    it seems) against a VASCAR reading, the magistrates refuse to consider
    the fact that the fuzz might be lying. Given that the potential for human
    error or fiddling is infinite, I find this disgraceful. At least these
    cameras won't allow bent coppers to "fit one up".
    
    Laurie.

    I also found this interesting on Top Gear last night but was wondering
    if they had been reading this notesfile as a lot of the facts had
    already been discussed by you guys.
    
    Roy
    

How about top gears tip for not getting nicked.

Make sure you share the driving with someone and then you have to not remember who was 
driving at the time of the incident :^)

Greg

VASCAR is inherently more inaccurate as the speed increases.  It relies on
the operator pressing buttons at exactly the correct moment and if they
press a moment too soon (or late) the speed reading will be different than
it should be. 

Systems that use radar, lasers and buried wires (as featured last night) 
are much more accurate.

jb

A sort of side issue,

This months Performance Bikes has an article on the number plates that
are speed camera proof. They took a picture of a normal number plate
and one of the special plates, and suprise,suprise both photos are
identical. 

Matt.

Judging by the Top Gear feature last night, does it mean that if someone digs up a 
motorway near you and put's some buried wires across, it means that there may be a 
camerea around?

Cheers,

Greg

    RE: .310
    
    When I was at BT in Ipswich, I was working with a magistrate who was
    also on our team. These people are trained, by the police, in order
    that they can  understand policing methods, presumably so they are more
    disposed to believe them in court. Anyway, this person refused to
    believe that there was any room for error in VASCAR. He claimed to know
    how it worked, and admitted that it relied upon the skill and integrity
    of the operator, neither of which, in his view, could be in question.
    Even when shown mathematically, how a split second here and there on
    the timing could make the difference between a fine and a ban, he
    refused to believe such a thing could happen.
    
    Is it any wonder?...
    
    Laurie.

Re: .311

As the Top Gear feature said - the police say they don't work, the AA says
that they don't work and anyway, they are illegal.

jb

Re: .313

It is amazing how people that we are _supposed_ to respect (Police officers,
magistrates etc) can be brain-washed so easily. No wonder nobody has their
case dismissed due to simple mathematics and common sense.

When i has the misfortune to have a conversation with an officer of the
law on the hard-shoulder, he explained to me how the method that my speed
was detected was accurate to TEN INCHES IN A MILE. Now firstly i always
thought that speed was "distance divided by time", so how can you state
that the error includes only the distance component. Also, the actual marks
on the road were around ten inches wide, and i was timed over only one
tenth of a mile, so even assuming that the button was pressed while i was
crossing the line, it could be TWO HUNDRED INCHES out over a mile.

Still, i never understood maths, especially the equation:

    Real Speed + Police Fiddle Factor = �80!


mb

    
    On TV recently, I think it was South Today the regional news programme,
    officers from the Hampshire constabulary were complaining about middle
    lane cruisers. Excellent, crack down on 'em, I say.
    
    However, this morning I saw a Hampshire Police BMW cruising in the
    OUTSIDE lane! Some example, eh?
    
    Mark

.316>officers from the Hampshire constabulary were complaining about middle
.316>lane cruisers. 
    
.316>However, this morning I saw a Hampshire Police BMW cruising in the
.316>OUTSIDE lane!
    
    I suppose you got right up behind it and flashed your lights ?
    
    Terry
    
    

    Call me naive if you like but I find it disturbing that there is an
    undercurrent to this topic which asserts that policemen are
    corrupt/bent/thick.... I believe that some policemen will exhibit these
    traits but I also believe that the majority are not trying to trap
    drivers unfairly. Policemen were given VASCAR, and training in its use,
    it is an imprecise speed detection method but that is not the fault of
    the average policeman.
    I'm sure speeds have dropped since the threats of cameras appeared.
    
    Andrew

    
    re:-1
    
    	I beg to differ about the camera or the threat of making a
    difference. Yesterday I returned home along a new road, The infamous
    crooked billet roundabout in walthamstow. I don't think there are any
    camera around, but the speed limit is 30, under the circumstances
    stupid as this is a 3 lane due carriageway. But nevertheless the
    average speed must have been 70, people flashed past me and I was doing
    about 50. Even on the A13 which in parts in derestricted, the average
    speed would have been over 70. 
    
    I think its fair to say that if you put a normal jam sandwich on a
    motorway, the traffic will slow so long as the vehicle is in sigh. Put
    a grey box on a pole and people will slow down . Until someone says "
    hey! did you know there's a camera on such and such a road" it will make
    no difference. As someone has already said it is by far too expensive
    to put that number of cameras up. The only way that they can hope to
    curb speeding is 1. provide public transport that will get people from
    a to b quickly and is reliable and cheap, or 2. hope people slow down.
    
    At the moment , forgetting the fact that some roads could handle
    traffic at higher speeds, far too many people do not observe the speed
    limits and there are far too many roads to patrol to make any real
    big impact. Maybe with this new ruling that the fine is related to
    disposable income, enough people will get hit hard enough for the
    message to get through.
    
    Garry 

Re: .318

As far as dishonest policemen go, we can only go by personal experience.


Up until a couple of weeks ago, I'd been stopped twice.  First time (speed cop)
fairly and honestly.    The second (town cop), he lied through his teeth. 

That's 50% dishonest cops....

The third time (speed cop), was honest and fair, so it's now down to 33.3%
dishonest cops.... 


My general impression, is that the genuine speed cops are well trained and
fair, and generally not out to do anything for a conviction; the town cops are
insufficiently trained and not 100% honest as they should be, and they get away
with it...that's what my statistics say... 


The police are human...they have bad days like the rest of us.  Unfortunately 
the public suffers for theirs.

    I can quote 50%,    12 years ago , single road patrol, was speeding,
    			4  years ago , two road patrol policemen, lying
    (fortunately in the second instance the magistrates beleived me rather
    than the pack of lies the two officers gave)
    
    Brian

A bunch of 4 plain clothes  tryed to nail my pa for dangerous driving
cos he got in their way while they were trailing someone. They were caught
out cos their evidence didnt tie up with the location.  But it took a court case
to prove it and throw the charges out.


I ran in to the back of a policemans own car ( real wreck of a mini van )
 at the scene of a pedestrian  accident. 
I was told at the time I was not being prosecuted and I was not 
cautioned before making a statement. "as it was his own stupid fault
 for stopping in such a dangerous place"

 Later I get done for "without due care". then the Policeman then comes round and
trys to get my parents to cough up cash for his car. Luckily my mother knew some
one in the "force" and this someones response was 
" pay nothing, he  will be dealt with "

	Perjury, misuse of police information and extortion.

About 13 years ago, travellingfrom Carlisle to Newcastle, I was stopped
by two plods for speeding - which I wasn't.

They disagreed on the colour of the car; the speed I was doing; the weather
conditions; where they stopped me. I was found guilty, fined, but not
banned (This one would have put me over the points limit.)

So, 25% in my case...

Peter.

