The HA Are Control Freaks: The future ....
Discussion
http://assets.highways.gov.uk/specialist-informati...
Amazing arrogance. We (the citizens) must be controlled, and technology is the way this will be achieved.
The paper does not even stoop to question how much more 'enforcement' we really need on the grounds of safety..!
Very sad. Mostly that we are sleep walking into a situation we should be much more concerned about that most people are....
Amazing arrogance. We (the citizens) must be controlled, and technology is the way this will be achieved.
The paper does not even stoop to question how much more 'enforcement' we really need on the grounds of safety..!
Very sad. Mostly that we are sleep walking into a situation we should be much more concerned about that most people are....
We don't need enforcement on the grounds of safety, managed motorways need it to improve traffic flow when speed limits are lowered to reduce congestion.
Please tell me that no one needs to have it explained how slowing down traffic which is approaching a queue of stationery traffic actually speeds things up overall?
Please tell me that no one needs to have it explained how slowing down traffic which is approaching a queue of stationery traffic actually speeds things up overall?
Blue Oval84 said:
We don't need enforcement on the grounds of safety, managed motorways need it to improve traffic flow when speed limits are lowered to reduce congestion.
Please tell me that no one needs to have it explained how slowing down traffic which is approaching a queue of stationery traffic actually speeds things up overall?
ok then: we really need anymore enforcement for that objective to be realised.....note that the points issued on your driving license are not for spoiling the flow of traffic but are to punish 'potentially dangerous transgressions'...Please tell me that no one needs to have it explained how slowing down traffic which is approaching a queue of stationery traffic actually speeds things up overall?
I take it all back. I have seen the light!
Our expert HA teams know whats best for all of us. They should be encouraged to find ever more ways of spending our money on monitoring technology. There is no need to justify the expense after all. More is ALWAYS better
The use of the hard shoulder as a live lane is a brilliant idea.
Speed limits are all about emissions.
70mph is far too fast on a clear motorway.
We can't be trusted to obey the signs without 3-layers of speed enforcement.
Oh and once we are used it on smart / managed motorways we should welcome the deployment of this stuff across the whole motorway and trunk road network.
Our expert HA teams know whats best for all of us. They should be encouraged to find ever more ways of spending our money on monitoring technology. There is no need to justify the expense after all. More is ALWAYS better
The use of the hard shoulder as a live lane is a brilliant idea.
Speed limits are all about emissions.
70mph is far too fast on a clear motorway.
We can't be trusted to obey the signs without 3-layers of speed enforcement.
Oh and once we are used it on smart / managed motorways we should welcome the deployment of this stuff across the whole motorway and trunk road network.
I've read the document.
It is a little terrifying, in my opinion.
I might concede that, there are SOME elements in the report which I can concur with - relating to the kind of general driving f
kwittery which all of us at PH have as our pet hates.
However, these pet hates used to be quite far and few between, as they were dealt with by the threat and enforcement of our (on the whole) fabulous Road Traffic Policing units. One used to be quite safe in the knowledge that, when one saw some traffic idiocy by a driver, they would probably quite swiftly be picked up by an observant Traffic Policeman. But as we all know, this is no longer the case. Apart from the odd area car and unmarked vehicle - due to savage cuts, our highways are now fairly bereft of proper road-based, real-time surveillance and deterrent Traffic vehicles. More's the pity.
We have all seen this decline in driving standards; and moreover, I am sure we have all, like myself, rued and become suspicious every time a major road or motorway has started to have work to install high-speed communication links installed alongside them - I knew exactly what was coming. I am not surprised at all. Fact is, our road network is going to become more and more surveyed and controlled remotely, and the elements of picking up less obvious offences diminished, with more of the absolute offences detected with a greater degree of depressing regularity.
Whether you like it or not, there is an element of political pressure at work here. I won't get into an argument of discussing if the recession itself has driven the bulk of the cuts as the main driving force - or if the recession has been a great excuse to drive the previous will for more cuts forward....but frankly, it would be like arguing about the arrangement of the deckchairs on the Titanic. It's here, it's happening, and we're stuck with it.
I understand the OP's sentiment - however, what would / can we do about it? If this was France, then maybe we would have been out on the streets long ago, bringing the country to a standstill in protest about it - but we're not, and we never do that kind of thing. As I say, the will and the infrastructure to create this level of technological surveillance has been quietly building up over the last 10 years or so, so basically - we're screwed now, there's no going back.
