Speed Camera Detectors to be Banned!

This sounds rather like you're taking the position that the speed of
impact cannot be determined at all?

 

The ways I can think of doing it are impractical,
so I would like to know what is done.

 

(Sigh) The rate at which such materials, and their coatings, deteriorate is
also known.

 

Or don't drive. Either way, if you get caught breaking a speed limit take
the punishment. Just stop whinging.

 

Does the TRRL software model pedestrians as well?

So for a single vehicle hitting a pedestrian, the distance travelled
by the vehicle after collision is likely to be the important thing?

Is the deformation of the vehicle also used?

 

I know, lets lock everyone up - that'll solve the speeding problem *and* the
anti-social behaviour ones.

 

AFAIK it done by applying what is known about how the vehicles deform.

 

No AFAIK the software is entirely for vehicle/vehicle and vehicle/street
furniture collisions. dature is captured at the scene by using a laser
scanner which records the position of the "stuff".

I think in the case of vehicle/pedestrian collisions the important data
is the injury to the pedestrian and the damage to the car.

For car/car collisions I don't think it is. You'll have to excuse me for
getting vague because I don't do collision modelling (traffic modelling
yes, collisions isn't Highways Agency territory though) so I'm trying to
recall what I have seen demonstrated by TRRL. I do recall that the
collision is treated purely as an inelastic collision and that this
gives results which are good enough for the purpose. I have never
understood how, based upon what I assume Newtonian mechanics, they can
correctly predict rotational forces in a crash but the demonstrations do
appear convincing that they can model offset collisions and even
collisions where last-minute changes of direction by one party have
changed the collision from head-to head to one with an offset and a
considerable angular momentum.

In the case of a vehicle/pedestrian collision I think that evidence
about speed assumes lesser importance. All that the police need to know
is who did it, and what damage was done to the pedestrian. Evidence
regarding speed of impact tends to be secondary to the other facts.

 

Following up to Alex Hunsley

Not much of an option that, it is?

 

Following up to Alex Hunsley

Please stop sanctimoniously telling me the obvious.

I have *not* complained about getting caught flouting those
rules.
I may well dispute the correctness of those rules in regards to
road safety v convenience. I certainly don't intend to sit back
and let the government impose just what it likes on me because
"driving is a privilege", who pays for the damn roads, us or the
government?

 

Following up to Brimstone

Wheres the whinging? Where did I complain about getting caught?
Try reading the posts before you post.

 

I have never dismissed the relevance of speedlimits, just the
appropriate levels set for some of them. While I do speed on open
motorways with no visible exits/entries I will observe traffic arriving
if possible when passing slips, and take whatever action is needed to
ensure they can get on if possible. same thing with roadworks and other
obstacles, the temporary limits are there for a reason and I stick to
them.

How does making sure you focus on the 1st lane when you want to join it
demonstrate the need for cameras?

How do you know what speed I or other do arround sliproads? Most slip
roads I join on a daily basis do require speed moderatio, especially by
those joining. Anything more than 40 would result in an accident, and
anything more than 50 would probably result in death, a mess and
probably a closed motorway, but it doesn't stop the fools trying.

 

But the rest of speeding motorists drive fine and courteously?

What about the few school run mums who park discourteously?
The BBCap wearing Nova boy who drive discouteously?

or the sales rep on the phone with one hand and the sandwich in the
other steering with his knees while weaving across lanes.

how will speed cameras stop them?

 

or the Damned cars, or the damned insurance, or damned fuel, or damned
taxes on all of the above.

 

The Reids wrote

The government does. They own all of them[1]. Well the Queen does
actually which I suppose is why they call them the Queen's Highway but
you know what I mean.


[1] All the important ones anyway.

 

Perfectly good option.

 

A nice counter argument for the local yobs to use next time you
complain. THey could say that they're refusing to let the Govt impose
laws on them.

 

They drive like tits and eventually will pass enough speed traps to
rack up 12 points.

 

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Reids

You're banging your head against a brick wall, trying to convince any of
the self-satisfied 'the law is the law' mob that there's any other way
of thinking about it.

Trouble is, their tiny little minds can't really cope with the
alternative; that they (and the law) might be wrong. That would
undermine their whole notion of society and just what they are in it.

There's some sort of strange self-reinforcement goes on in these
peoples' heads as they're driving along just under the speed limit - a
nasty, smug, totally self-satisfied complacency is the usual outward
result.

These are the type of gits you'll find hogging the centre lane or
driving along in lane 3 at precisely 70mph and it gives me a great deal
of satisfaction when one of them is collared for doing something
illegal. "But, you must be mistaken, officer," is the usual cry, "I'm a
law-abiding citizen."

As always, we await eagerly the downfall of the self-important.

--

Dave

GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#6 FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19 COSOC#10

 

Probably best not to hold your breath.