	I must have lead a charmed life, because I have only once
	been stopped by the police.  It was when I was on a motorbike
	coming onto the A1 via a long slip road (it ran parrallel for
	a long way).  Anyhow, I banked onto the slip road and opened
	up the throttle.  I hit the A1 going pretty fast and was almost
	immediately flagged down by a policeman on a bike.  He was 
	very nice and gave me a warning, which I deserved.  I actually
	saw him several times after that and took to waving cheerfully
	at him...

	Dave

    Does anybody know what the 5 cameras between J19 and J20 of the M6 are ?
    They don't look like the cameras shown on 'Top Gear' and there are no
    camera signs before you reach them, but they are at 300-400 metre
    intervals, and facing at a fairly acute downwards angle aimed at the
    rear of passing cars.
    
    They seem a bit unusual if they are traffic flow cameras as their view
    is very limited, but I thought that a sign HAD to be displayed before
    any speedint/traffic light cameras. Any ideas ?
    
    Shaun.

... are these "posts" about 3 feet high, and with a triangular cross-section
and with a small rectangular window in them?

If so then i doubt that they are speed cameras, but i don't know what they
really are (perhaps fog detectors).

mb

    Sounds similar to some cameras that suddenly appeared at regular
    intervals on the stretch of the M3 between the Woking and M25
    turn-offs.
    
    A few weeks later major road repairs began on the same stretch and it
    turned out the camera were indeed set up to monitor traffic flow. Some
    of this stretch of the M3 has now been fully repaired and as soon as
    the traffic cones were removed, the cameras were removed too.
    
    The short answer is... watch out there may be some major roadworks
    about to take place on your bit of the M6.
    
    Reargards,
    
    Stephen

    
    The GATSO cameras shown on Top Gear were triggered by vehicles crossing
    wires laid in the road. This means...
    
    HGVs will escape unless they are breaking the "CAR" speed limits 
    
    Caravans will similarly escape
    
    Car drivers will suffer as always.
    
    
    I also note that as of this week speeding fines are based on ones
    ability to pay. Funny how this principle doesn't seem to work when 
    it comes to the wealthy perpetrators of major frauds.
    

�    I also note that as of this week speeding fines are based on ones
�    ability to pay. Funny how this principle doesn't seem to work when 
�    it comes to the wealthy perpetrators of major frauds.
    
    It does now.  The law is not just for speeding fines, it is on the
    Criminal Prosecution Act which will applied to all cases.
    
    Shaun.
    

Re: .328

>>    Car drivers will suffer as always.
    
Correction - CRIMINALS will suffer.  People who drive within the law are 
unaffected.

>>>Correction - CRIMINALS will suffer.  People who drive within the law are 
>>>unaffected.
    
    You may think this nit picking, but most motoring offences are not
    criminal ones.  If speeding were a criminal offence, it might be
    difficult for many people to get a job as they'd have a criminal
    record!

    
    Exactly. In fact, speeding is such a minor offence that those faves of
    ours, the insurance companies, don't even bother upping your insurance
    premium for a couple of speeding convictions.
    
    Of course, for those of us who are perfect and NEVER exceed the speed
    limit even by 5 mph, the rest of us must seem like the criminal
    underbelly of society.
    
    Mark

    
>    Of course, for those of us who are perfect and NEVER exceed the speed
>    limit even by 5 mph, the rest of us must seem like the criminal
>    underbelly of society.
    

That doesn't of course stop you from being convicted of speeding, if you meet 
the traffic cop I met, you just have to be driving a type of car that means you 
must have been speeding even if you weren't (basically something with four 
wheels, two wheels etc :-))  !!!

    I fully agree with enforcing speed limits where the injudicious use of
    speed is very likely to result in a vast increase in casualties.
    
    However, a couple of replies to this note seem to imply a
    "holier-than-thou" attitude... I have yet to meet anyone who NEVER
    exceeds the speed limit at some point (those people who claim that, are
    generally a menace to other road users for different reasons).
    
    Surely with the improvement to cars' dynamic attributes (much better grip,
    handling, braking, construction, etc.) over the past few years, speed
    limits set 25 years ago under completely different conditions are
    anachronistic?
    
    If I get done for doing 45mph in a 30 limit outside a school at 8.30 in
    the morning, then I deserve the large fine I undoubtedly would receive.
    However, if I get fined �750 for doing 88mph on a clearish motorway (as
    a Hampshire motorist did recently under the pilot version of the new
    Act), I think I would feel hard done by -- not to mention very broke.
    
    I find it unbelievable that in 1966 you were allowed to do 70mph in a
    Ford Anglia or Mk1 Cortina, and that today that's all you're allowed to
    do on a clear motorway in cars that (even at the budget end of the
    scale) are so dynamically different from those 60s vehicles. I for one
    would far rather do 100mph or more in today's hot hatches rather than
    70 in an Anglia. Let's face it, many modern cars can brake from 70mph
    to rest in 55-60m: that's a full 35m better than the best braking
    performance of 25 years ago. THAT, for me, is a real advance in safety.
    Also, the fact that there are fewer road deaths per year now than there
    were before the war (and there are 15 or 20 times as many cars now)
    indicates to me that road traffic figures are being misused in order to
    limit personal freedom.
    
    I just can't see (apart from cost reasons, and even then, I'm not sure
    it's valid...) why motorways and other derestricted trunk roads cannot
    be fitted out with 'dynamic speed limits/warning signs', that assess
    the current road conditions (weather, temperature, traffic volume), and
    set the speed limit accordingly: it could then be rigorously enforced
    -- with sensible limits. Typical M25 traffic conditions would result in
    a constant limit of 50-60 mph (at most), whereas driving on the
    northern reaches of the M6 off-peak would yield a 90mph (or higher)
    speed limit.
    
    You only need warning signs at a slightly higher frequency than the
    current matrix jobbies.
           
    
    Stephen

Unfortunately, I don't think peoplpe have improved their driving
 skils, manners etc.

In fact they are probably worse, as there was more of the gentleman driver
  around 20+ yaers ago.

RE: .333

>>That doesn't of course stop you from being convicted of speeding, if you meet 
>>the traffic cop I met, you just have to be driving a type of car that means you 
>>must have been speeding even if you weren't 

Jane, DON'T tell me what car it was that you were driving - let me guess !!
Err... eeemmm

Steve ;-)

Re: .331

If you are convicted in a court of a motoring offence it *WILL* be
added to criminal records under your name.  The only cases that do not
enter criminal records are paid fixed-penalty tickets.

>>>If you are convicted in a court of a motoring offence it *WILL* be
>>>added to criminal records under your name.  The only cases that do not
>>>enter criminal records are paid fixed-penalty tickets.
    
    But you are not classified as having a criminal record (ie being a
    criminal).  
    
    I believe D&D gives you a record, but not offences such as speeding.  
    Please be careful who you call a criminal, you may lose a lot of
    friends.

A magistrate friend tells me that *all* convictions (i.e. guilty verdicts)
in the criminal courts (i.e. all magistrates and crown courts) go down on
the criminal records file in exactly the same way.  After various periods 
of time convictions that had sentences below certain limits are removed as 
they become "spent".  There are certain exceptions to convictions being 
considered as "spent" - for example, you have to declare them however long 
ago they took place if you join the armed forces.

My dictionary defines a crime as an act punishable by law, and a criminal
as one guilty of such an act.  Therefore it follows that if you are
convicted you must be a criminal.

>>>My dictionary defines a crime as an act punishable by law, and a criminal
>>>as one guilty of such an act.  Therefore it follows that if you are
>>>convicted you must be a criminal.
    
    I don't think legal rules follow that type of logic (if any at all). 
    We're talking different aspects here.  There's a difference between who
    is regarded as a criminal and who has a police record.  A murderer is a
    criminal, a speeding motorist is not - in the eyes of the law, though
    they both have a police record.

    re:a few
    
    Offences such as speeding, driving without due care and attention
    (personal experience), etc are NOT criminal offences. They are *CIVIL*
    offences.
    
    Colin

    
 >> Therefore it follows that if you are convicted you must be a criminal.
    
    Judging from most reports, quite the contrary seems to be true! 
    
    Mark

    These days it seems, if you go to court and you're NOT convicted, then
    you obviously ARE a criminal! So many seem to get off scot-free...
    
    However, I reckon there's a lot of high-mindedness going on in this
    discussion. Anyone who claims they NEVER, ever, speed is either a liar, or
    deluding themselves.
    
    On more than one occasion, I happen to have driven behind people I
    know, on the way home (they were unaware of me being there), and to
    have noticed that they were exceeding the speed limit (these were
    people who always tell everyone else how law-abiding they are). When I
    light-heartedly mentioned to these people that I was driving behind
    them and they were exceeding the speed limit by some margin (e.g. >50
    mph on the notorious 40 mph A316 in West London near to where that
    famous Gatso camera is!), they typically got very defensive and shirty
    with me for 'accusing' them of law-breaking: I wasn't; I was merely
    making a point!
    
    If you're not speeding, I expect you're doing something else that's
    incorrect/'criminal' on the roads.                                 
    
    
    
    Stephen

I read some more info on the "means tested fines" that are now part of the RTA.

Offences are given a number of units, depending on their severity, and these
units cost between �4 and �100, depending on how much disposable income
you have. You disposable income is basically what you earn (or get given in
state benefits) minus you mortgage (and a few quid for each kid).

As an example, doing 100mph is a seven point offence, which will cost you
between �28 and �700!!!!!

I don't know the ratio between disposable income and cost per unit, but i
get an awful feeling that most of the folks reading this conference would
be well towards the top end of the scale.

The means testing is not compulsary, but if you refuse to give details then
they just fine you the maximum, and if you tell lies then you get locked
away for three months.

Are there any milk floats on the car scheme?

mb

>I don't know the ratio between disposable income and cost per unit, but i
>get an awful feeling that most of the folks reading this conference would
>be well towards the top end of the scale.

	The max is 689, I can't remember if this was per week, or per month.


	............yeh, I know it makes a lot of difference, I think it was
	disposable income per week.


	Heather

    Ah, but how is disposable income defined? For instance, do they allow
    loans, mortgage(s), school fees, and other living expenses. I have a
    fairly high net income, but my disposable income is almost nil.
    
    Laurie.

    They only take the mortgage into consideration as far as I know.
    
    Chris.

They take mortgage and number of dependents, although the Home Office is
somewhat reluctant to go into too many details at the moment (according
to the Mail on Sunday).

Performance Car (November) indicates that �25,000 per year income will be
enough to put you at the maximum fine level, assuming a typical mortgage etc.

mb

    It all seems a bit heavy handed when speeding on an empty motorway
    is likely to incur a higher fine than mugging or burglary!

    
    Mugging or Burglary usually result in more than a fine.
    
    Mark

    You are legally obligated to pay the poll tax, theefore this ought to
    be taken into account.
    
    But then you are legally obligated to eat otherwise it's regarded as
    suicide! :-)
    
    Richard

re -1    
 >   But then you are legally obligated to eat otherwise it's regarded as
 >    suicide! :-)

I believe that suicide has been removed from the crimial code. however, if you
are a girl and under 16, they can force feed you!!

	Dave

    
    At the end of the day all the Government are trying to do is
    increase taxation in an indirect fashion. As the test figures
    show, they will generate an awful amount of revenue from speeding
    motorists. 
    
    What it really boils down to is making money and this is just 
    another way of doing so.
    
    JN.

	The sliding scale of charges based on ability to pay was suggested
	by the North Report (Proffessor North of Oxford), he also suggested
	community service, removal of car and re-testing as punitive measures
	to stop people breaking the motoring laws.  In a talk which he gave
	to the IAM in Oxford a couple of years back he said that fixed
	penalties deter no-one, in fact, some people treated them rather like
	road tax.

	North's reforms also paved to way for cameras.

	By the way, he also suggested that Police funds are *not* tied to
	fines (as they are in Austrailia) because that caused problems.

    re .350; even if you can persuade the police to take an interest,
    the punishment for acts of violence etc generally seems to be a bit
    on the weak side when compared against (the worst case) of penalties
    for violating speed limits (even slightly).  I merely speak through
    personal experience, where the police claimed to be understaffed when
    a frield of mine was beaten up (near the police station), so they were
    unable to look into it.  On the way home I saw several
    traffic police vehicles lurking in lay-bys.
    
    To conclude, there seems to be a disproportionate amount of resource
    spent on harassing otherwise innocent motorists at the expense of
    protection from more serious crime.
                     
    Chris.

    >To conclude, there seems to be a disproportionate amount of resource
    >spent on harassing otherwise innocent motorists at the expense of
    >protection from more serious crime.
    
    
    Excuse me Chris, but don't you regard 5,000 deaths on the road per year
    as a 'serious crime'? 
    
    As a comparison, does anyone have any figures for how many people are 
    murdered in the UK per year?
    
    Huw.

    [previous reply by me deleted]
    
    There is a difference between fast driving and bad driving.  Whereas I
    fully advocate clamping down on speeding in built up areas where
    accidents occur, to severely restrict the speeds on main roads and
    motorways is, in my opinion, excessive.
    
    Also, it does not make me a criminal if someone steps out in front of
    me without looking, as I have not made a deliberate attempt to hit
    them.  The more pedantic amongst us could probably claim that my friend
    ran out without looking as this guy was innocently waving his club
    around.
    
    Chris  

On the insurance quote stuff...

My wife drives a Cavalier 2.0 CDi Hatch. Not a sports hatch, I know, but 
still powerful and pretty fast. She's 27 and our insurance, comprehensive, is 
only (?) �260 p.a. The figures being quoted by other noters recently are 
huge; Has the market price really increased *THAT* much ? Or is it just the 
'performance' cars that are being hit so hard ?

M.	

    Ok, Chris, point taken, but any effort I see to reduce deaths by RTAs
    must be lauded.
    
    I admit to breaking the 70 limit on motorways, but I try and keep to
    the 30 and 40 limits.  If everyone's driving was up to the advanced standard
    then perhaps we wouldn't need speed limits!
    
    Huw. 
    

Re: .357

>    Excuse me Chris, but don't you regard 5,000 deaths on the road per year
>    as a 'serious crime'? 
 

... BUT HOW MANY OF THESE OCCUR ON MOTORWAYS???????????

I bet that there are not many effective speed cameras outside schools, and
even if they were, drivers could get off with driving at the legal limit,
at which speed "an awful lot" of deaths occur!!!!!


Re: Insurance

So who really thinks that with a enormous decrease in accidents due to
these "totally fair" cameras, insurance premiums will significantly
reduce?????

>If everyone's driving was up to the advanced standard then perhaps we wouldn't
>need speed limits!
 
What about reaction time? The faster you are going the further you travel while
reacting.

Dave.   

    
    If we had realistic speed limits, cameras might have been a good
    idea to enforce them. However, we don't have realistic speed limits
    (they are both tolow and too high) and the net result of all this 
    is going to be an even bigger tax burden and no likely reduction
    in road deaths.
    
    By the way, the 5000 are all deaths on roads and include pedestrians
    who of course are often found on motorways and just about every other
    unfortunate bugger who dies on or in the vicinity of a road.

Re: .362

>What about reaction time? The faster you are going the further you travel while
>reacting.


But the faster you go, the less time you spend on the road, thus the less
time that you are exposed to danger. Thus double the speed and halve the
number of accidents :-)

mb

    	
    I've been reading the comments on speed limits and I also agree that
    it's time that the speed limits were reveiwed.I just wondered if we
    could see what each of you keen noters consider safe,sensible or
    whatever you like to call it.
    
    My opinion!
    
    Motorway  85 mph
    A roads   65 mph
    built up areas  25 mph
    
    I also think that there should serious penalties for people who speed
    in areas where there a children's play areas and schools.
    
    	Just a thought!
    
    
    		Andy...What do all you lot think?..
    

    
    Motorway 90 Mph
    
    Dual Carriageways 80 Mph 
    
    Single lane A roads 70 Mph
    
    Urban A roads 40 Mph
    
    Smaller Urban roads 30 Mph
    
    By Schools, etc 20 Mph
    
    Mark
    
    PS I don't like 5 mph increments, 10s are easier to relate to.

    Re last couple,
    
    I couldn't agree more.
    
    Chris.

    re. last few, I agree completely,
    
    Also what about an increase on the Motorways during certain times, like
    100 between 1:00 and 4:00 in the morning - probably not a good example
    but you get the idea. This may have the added bonus of redistributing
    some of the traffic. It would certainly appeal to me to be able to
    legally travel that much faster thus spending less time on a long
    journey at a time when there was less traffic on the road if I could.
    
    
    Jason.

    
    Certainly Tony, 
    
    My comment on 'near schools' should be applied to playing fields, sweet
    shops, etc as well. I just didn't have time to type all the possible
    alternatives.
    
    Mark

	On most housing estates (Woosehill, Lower Earley etc), that means making a
	speed restriction of 20mph except for the access roads. Enforcing this
	means traffic calming measures like speed bumps and chicanes.  As for how
	fast we ought to be allowed to drive, I'm afraid that most of us are not
	fit to judge.  We might think that we are safe, but what would an expert 
	think?  I mean, you must have seen looneys on the motorway, presumably they
	don't think that they're going to have an accident, otherwise they'd stop
	being such nerds.

	Dave

   <<< Note 1805.371 by MARVIN::RUSLING "Dave Rusling REO2 G/E9 830-4380" >>>


	On most housing estates (Woosehill, Lower Earley etc), that means
	making a speed restriction of 20mph except for the access roads. 
	Enforcing this means traffic calming measures like speed bumps and
	chicanes.  As for how fast we ought to be allowed to drive, I'm afraid
	that most of us are not fit to judge.  We might think that we are safe, 
	but what would an expert think?  I mean, you must have seen looneys on
	the motorway, presumably they don't think that they're going to have
	an accident, otherwise they'd stop being such nerds.

	Dave

    

... why not just ban kids from the roads, and enforce this with special
"pedestrian cameras"?

Let us apply one rule to everybody, and not just pick on the motorist!!!!!

    
    Re a couple back.
    
    What makes an expert?
    
    Mark

	I would like to see all car-parking banned on the streets around
	schools, especially the main roads which carry a lot of traffic.

	The parking around Theale secondary and infants schools is attrocious.

	They park on both sides, so only one car can pass for about 100-200yards
	so cars stop at the end of the parked cars to let others through.

	HOWEVER, this happend to be exactly opposite the infants school where 
	the lollypop lady comes out, I nearly got her the other day, as she 
	stepped out from behind a transit van that was waiting for me to get 
	through.

	This is a very busy main road, and the parking that causes 
	1-car-at-a-time through a tunnel of cars should be stopped.

	The chaos this creates on this busy main road has already claimed one 
	death.

	It's not the reduced speed that this causes that is the problem, but the
	stationary cars.
	

	Heather

	Re .369

	I too get very annoyed at drivers using the estate I live on
	as a rat run. 40+ is the norm in this 30 limit.

	The other day is was dring back to my house at 30 mph with a
	very irritate driver right on my bumper. When I indicated
	to turn into our close he swerved around me a sped off into
	the distance.

	I dropped my wife of at our house and set off again in the
	original direction I had been travelling. I cannot say how
	pleased I was to see the driver of the car that had been
	following me, pulled up by the side of the road, by a copper
	with a radar trap.

	It really made my day!

	Graham

	PS there seems to be an increase in road side radar traps,
	   anyone else notice this?

    
    RE .375
    
    	I agree with you Theale schools are a danger spot,2 days after I
    passed my driving test a little kid ran out in front of my car,if I
    hadn't been awake I hate to think what might have happened1
    
    RE.376
    
    	I've seen loads of road side radars around Tilehurst/Pangbourne.
    
    
    	Andy..

	Good question, Mark.  Of course, if I say the class 1 police drivers
	I will get jumped on, but they are one set of people.  Others would
	be people like John Lyon who runs the HPC (High Performance Car Club).

	The point is that everyone thinks they are good drivers.  Clearly
	most people in this conference thinks that they are safe at all sorts
	of speeds.  The truth is that we are not.  My RoSPA Advanced Driving
	course proved that to me.  Driving critisism (real or implied) is treated
	as worse than questioning sexual prowess by most people (actually, most
	men, women don't seem to get hung up on this so much, maybe its
	the testosterone).

	Dave

.378>	men, women don't seem to get hung up on this so much, maybe its
.378>	the testosterone).
                 ^      
                 |        
    
    What about those of us who don't drive Ferraris ? 8-)
    
    Terry
    
    

	You mean your's is red?  The point that I am making is that
	the first step to driving improvement is the admission that
	you make mistakes.  Driving is 90% attitude and 10% talent.

	Dave

    Regarding driving near schools, shops, etc it would be nice if an
    alternative route was provided.  As it is, the residential road through
    the estate where I live is used by all and sundry as a by-pass, so
    it isn't fun when some prat suddenly appears 'round a
    corner doing 60 (speed limit is 30).  Admittedly some speed limit
    signs would be useful (there's one when you drive into town,
    partially obstructed by a tree, and that's it!)
    
    As far as bad driving goes, I wouldn't claim I'm a great driver, but
    would like to think I'm not the worst (not too difficult where I
    live!!!)
    
    Chris.

>    Regarding driving near schools, shops, etc it would be nice if an
>    alternative route was provided.  As it is, the residential road through
>    the estate where I live is used by all and sundry as a by-pass, so
 

	The problem with Theale schools is that they are on the main road, it is
	NOT a residential road.

	The speed limit is 60 until about 70 yards from the school, where it 
	drops to 30.

	However parking on both sides of a main road, forcing the traffic into 
	1 lane is suicidal, maybe not for the parents who park their cars, but 
	definately for the kids who run out from behind them.	

	Heather

    
    RE-1
    
    	Well said!
    
    	Andy...

    local paper carried some interesting stories of the inaccuracy of
    cameras being trialed in Oz. Apparently one clocked a granny in a
    traffic jam at 118km and another got a lampost travelling at 70km!
    
    Scary thought moving lamposts...
    
    Apparently 100's of convictions are now being re-assessed.
    
    -Dave.

One problem with raising speed limits is not so much the driver's ability
to handle the speed, but the expectations of other drivers. Take the
example of driving at 90mph on a motorway. Anyone joining the motorway
must be prepared for a vehicle travelling at up to 90 mph in the inside
lane. 

Dougie

    That's why I accelerate to a fairly high speed on slip roads, since
    it's easier to slow down than to speed up to accomodate the person
    doing 90mph in the inside lane who can't be bothered to move over.
    
    re .382, I was just highlighting another problem where traffic which is
    directed onto residential roads is also a hazard.  I agree with the bit
    about people parking on both sides of the road being a hazard; not only
    because you can't see people trying to cross, but these drivers seem to
    be some of the main culprits as regards driving away without looking
    for other drivers/pedestrians (I'm not trying to slag anyone off here,
    this is just personal experience based on the number of times people
    have pulled out on me or tried to run me over!)
    
    Chris.

Re: .385

> example of driving at 90mph on a motorway. Anyone joining the motorway
> must be prepared for a vehicle travelling at up to 90 mph in the inside
> lane. 

Anyone driving at 90mph on the inside lane of an empty motorway when
going past a junction should be arrested, along with those inconsiderate
b*stards who potter along in the lefthand lane at 40mph on the approach
to a junction, and only indicate (if at all) as they reach the green
cats eyes.

Argh,

mb

    
    re-1.
    
    why should driving on lane 1 of a motorway at 90mph be treated any
    differently from 90mph in lane 3, after all 90mph in lane 1 is less of
    an offence than 90mph in lane 3 (technically).
    
    re: raising the speed limit...
    
    Q: has anyone in this comference experienced a driven wheel puncture at
       70 mph?
    
    Q: If so how would you feel about the same experience at 10/15/20 mph
       faster ?
    
    Alan.  

�    why should driving on lane 1 of a motorway at 90mph be treated any
�    differently from 90mph in lane 3, after all 90mph in lane 1 is less of
    
    I think the reference was meant to travelling at a high speed when
    passing a junction [where other vehicles may wish to pull out at a
    significantly lower speed].
    
    I must say, it P's me off when waiting to pull onto a dual carriageway
    with a poor slip road, with one car coming along in the left-hand lane,
    but no other cars about, and that car doesn't move to the outside lane
    and allow me to pull out safely (the car would then be 'overtaking',
    so not falling foul of other rules/laws).  Of course, if I was to be
    just as ignorant, I could pull out in front of that car, hoping that
    they would then change lanes to avoid hitting me...  (what death wish ?)
    
    J.R.

Re: .388

>    Q: has anyone in this comference experienced a driven wheel puncture at
>       70 mph?

I haven't, no, but blow-outs are rare these days, as tyre technology has
improved vastly. It is more likely old bangers with cheap or remound tyres
that will have a blowout, but they shouldn't be driving at 90mph in the
first place!!
    
>    Q: If so how would you feel about the same experience at 10/15/20 mph
>       faster ?
 
The problem with this argument is that it works both ways - "have you ever
had a puncture at 60mph, then what about 70?", and you end up with everybody
stopped, too scared to drive their vehicles!   


Re: leaving lane 1 clear

When i am on a motorway with light traffic, coming past a junction, i will
usually move into lane 3 in anticipation of the traffic in lane 1 pulling
out to let junction joiners in. I would be very dis-chuffed if the Police
did me for planning ahead!

mb

    Re .388
    
    The point about punctures is a good one, but is equally valid at speeds
    5/10/15 mph BELOW 70 mph. Should we all be following a man with a red
    flag?
    
    Mark

    Re Puncture at 70 m.p.h
    
    OK I was in a hurry at the time, but I have experienced a blow out at
    90+ M.p.h and fortunately lived to tell the tale, however snaking
    across the lanes to reach the hard shoulder in rush hour minus one rear
    tyre is something I prefer to forget.
    
    I hasten to add since that fateful day I keep a regular check on my
    tyre conditions and pressures and rarely exceed 80 m.p.h.
    
    Chris

    Whilst I agree with J.R. (.389) about inconsiderate behaviour at
    junctions on dual carriage ways, its worth remembering that its up to
    the person _joining_ from the slip road to slot in with the traffic
    and not the other way 'round.
    
    Roy

I have had 2 blow outs in speeds in excess of 80 mph, and both times
the car was perfectly stable and controlable.
(Front tyre Rover 216 gti (scaffold pole across motorway) and rear
 tyre on XR2). Both front wheel drive cars.

I was amazed at the lack of impact(!) having a puncture caused.
This is probably due to 1. Tyre technology, 2. Suspension technology
and 3. low profile tyres.

Matt

PS admittedly the punctures were on the motorway going in a near enough
straight line, and not hurtling round country bends !

It's not necessary to signal when joining a motorway. There's nowhere else to
go.

Dave.

>It's not necessary to signal when joining a motorway. There's nowhere else to
>go.
    
    True, but I prefer it.  A flashing indicator make me more visible.  I'd
    rather not be "dead" right.

    �It's not necessary to signal when joining a motorway.
    
    I know what you mean, but signalling is a pretty sensible thing to do
    as you are efectively moving into another lane. (Is this in the Highway
    code?). 
    
    It is quite correct to drive onto the hard shoulder to accelerate if
    the flow of traffic on the m'way is so heavy that you cannot join it 
    before the slip road runs out. So there is some"...where else to go."
    
    Roy

    
    Roy,
    
    >It is quite correct to drive onto the hard shoulder to accelerate if
    >the flow of traffic on the m'way is so heavy that you cannot join it.
    
