OT Speed cameras on A420

There are some speed cameras on A420 Oxford - Swindon that can now
differentiate between vehicle types.
We don't know if it is a height measurer at the Gatso sites or, more
likely IMO, info from a mobile manned device, but a number of trucks
on our fleet have been done for doing 50.
The speed limit for trucks on standard 2 way roads, in case you didn't
know, is 40mph. How stupid is that?

--
ColonelTupperware,
spouting bollocks on Usenet since 1997
Usenet FAQ at
http://www.its.caltech.edu/its/services/internetapps/news/news2.shtml
UPCE FAQ at http://upce.org.uk/ UKRM FAQ at http://www.ukrm.net/faq/

 

Colonel Tupperware wrote

This is not new news.

When I had plod show me the inside of the box up the road and explain
the workings to me about three years ago[1] he told me then that the
radar had/did have the capacity to keep records on vehicle type and time
of day and light levels and shit for purely statistical porpoises.

I presumed that it worked by the size of the reflected signal or
something equally simple.

I did, I am a parent, I know *everything*

 

Everything except how to use a contraceptive.

 

It looks like English, and yet somehow...

 

Why not? It was unknown until the NIPs started arriving last week. Not
the cameras per se, the applying different limits bit.

You may, many drivers do not, and have been known to drag truck
drivers from their cabs and give them a good kicking for "deliberately
driving slowly".

--
ColonelTupperware,
spouting bollocks on Usenet since 1997
Usenet FAQ at
http://www.its.caltech.edu/its/services/internetapps/news/news2.shtml
UPCE FAQ at http://upce.org.uk/ UKRM FAQ at http://www.ukrm.net/faq/

 

Neither will a car or a bike. But the truck driver will probably be
looking very much further ahead than the car driver. BTW how often do
you actually see trucks or anything else 5 foot tailgating at 30mph?
On motorways at higher speeds, this is not uncommon, but at 30 mph
down the proverbial high street it is not at all common.

Trucks driving on decent, sufficiently large roads at 40mph only
antagonises car drivers to make suicide overtaking manouvers which
defeats any road safety led speed related measures.

The 40 in NSLs and 50 on a dual carriage way limits are so stupid that
traffic plod ignores them 99% of the time.

--
ColonelTupperware,
spouting bollocks on Usenet since 1997
Usenet FAQ at
http://www.its.caltech.edu/its/services/internetapps/news/news2.shtml
UPCE FAQ at http://upce.org.uk/ UKRM FAQ at http://www.ukrm.net/faq/

 

It's neg, and outdated - modern truck brakes are a million times
better than when the speed limit was set. I've lost track of the
number of times I've been rattling along a country road bouncing off
the limiter. Perfectly safe.

 

Colonel Tupperware says...

Slow cunts, lets campaign to legislate them off the roads.

 

The digital cameras have no problem reading number plates. After that
it's a simple lookup in the database to see the registered class. If
it's digital it wouldn't even need to be done in real time. Just snap
everything over 40mph[1] and then filter out the cars based on the
database later.

I can't see how height measurement can reliably tell the difference
between a 7.5 tonner and something just over.

Is it not a deliberate attempt to force them onto the motorways?

[1] or whatever.

 

Of course you can say the same for other vehicle classes as well.

 

I knew that, but wondered why they didn't stick to the limits. Maybe
government want to slow the average speeds down on some heavily used
roads by using the trucks. Who knows..

 

You *are* kidding? Up to 41 tonnes doing 60mph on single carriageway
roads? Yeah, right, a good driver should drive within the safety
envelope, but this is the real world, and people don't. And 41 tonnes
makes a fucking big hole in whatever it hits. At 60mph, that's enough to
bring down sizeable buildings and bridges.

It's a *big* increase in risk.

Try driving a truck some time, and then consider.

 

See other post. The thought of 41 tonnes going tits-up at 60mph on a
narrow road is horrifying.

 

Yeah, truck brakes and chassis generally have improved immensely - but
the problem is still that it's a lot of mass *if* it goes out of
control.

 

See other post. The thought of 41 tonnes going tits-up at 60mph on a
narrow road is horrifying.[/QUOTE]

Since they are limited to 55, that would be rather difficult.
Most LGVs run at far less than max weight, which is 44 tonnes by the
way.
I don't propose a 60 limit on NSLs, just a 50, but what do you define
as a narrow road?
This (trucks driving at 55) is going on all over the country all day
and night, every day and night and there are comparatively few
accidents. True when one does happen, its generally a biggie, (A34
last week, artic fridge went over on its side, blocked the road, got
hit by a car transporter and then 2 x 7 and a half tonners, closed the
road all day) but they are normally caused by sleepiness rather than
speed.
Modern trucks are more than capable of running safely at 50 on most A
roads. As demonstrated by the fact that most of them run safely at 55
right now. The last speed limit raise for LGVs was in the 1970s when
it went up from 40 to 50 on non motorway dual carriageways.
there is still a discrepancy, when for example, you can drive at a
theoretical max of 60 on the two lane M45, but a max of 50 on the
three lane bit of the A14.

Do you remember what you wrote about specialist subjects in the last
couple of weeks?

--
ColonelTupperware,
spouting bollocks on Usenet since 1997
Usenet FAQ at
http://www.its.caltech.edu/its/services/internetapps/news/news2.shtml
UPCE FAQ at http://upce.org.uk/ UKRM FAQ at http://www.ukrm.net/faq/

 

Energy = mass times speed squared, so from this we can work out the
energy which is in joules of a rig that weighs 41,000 kg. 60mph is
26.822 m/s.

So, the truck has 29496200 joules of energy at 60mph, which is about
equivalent to around 6395 grams of TNT.

A bike that weighs 300kg all up, at 60mph has about 215826 joules of
energy which is equal to about 47 grams of TNT.

In other words, the bike would have to be going at about 701 mph to have
the same 'impact' or amount of energy as a 41 tonne truck going at 60 mph.

I know which one I'd want a few meters from me on the road[1]. ))

[1]If my maths is correct. :/

 

Or just a bod in a van making notes.

It can't, but see above.

No. its historical. From the days when it took 13 football pitches to
stop a Foden eight legger running at 32 tons and doing 25mph. 30 years
ago most trucks could only just about reach 50 flat out, now, if it
were not for the limiter, the law and the horrendous cost of diesel
most artics could haul 50 tonnes at 100mph with no technical problems.

--
ColonelTupperware,
spouting bollocks on Usenet since 1997
Usenet FAQ at
http://www.its.caltech.edu/its/services/internetapps/news/news2.shtml
UPCE FAQ at http://upce.org.uk/ UKRM FAQ at http://www.ukrm.net/faq/

 

Astounding, a truck hitting you will do more damage than a bike. Wow.
;-P
Ain't learnin' great.
I wish I could do big sums like that.

Now do the sums with the correct variables 'cos I CBA..
44,000 kgs at 90 kph.

I like the analogy and would like to use it.

--
ColonelTupperware,
spouting bollocks on Usenet since 1997
Usenet FAQ at
http://www.its.caltech.edu/its/services/internetapps/news/news2.shtml
UPCE FAQ at http://upce.org.uk/ UKRM FAQ at http://www.ukrm.net/faq/

 

Bad for to follow up to ones post, but... in light of the 55mph speed
limit for trucks, a bike would have to be doing only about 642 mph to
have the same impact as a 41 tonne truck at 55 mph.

))

 

A nightmare to pull out some "common sense" legislation - ie: that is always
fair. Just for info - does the law have different limits for un-hitched
cabs, hitched cabs, empty trailer, full trailer, artic, rigid ... ?