On a personal and EXTREMELY selfish note - I am in my 40's now, and hence have enjoyed the previously uncontrolled roads system before this kind of 1984-style surveillnce with gay abandon - avoiding the traditional Police monitoring by picking my roads and times of day very carefully. However, I gave up all the life-risking stuff like that a long time ago, and these days I am happy to plod around driving Miss Daisy. So I've had my fun, my fill, and I basically don't care now.
However, I do feel sorry for the next generations. They'll never know the unfettered and unbridled freedom that we did. That said - looking at the current generation's obsession with keeping in touch and checking everything online every minute of the bloody day - even whilst driving - then maybe, I might warrant that the proposed surveillance systems might just be....a good thing? Are they the new generation of enforcement to suit the new generation of rubbish, careless, distracted drivers?
I would be interested to hear other peoples opinions on this!
It is a little terrifying, in my opinion.
I might concede that, there are SOME elements in the report which I can concur with - relating to the kind of general driving f
kwittery which all of us at PH have as our pet hates.However, these pet hates used to be quite far and few between, as they were dealt with by the threat and enforcement of our (on the whole) fabulous Road Traffic Policing units. One used to be quite safe in the knowledge that, when one saw some traffic idiocy by a driver, they would probably quite swiftly be picked up by an observant Traffic Policeman. But as we all know, this is no longer the case. Apart from the odd area car and unmarked vehicle - due to savage cuts, our highways are now fairly bereft of proper road-based, real-time surveillance and deterrent Traffic vehicles. More's the pity.
We have all seen this decline in driving standards; and moreover, I am sure we have all, like myself, rued and become suspicious every time a major road or motorway has started to have work to install high-speed communication links installed alongside them - I knew exactly what was coming. I am not surprised at all. Fact is, our road network is going to become more and more surveyed and controlled remotely, and the elements of picking up less obvious offences diminished, with more of the absolute offences detected with a greater degree of depressing regularity.
Whether you like it or not, there is an element of political pressure at work here. I won't get into an argument of discussing if the recession itself has driven the bulk of the cuts as the main driving force - or if the recession has been a great excuse to drive the previous will for more cuts forward....but frankly, it would be like arguing about the arrangement of the deckchairs on the Titanic. It's here, it's happening, and we're stuck with it.
I understand the OP's sentiment - however, what would / can we do about it? If this was France, then maybe we would have been out on the streets long ago, bringing the country to a standstill in protest about it - but we're not, and we never do that kind of thing. As I say, the will and the infrastructure to create this level of technological surveillance has been quietly building up over the last 10 years or so, so basically - we're screwed now, there's no going back.
On a personal and EXTREMELY selfish note - I am in my 40's now, and hence have enjoyed the previously uncontrolled roads system before this kind of 1984-style surveillnce with gay abandon - avoiding the traditional Police monitoring by picking my roads and times of day very carefully. However, I gave up all the life-risking stuff like that a long time ago, and these days I am happy to plod around driving Miss Daisy. So I've had my fun, my fill, and I basically don't care now.
However, I do feel sorry for the next generations. They'll never know the unfettered and unbridled freedom that we did. That said - looking at the current generation's obsession with keeping in touch and checking everything online every minute of the bloody day - even whilst driving - then maybe, I might warrant that the proposed surveillance systems might just be....a good thing? Are they the new generation of enforcement to suit the new generation of rubbish, careless, distracted drivers?
I would be interested to hear other peoples opinions on this!
Look on the bright side, once everyone and their dog is cutting about in a googlecar all these 'big brother' surveillance systems will become largely redundant and the budget to maintain them(which used to pay for traffic dibble) will be transferred elsewhere; then we reprobates will be able to hoon again! 
Plus ça change...
Plus ça change...'We've identified a problem. And here's the technological solution to fix that problem.'
It's like that White Paper on Young Drivers that never happened. They're now monitoring newly qualified drivers with telematics to get data.
How long have humans been around? How long have they been driving cars? I think there's more than enough information out there on safe driving and the lack of experience and differing attitudes. Do they really need to get more data to find out what the problems are?
Perhaps it's to get the data they need to peddle their already preferred solutions?
It's like that White Paper on Young Drivers that never happened. They're now monitoring newly qualified drivers with telematics to get data.
How long have humans been around? How long have they been driving cars? I think there's more than enough information out there on safe driving and the lack of experience and differing attitudes. Do they really need to get more data to find out what the problems are?
Perhaps it's to get the data they need to peddle their already preferred solutions?