    This probably explains why I didn't get nicked by plod when I ended up
    driving along the hard shoulder on the M40. I accelerated along the
    slip road from the M25 to get in front of a van who was in the inside
    lane of the M40. The van driver speeded up as well so I accelerated 
    harder and eventually ran out of slip road before I got ahead of him.
    I pulled out in front of him only for him to flash me. I then noticed 
    a car in the middle lane with a large orange stripe down the side!!
    The policeman in the passenger seat applauded me, motioned for me to
    slow down then zoomed off into the distance.
    
    Still don't know why he didn't book me for doing 85 though, maybe he 
    had knocked off for the day and was going home
    
    
    POL. 
                                         

IMHO:


a) One is supposed to move to the middle lane to allow those joining a 
   motorway to join, apart from being courteous, it is sensible, and is in the 
   highway code.

b) One is allowed to use the hardshoulder if you run out of slip road, it's a 
   lot safer than coming to a halt on the slip road and then attempting to join 
   the motorway starting from 0 !!!!

c) Policemen are generally sensible about letting you use speed to get yourself 
   out of trouble, as long as you return to the speedlimit as soon as possible.
   They are not nearly as hard-nosed as some of the noters in this conference
   about exceding the posted speed-limit, when you have a good (safety) reason 
   to do so.

d) Doing 90 in the left lane of an empty motorway is not nearly as bad as 
   joining the CLO Club.

RE: The high speed punctures (a bit late, I know), I had the sidewall of a tyre
blowout at 110mph, the car pulled slightly to that side, with no drama at
all. Modern tyres are perfectly save above the current speed limits. The
most dangerous part was driving home at less than 50 on the space-saver spare.

Cheers,

Graham

Re: .400

What car were you driving?

Re -1   Oh don't ask! ;-) You'll start him off! ;-)

    
    
    What the hard nosers won't admit is that they make exceedingly
    good attempts at breaking the land speed records themselves.
    
    JN.

.401 - Lotus Elan SE. Sure, it depends on the type, but a modern car with
modern tyres can cope. I wouldn't like the same experience in Lewis's Golf :-)

    
    re -last few...
    
    I'm all for modern tyre and suspension setups.... but the only doubt
    that I have is that when modern race/rally/hillclimb enthusiasts have a
    puncture the vehicle usually ends up in the ARMCO. Does this mean that
    Maclaren/honda etal are using old tyres...??
    
    Alan.
    

Re: .405

Nope, it means that under racing conditions the drivers are pushing themselves 
and their cars to their limits;   thus when anything untowards happens, 
something's got to give !

This is rarely the case driving in a straight line at well below a car's limits 
on a motorway.

Re: 405

Note also that Williams have taken to providing a puncture detection
mechanism because of the difficulty a driver can have identifying a 
puncture. Active suspension can to a large extent compensate for the
effects of a puncture it seems.

Some day a derivitive of this technology will make it to the open
road. Will we all forced to stay under 70 then to allow for the
effects of a stray cosmic ray messing up the the controller?



Terry

    
    Top rally drivers tend not to worry about punctures these days either as 
    their tyres are filled with a 'mousse' which allows them to run almost
    at full speed on a deflated tyre by preventing it from coming off the 
    rim.
    
    No doubt, something like this will make its way into road tyre
    technology in due course, as well.
    
    Mark

Has anybody been nicked by these new cameras yet ?

( and willing to admit to it :-)   )


Steven 

    Although I haven't, someone who works for my Dad has, he got a letter
    through the post last week. A fine and points end of story. unconfirmed
    but one of his friends apparently got 4 in the space of a couple of
    weeks and was going to court, if I hear any details I'll pass them on.
    Apparently at least one of these cameras was in Reading somewhere any
    one know where ?
    
    Jason.
    

�    Top rally drivers tend not to worry about punctures these days either as 
�    their tyres are filled with a 'mousse' which allows them to run almost
�    at full speed on a deflated tyre by preventing it from coming off the 
�    rim.
    
    There is a very large choice of tyres available for the rallyperson.
    
    Mousse-filled tyres are an option, but they are not usually chosen
    for tarmac stages (due to their extra weight, I believe).
    
    There are different rim-locking bead styles that get used too.
    
    Then you have stronger sidewalls, which obviously have an effect
    in the vehicle handling.  Plus various combinations of these
    different cases, I am sure.
    
    Still, the point is that different tyre technology exists to avoid
    or limit the danger that exists with 'unexpected deflation'.  It is
    being tested in competition now.  It will be available on road tyres
    some time in the future (some of it is available now).
    
    I do recall a product (may have been called 'OKO') which you could
    put into your tyres in advance, so that if or when you get a puncture
    this stuff would seal the hole, avoiding many problems...  That was
    on motorcycle tyres, dunno if it was ever sold for cars to use.
    
    It was not intended for a permanent solution, but if you inspected
    your tyres often, you would be able to see this 'green stuff' where
    the tyre was damaged and it had done its job.  I found that it worked.
    (in my case, I had a 'trail' bike which was frequently used off-road,
    which increased the chances of sustaining some tyre damage).
    
    Of course, you can already buy sprays which will inflate and seal
    a punctured tyre.  I think that the tyre repair shops are none too
    impressed with this stuff, since it makes it *very* difficult to
    perform a proper repair on the tyre afterwards.  Then again, with
    lower-profile tyres, you will often find the damage cannot be fixed
    with a *safe* repair - if the damage is in the sidewall or shoulder
    area of the tyre...
    
    Getting a bit closer to the current topic (but not the heading),
    a tyre is 'not very likely' to 'blow-out' if it is in good condition.
    If you unfortunately manage to run over something which has a very
    strong, sharp edge, then it certainly could happen.  Getting a nail
    in your tyre would usually result in slower deflation.  If you do
    subject your tyres (particularly the sidewalls) to 'abuse' (such as
    by bumping up kerbs) then you will increase the chance of your tyre
    failing 'all of a sudden'.  I am sure that is not a nice experience !
    
    J.R.

�              <<< Note 1805.411 by ESBS01::RUTTER "Rut The Nut" >>>
�
��    Top rally drivers tend not to worry about punctures these days either as 
��    their tyres are filled with a 'mousse' which allows them to run almost
    
    Did you see top gear last night. They showed a bit of rally. One car 
    had a puncture and the lost then tyre completely. He still carried on
    driving with three tyres though.
    
    Simon

    Speed Camera - A3 just before Robin Hood Roundabout northbound.  Speed
    limit changes from uncontrolled to 40, camera is waiting for you should
    you not slow down.
    
    Apt position for it really, steal from the rich (you have a car), give
    to the poor - the government??
    
    Nigel                      

    
    Anything on the A4 between J12 and Newbury ?

    This is what the fines are, from an internal memo we've had @ SBP :-
    (reprinted without the author's knowledge, but widely distributed anyway)
    
    J.R.
    
         
         'Typical Offence'   	  Old  	    Unit      Plus
              	   	     	  'Norm'    Fine
         
         Speeding 
         20-24mph over limit 	   75  	     500      3 Points
         30-34mph over limit 	  100  	     700      3 Points + Short Ban
         40-44mph over limit 	  200  	    1200      3 Points + Ban
         Not wearing seatbelt	   20  	     200      
         Crossing double white
         lines	   	     	   60  	     400      3 Points
         Drink/driving
         'Just' over limit
         (1st offence)	     	  250  	    1200      12 Months Ban
         'Well' over limit
         (1st offence)	     	  650  	    4000      36 Months Ban
              	   	     	       	    	      (+ 6 Months
              	   	     	       	    	      prison?)
         All plus court costs (approx 40)
         
         The objective of UNIT FINES is to punish people equally for the 
         same offence depriving them of their relative 'disposable income' 
         for the same period of time - to this end every offence has a 
         suggested number of 'UNITS' depending on the seriousness of the 
         offence (from 4 - 50 units).
         
         These units are then multiplied by the offenders 'disposable 
         income' which is calculated from the net after tax (per week) 
         income less certain locally agreed 'allowances'.  The minimum 
         'disposable income' which is calculated from the net after tax 
         (per week) income less certain locally agreed 'allowances'.  The 
         minimum 'disposable income' will be 4.00 and the max 100.00 per 
         week.  It is predicted that anyone earning over 18K per year will 
         have a 'disposable income' of 100.00!!
         
         The above table of UNIT FINES was calculated at 100.00 units for a 
         'norm' and could vary for seriousness within an offence as well as 
         Income.
         
         If you are unlucky enough to be stopped accept, (or even suggest), 
         a fixed penalty ticket - these still operate at the same cost to 
         all offenders.
         
         Nb.  Keep your motoring documents up to date, (preferably with 
              you), as they have to be produced, in person, at a Police 
              Station within seven days of the offence otherwise you cannot 
              qualify for a fixed penalty and you drop through to the 
              'UNITS' system in court.
         

re.415:

So if you are 1-19mph, 25-29mph, 35-39mph, or 45mph+ over the speed limit what
happens?

Dave.

    They're the minimum speeds at which the fines apply (ie if you're
    doing 22 MPH over the limit you may be lucky and only get a fixed
    penalty ticket, but at more than 25MPH over the limit the new points
    system will definately be used)
    
    Chris.

    On BBC Tv this morning (10/11/92).....
    
    	Only 1 camera in 6 working in London at any time.
    
    	Multiple offenses HEARD on the same day will attrach concurrent
    penalties... i.e. if two offenses are heard - each attracting 3 points
    - on the same day, then only three points will actually appear on your
    license.
    
    First (mass?) prosecutions will come up before magistrates next
    February.
    
    Police want scheme extended to major cities other than London.
    
    RAC are opposing this - they want cameras at known blackspots only.
    
    Anti-camera reflective number plates NOT illegal - but do not work as
    police use image reversal to reveal the car's number.
    
    Steve
    

Seen this morning for all you lucky M3 drivers, a WORKING camera mounted on
a bridge in the Contraflow south of Basingstoke. It was concentrating on the
northbound traffic. Police officer in attendance.

Stephen D

    	Just so the M25'ers aren't left out, there's a Gatso facing north
    on the M25 between the M4 and the M40. i.e. in the roadworks.  It's
    hidden behind a bridge pillar just about level with the construction / 
    police area on the left.

So what's the point?  I thought that the reason these cameras were
installed was to dissuade people from speeding, not to nick as many
people as possible.  If the camera isn't visible, it's hardly going
to make people think twice about speeding.

So much for road safety.

Chris.

    RE: .421
    
    Ah but if you get a bill through the post etc. this may make you think
    twice about speeding because you won't know where the (next) camera is...
    
    In Geneva, a lot of the locals know where the cameras are, you can't
    really miss them, and therefore you see cars going at 80/90 then slow
    right down to go past a camera and then speed up again. Not much of a
    deterrent!
    
    Dave

I thought that the original idea of speed cameras was to improve the
safety records of accident blackspots by putting the camera in an obvious
place, rather than just to reduce the overall speed of traffic.  Hiding
the camera just seems to be an easy way of raising revenue.  But perhaps
I'm just a cynic!

Another thing which irritates me intensely is that speed camera warning
signs are rarely accompanied by indications of what the speed limit actually
is.  Driving through Oxfordshire yesterday on the A40 I spotted a large number
of yellow signs with pictures of cameras on them, with no speed limit signs
in sight!  Very helpful.

Chris.

PS anybody see what caused the accident near the Welwyn office this morning?
   Looked pretty nasty, whatever it was.

    Chris,
    
>>  I'm just a cynic!
    
    Surely not!
    
>>  PS anybody see what caused the accident near the Welwyn office this
>>  morning?
>>     Looked pretty nasty, whatever it was.
    
    Come on Chris, own up!!
    

    .422� really miss them, and therefore you see cars going at 80/90 then slow
    .422� right down to go past a camera and then speed up again. Not much of a
    .422� deterrent!
    
    	But it does make life fun for the non-local who doesn't expect the
    car in front to brake sharply for no visible reason! 
    
    [FX: Voice-over] "The car in front's ... not so far in front anymore!
    
    Re: Hiding the cameras.
    
    	If the cameras are hidden, then the signs saying that there are
    speed restrictions are good for a greater distance than otherwise.  On
    the other hand, I didn't see any signs, so I reckon that it's just a
    revenue earner...

why worry where the signs/cameras/coppers are -
just slow down
:-) - but wish it wasn't!!


	Paul.

When you join the A34 from either the M40 near Oxford, or the M4 near
Newbury, there are large yellow signs warning of speed cameras.

I still have to see any cameras along that stretch of road, which must be
over 30 miles long, so what will happen is that drivers will slow down for
a few journeys, then decide to speed up again.

Thus ...

o The deterrent effect lasts only a very short time
o Drivers new to the road will creep along at 65mph, whilst regular drivers
  will speed along, creating a dangerous differential between fast and slow.
o Drivers will start to ignore other speed camera signs (in real backspots)!
o Drivers will have even less respect for the Police


... or maybe i am wrong, and have half a dozen NIPs in the post!!!!

mb

p.s.

Anyone see Panorama last night? The Police seem to spend and awful lot
more time nicking drivers than muggers and burglars - but thats another
rat-hole!

RE:<<< Note 1805.427 by BOOZER::MARTIN::BELL "Martin Bell, NTCC, Birmingham UK" >>>

� Anyone see Panorama last night? The Police seem to spend and awful lot
� more time nicking drivers than muggers and burglars - but thats another
� rat-hole!

    Easy target, captive "audience", excellent ROI. What else do you
    expect?
    
    Laurie.

    .429�    might agree with you. How fast do you drive that you can't see someone
    .429�    'dawdling' at only 65 before its too late?????
    
        I'd imagine it's the differential between the two lanes that'd
    cause the problem, as to pass you'd need a large gap to pull out into
    and get upto speed, so most people would then stay in the right-hand
    lane.

    
    re .430
          Do you drive on duel carriageways/motorways ??, nobody (well very
    few drivers) require a big gap to slip into at 90mph. All they do is
    check the rear view, spot a gap that bigger that 2feet and pull into
    it.... :-)
    
    Alan 

I'm sure this has been done before, but I love the spelling "duel carriageways"

Conjures up images of Knights in Shining Armour on Open Top jeeps jousting
with long poles (or whatever they are called!)

Mark.

    Reminds me more of the Spielberg film.
    
    ....which reminds me of the joke about the guy who was up in court for
    135 mph on the M4.  Said he was being harrassed from behind by a couple
    of TIRs and a National Express coach.....
    
    Richard

    Dawdling at 65MPH when the speed limit 70MPH?
    
    Tut Tut ......
    
    The law is the law; I have NO sympathy for anyone that gets caught
    speeding, ANYWHERE.
    
    The voice of experience 8^}
    
    malcolm

    
    > The law is the law
    
    Yes, but what is the law...
    
    Handed down by God, was it ?

    ....as interpreted by the Thames Valley Police, a few years back:
    
    "...uh, we won't book you for speeding on the motorway under 85 mph, so
    long as you're driving sensibly...."
    
    This is the gist, rather than the exact text, of their statement...8*)
    
    Richard
    
    PS Never been retracted either, to my knowledge.

    re .-2
    
    if you do not know what the law says in relation to maximum permitted
    driving speeds then you should find out.
    
    Now I don't like it any better than anyone else and I am certainly not
    against people complaining about it and seeking to get the law changed
    BUT .. if the law states you drive at a maximum speed of 70 MPH on dual
    carriageways and Motorways and you get nicked for doing 80 MPH then
    tough, you broke the law and should take your punishment!
    
    How the Local plod interpret that law and then determine local criteria
    for nicking people is up to them, and is subject to change without
    notice! I was once caught, and fined for doing 43 in a 40MPH zone! My
    tough luck, I should have been more careful.
    
    thats my tuppence worth!
    
    malcolm                                               
    
    
    
    

    
    
    
    43 MPH in a 40 !!!!!!!!!!!   I dont think so  ?
    
    
    
    
    

    Usually you get nicked for your avarage speed, so if you were slowing
    down 'cos you saw the patrol car...
    
    Martin (who got stopped once for doing 46 in a 40, but who was doing 56
    when he passed the 40 sign (and who grovelled to the very nice police
    man so got let off)).
    
    PS:	am I alone in feeling _more_ conspicuous by doing 40 in a 40 limit
    when being followed by a patrol car ?

    .439� PS: am I alone in feeling _more_ conspicuous by doing 40 in a 40 limit
    .439� when being followed by a patrol car ?
    
        The reason that you're conspicuous is that within a few seconds,
    everyone in front will have pulled away, leaving you alone as the sole
    target!  :-)
        

    re .438
    
    It's true
    
    I was done in Morley, nr Leeds in 1986.
    
    I can still show you my licence with the (now defunct) points on it!
    
    BTW The planet was Earth!
    
    malcolm_who_was_mightily_P****d_off

    Unless the law has changed greatly in the last 13 years it always used
    to be accepted that the speed limit to be worked for speeding was , The
    limit +10%. The 10% is the maximum allowed inacuracy of the speedo at x
    speed. I don't remember what speed x was but nevertheless I would
    consider nowdays 3 or less mph over the limit is a bit harsh. Allowing
    for the 10% then its fair game. I don't think you will find a real
    traffic police person will bother under 10 mph over the limit and in
    anycase understand driving conditions and traffic better than local
    wooden top. However there are traffic cops who are complete B*&tards
    as well as local Flatfoot who needs to make his numbers.
    
    Garry

>    
>    How the Local plod interpret that law and then determine local criteria
>    for nicking people is up to them, and is subject to change without
>    notice! I was once caught, and fined for doing 43 in a 40MPH zone! My


no it isn't!!!

law interpretation is done in test cases run by dribbling idiots wearing wigs!

the police can't interpret the law - "Oh he killed mr x but mr x was a villan
so we won't prosecute" ?????



	agree with the rest of the note though

	Paul.

re -1 and a few previous

I agree with -1, My point should have read, @ how the local PLOD 
enterpret that law SEEMS to be up to them.

ALso to clarify the disbelief at me being stopped for doing 43MPH

I had been doing faster than that but had started to slow down - OK 
still got caught for doing 43.

BUT, the reason the Plod were so harsh, and unforgiving, is the day 
before a little girl, I think less than 5 yrs old, had been killed by 
some speeding down this road.

The road in question is a wide road which runs through housing but is a 
popular commuter run. The Plod were making a point! and trying to, and I 
use this next phrase carefully,'Educate' drivers ( whilst also making a 
few collars! Whilst I was being processed, they stopped two further 
cars, all for similar speeds.

Hope this clears up confusion/misunderstandings.

malcolm

    I thought that speedo's were allowed zero tolerance in UNDERreading,
    but 10% in OVERreading ?
    
    i.e. it's fine to think you're doing 40 when in fact you're doing 36,
    but not if you're really doing 44 mph ?
    
    If this is the case then why should the plods allow any tolerance when
    they nick you ?
    
    Pete

    Speedos may overread by whatever percent.  They may not underread.
    
    There's no margin in law for exceeding the speed limit - if you're
    travelling at the speed limit + .00000000001 down to the limits of
    accuracy, you're breaking the law.  If the police don't prosecute
    unless you're going a reasonable whack over the limit, this is their
    choice - it's not enshrined in legislation.
    
    Richard

    re .437
    
    Nah, you missed my point, I surmised that you were trying to stir up
    another speeder/non-speeder ret-hole (you succeded), I was picking on
    your statement 
    
    "The law is the law"
    
    Why ?
    
    This probably sounds very odd to you, but the law is *only* the law. It
    wasn't there at the Creation. Somebody invented it. Maybe that somebody
    got it wrong. Just because that somebody was born into the ruling
    classes and likes wearing wigs doesn't necessarily make him right.
    
    Now, having asserted these facts, I can lead on to the thought that if
    the majority of the population are at odds with a law, then perhaps
    that law is wrong.
    
    And before anyone jumps onto the "So you want to legalise murder !"
    bandwagon (again), it should be pointed out that several times this
    century those same people who invent the rules have done just that, in
    fact they have actually made it a capital offence not to want to commit
    murder.
    
    So, my personal rule of thumb is B******s to the lot of them, I will go
    as fast (or as slow) as I know to be safe at the time, as anything else
    would be male cow droppings.
    
    QED
    
    Rob

    Here we go again! sackcloth and ashes on thinking about speed
    now all we need are the replies that state speed doesnt kill stupidity
    does and all the self flagellatory speak on not driving event the
    tinyest above the limit... All the admissions of guilt ... 
    
    

    Gosh.  It IS Friday....
    
    Richard

You obviously haven't been following the enthralling saga of my
Cavalier's speedo, 'cos in there I state the AA legal department have
told me the allowed reading is (+10% +4km/h), and zero underreading.

This is an EEC directive, apparantly. This means that when you are doing
say 80 hm/h (=50 mph), the speedo may read 92 km/h. It may not read at less
that 80.

By the way, it is now legal to sell a car in the UK where the speedo
only reads in km/h.

Peter.

(in on a Sunday, waiting the LN03 to print a quote for tomorrow morning!)