Digby said:
Stakeholder, stakeholder, stakeholder, stakeholder, stakeholder.....
The safety of millions of faceless, resource sapping, polluting, annoying tin box drivers was never going to be a priority.
It's nothing more than motorway monopoly.
I've had about as much alliteration as I can take from you The safety of millions of faceless, resource sapping, polluting, annoying tin box drivers was never going to be a priority.
It's nothing more than motorway monopoly.
Blue Oval84 said:
Please tell me that no one needs to have it explained how slowing down traffic which is approaching a queue of stationery traffic actually speeds things up overall?
You can explain it to me.Hypothetical situation:
3 lane road is easily supporting 1 car every second across the 3 lanes. Road works ahead close 2 lanes so maximum flow becomes 1 car every 2 seconds.
The flow rate of a road is measured in vehicles per second. Speed does not come into the measurement. The time gap between cars is the deciding variable. The only way to prevent a queue from forming is to decrease the flow rate of traffic approaching the obstacle.
The cars ahead of me will clear the obstacle at the flow rate of the road. Whether I do 70mph and then 5mph or a constant 50mph is irrelevant in determining how quickly the road ahead clears.
Here's an interesting analogy. Do you think you can make an egg timer run faster by turning it over slowly so the sand approaches the obstacle more slowly?
Edited by alock on Wednesday 1st April 20:37
alock said:
Blue Oval84 said:
Please tell me that no one needs to have it explained how slowing down traffic which is approaching a queue of stationery traffic actually speeds things up overall?
You can explain it to me.Hypothetical situation:
3 lane road is easily supporting 1 car every second across the 3 lanes. Road works ahead close 2 lanes so maximum flow becomes 1 car every 2 seconds.
The flow rate of a road is measured in vehicles per second. Speed does not come into the measurement. The time gap between cars is the deciding variable. The only way to prevent a queue from forming is to decrease the flow rate of traffic approaching the obstacle.
The cars ahead of me will clear the obstacle at the flow rate of the road. Whether I do 70mph and then 5mph or a constant 50mph is irrelevant in determining how quickly the road ahead clears.
However, notwithstanding that the difference wouldn't be significant, this has nothing to do with the report. This is just another example of the public sector spending, not to say wasting, someone else's money with the core aim of justifying its own existence.
alock said:
The flow rate of a road is measured in vehicles per second. Speed does not come into the measurement. The time gap between cars is the deciding variable. The only way to prevent a queue from forming is to decrease the flow rate of traffic approaching the obstacle.
]
If the time gap between cars is the deciding variable then in order to decrease the flow of traffic this gap would need to be increased. Drivers naturally decrease the gap between cars as speeds decrease, therefore in order to increase the gap between cars the speeds need to be increased. Hence the HA should be forcing drivers to drive faster when there is a hold up ahead.]
Or have I misunderstood you?
jkh112 said:
If the time gap between cars is the deciding variable then in order to decrease the flow of traffic this gap would need to be increased. Drivers naturally decrease the gap between cars as speeds decrease, therefore in order to increase the gap between cars the speeds need to be increased. Hence Highways England should be forcing drivers to drive faster when there is a hold up ahead.
Or have I misunderstood you?
Fixed it for you. Or have I misunderstood you?
REALIST123 said:
...unless, without the rate of oncreasing traffic being slowed, much of it subsequently comes to a full halt and then has to start again. That process would possibly slow down the overall rate.
This, exactly.The idea is that if you slow the traffic down a little, by the time it reaches the "phantom" jam (not a permanently closed lane, you can't restore lost capacity with a speed limit) then it will have cleared.
For example, the road outside my flat has a crossing, on a weekend there is a steady flow of cars heading into town down the road.
When they're stopped briefly for the crossing, even if only for ten seconds, the cars start piling into the back of the queue.
The front cars move off, but they never do it particularly quickly, so cars continue to barrel into the stationary queue faster than they leave it. From my window I can watch the actual jam move backwards up the road as the cars slowly leave the front, and fly in at the back.
Now, if there were a way to get the cars heading towards the jam to slow down a little on approach, by the time they get there, the jam would have cleared already and they could sail through unhindered. This would be much quicker than flying up to a queue, then taking a f
king ice age to pull away and get moving again.That is what managed motorway is trying to do. The reason it's less successful than it should be is that the temporary limits are often ignored in my experience.
This video illustrates the type of jam, and hopefully with a little imagination demonstrates how you could kill off the jam by slowing traffic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff