Average Speed Cams - are people really this thick?
Discussion
The problem isn't the speed, it's the disproportionately small increase in following distance as speed goes up?
I haven't yet done the Googling as yet (my thanks to those who have offered helpful information). What I'll say now is that I reckon this is another money-making ruse. I'll say that a drop from 70 to 60 will make an insignificant difference to traffic flow, but the turning on of speed cameras makes a useful sum for whoever it is that benefits these days.
I haven't yet done the Googling as yet (my thanks to those who have offered helpful information). What I'll say now is that I reckon this is another money-making ruse. I'll say that a drop from 70 to 60 will make an insignificant difference to traffic flow, but the turning on of speed cameras makes a useful sum for whoever it is that benefits these days.
BertBert said:
If you wish to assert a different point of view feel free to. But arguing with mine by saying prove it is puerile.
I guess you've never wondered what causes the stop starts then? Nor bothered with any kind of education?
Not to put too fine a point on it, you can pack the maximum number of cars in at zero speed - only problem is, you then have a parking lot.I guess you've never wondered what causes the stop starts then? Nor bothered with any kind of education?
Pete317 said:
If it's that uncontroversial then surely you should be able to explain it fully, or point to some literature which does.
Some of us may be unwilling to accept hand-waving and nebulous "it's complicated" type arguments.
Or something like that.
Some of us may be unwilling to accept hand-waving and nebulous "it's complicated" type arguments.
Or something like that.
The rest of what you say seems to indicate that either you haven't read the theory, or that you've misunderstood it.
Try: http://www.kuleuven.be/traffic/dwn/H111part3.pdf
Now that the Westway has average speed cameras there must be a lot of tickets being issued. As I crawl along the elevated section at the speed limit now, I am passed by much, sometimes even most of the traffic. Some are dumb enough to slow down for the cameras.
The first place I drove a V12 Vantage was on the elevated section. I drove it the way most people used to drive there before these cameras arrived.
The first place I drove a V12 Vantage was on the elevated section. I drove it the way most people used to drive there before these cameras arrived.
I brake for the first yellow camera, lets me leave it at an indicated 60mph in a 50 zone without having to guess what my average would have been.
No idea what everyone else is up to, but given you'll find people using the brake pedal in lane 3 of an otherwise empty motorway little surprises me about what happens when you point cameras at them.
No idea what everyone else is up to, but given you'll find people using the brake pedal in lane 3 of an otherwise empty motorway little surprises me about what happens when you point cameras at them.
jesta1865 said:
come down to southend and follow the a127 out towards london. it will scramble your brains.
purely because we get an extra dumb type of driver, we get all the brake when i see a camera ones in the 50mph part.
however inside the part with the cameras the limit goes up to the nsl (70 as it's dc) and some still plod along at 50 in the right hand lane, i've even had some point to the cameras as I go up to 70 - 75 (on my speedo) in a diesel land rover as they think i'm going to get a ticket.
There's an extra special flaw with the arrangement on the A127 in that the average speed section overlaps 2 speed limits of 70 and 50mph. All well and annoying but the camera sites dont tally up with the limit change signs, so leaves some guess work as to what the councils idea is of the average between 1 camera in a 70 limit and the next one which is well into a 50 limit (southend bound).purely because we get an extra dumb type of driver, we get all the brake when i see a camera ones in the 50mph part.
however inside the part with the cameras the limit goes up to the nsl (70 as it's dc) and some still plod along at 50 in the right hand lane, i've even had some point to the cameras as I go up to 70 - 75 (on my speedo) in a diesel land rover as they think i'm going to get a ticket.
drmotorsport said:
There's an extra special flaw with the arrangement on the A127 in that the average speed section overlaps 2 speed limits of 70 and 50mph. All well and annoying but the camera sites dont tally up with the limit change signs, so leaves some guess work as to what the councils idea is of the average between 1 camera in a 70 limit and the next one which is well into a 50 limit (southend bound).
Well its not really guesswork so much as simple maths.. AFAIK SPECS cameras work out the average based on the elapsed time, so all they have to do is know how long it should take a vehicle travelling at 70 in the 70 limit and 50 in the 50 to travel between the two cameras.It does mean that in theory you could travel at less than 70 first, then speed through the 50 section and not trip the cameras. You'd still be speeding in the 50 of course but those cameras wouldn't catch you 
KaraK said:
drmotorsport said:
There's an extra special flaw with the arrangement on the A127 in that the average speed section overlaps 2 speed limits of 70 and 50mph. All well and annoying but the camera sites dont tally up with the limit change signs, so leaves some guess work as to what the councils idea is of the average between 1 camera in a 70 limit and the next one which is well into a 50 limit (southend bound).
Well its not really guesswork so much as simple maths.. AFAIK SPECS cameras work out the average based on the elapsed time, so all they have to do is know how long it should take a vehicle travelling at 70 in the 70 limit and 50 in the 50 to travel between the two cameras.It does mean that in theory you could travel at less than 70 first, then speed through the 50 section and not trip the cameras. You'd still be speeding in the 50 of course but those cameras wouldn't catch you 
ferrariF50lover said:
The problem isn't the speed, it's the disproportionately small increase in following distance as speed goes up?
I haven't yet done the Googling as yet (my thanks to those who have offered helpful information). What I'll say now is that I reckon this is another money-making ruse. I'll say that a drop from 70 to 60 will make an insignificant difference to traffic flow, but the turning on of speed cameras makes a useful sum for whoever it is that benefits these days.
I thought the drop to 60mph was mostly caused by the UK not hitting its emissions targets? Wasn't a section of the M1 meant to be upgraded to 80mph then got quietly scrapped for the 60mph limit? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mot...I haven't yet done the Googling as yet (my thanks to those who have offered helpful information). What I'll say now is that I reckon this is another money-making ruse. I'll say that a drop from 70 to 60 will make an insignificant difference to traffic flow, but the turning on of speed cameras makes a useful sum for whoever it is that benefits these days.
Looks to be completely relevant and what I said isn't proven wrong. Are least you'll be able to understand it for yourself.
Pete317 said:
Not to put too fine a point on it, you can pack the maximum number of cars in at zero speed - only problem is, you then have a parking lot.
The rest of what you say seems to indicate that either you haven't read the theory, or that you've misunderstood it.
Try: http://www.kuleuven.be/traffic/dwn/H111part3.pdf
The rest of what you say seems to indicate that either you haven't read the theory, or that you've misunderstood it.
Try: http://www.kuleuven.be/traffic/dwn/H111part3.pdf
BertBert said:
Looks to be completely relevant and what I said isn't proven wrong. Are least you'll be able to understand it for yourself.
Which part of that document explains your following statements?Pete317 said:
Not to put too fine a point on it, you can pack the maximum number of cars in at zero speed - only problem is, you then have a parking lot.
The rest of what you say seems to indicate that either you haven't read the theory, or that you've misunderstood it.
Try: http://www.kuleuven.be/traffic/dwn/H111part3.pdf
The rest of what you say seems to indicate that either you haven't read the theory, or that you've misunderstood it.
Try: http://www.kuleuven.be/traffic/dwn/H111part3.pdf
BertBert said:
Then the main logic is that complex stuff where the effect of a braker is made much worse with high speeds and high density. That causes all that horrible stop start. I think that is non linear with speed. So reduce speed, higher density without the stop start.
KaraK said:
drmotorsport said:
There's an extra special flaw with the arrangement on the A127 in that the average speed section overlaps 2 speed limits of 70 and 50mph. All well and annoying but the camera sites dont tally up with the limit change signs, so leaves some guess work as to what the councils idea is of the average between 1 camera in a 70 limit and the next one which is well into a 50 limit (southend bound).
Well its not really guesswork so much as simple maths.. AFAIK SPECS cameras work out the average based on the elapsed time, so all they have to do is know how long it should take a vehicle travelling at 70 in the 70 limit and 50 in the 50 to travel between the two cameras.It does mean that in theory you could travel at less than 70 first, then speed through the 50 section and not trip the cameras. You'd still be speeding in the 50 of course but those cameras wouldn't catch you Having recently had the pleasure of that lovely 50mph zone protecting all those valuable cones on the M3, it seems to me like almost everyone was obeying it. I just sat on the inside lane with cruise control on, but the biggest annoyance was being tailgated by an old Passat that looked like it was about to star in Road Wars. I couldn't speed up to make a gap, or change lanes because cars were stuck alongside me.
ferrariF50lover said:
The problem isn't the speed, it's the disproportionately small increase in following distance as speed goes up?
Sort of.If every vehicle kept a 2 second gap to the vehicle in front then speed is irrelevant and exactly the same number of vehicles pass through a section of road in an hour, i.e. 3600 / 2 = 1800. That's true whether the speed is 20 or 70 mph. In fact if drivers are too close at higher speeds then more vehicles will pass in an hour than at slow speed, assuming constant velocity.
The issue is when there is variation or disruption to the flow, that has a greater effect at higher speed.
speedking31 said:
ort of.
If every vehicle kept a 2 second gap to the vehicle in front then speed is irrelevant and exactly the same number of vehicles pass through a section of road in an hour, i.e. 3600 / 2 = 1800. That's true whether the speed is 20 or 70 mph. In fact if drivers are too close at higher speeds then more vehicles will pass in an hour than at slow speed, assuming constant velocity.
The issue is when there is variation or disruption to the flow, that has a greater effect at higher speed.
If you have two lines of cars 20 miles long - one line in lane 1 moving at 20mph and one line in lane 2 moving at 60mph - and you stand on a bridge, the lane 2 line will have all passed you in 20minutes. The lane 1 line will take an hour to all pass under the bridge. In reality there will be a small variation on this as the inter-car gap will increase at higher speed so the line will stretch to to longer than 20miles but not three times the length.If every vehicle kept a 2 second gap to the vehicle in front then speed is irrelevant and exactly the same number of vehicles pass through a section of road in an hour, i.e. 3600 / 2 = 1800. That's true whether the speed is 20 or 70 mph. In fact if drivers are too close at higher speeds then more vehicles will pass in an hour than at slow speed, assuming constant velocity.
The issue is when there is variation or disruption to the flow, that has a greater effect at higher speed.
marshalla said:
KaraK said:
drmotorsport said:
There's an extra special flaw with the arrangement on the A127 in that the average speed section overlaps 2 speed limits of 70 and 50mph. All well and annoying but the camera sites dont tally up with the limit change signs, so leaves some guess work as to what the councils idea is of the average between 1 camera in a 70 limit and the next one which is well into a 50 limit (southend bound).
Well its not really guesswork so much as simple maths.. AFAIK SPECS cameras work out the average based on the elapsed time, so all they have to do is know how long it should take a vehicle travelling at 70 in the 70 limit and 50 in the 50 to travel between the two cameras.It does mean that in theory you could travel at less than 70 first, then speed through the 50 section and not trip the cameras. You'd still be speeding in the 50 of course but those cameras wouldn't catch you 
I think it's easy to underestimate just how poor a grasp the majority of people have on the most basic principles of maths. Within the last few months I've discovered 2 people in their 50s that I've know for years that:
a) asked me how many zeros were in 10K, saying "I've never got all those noughts business" and
b) had no idea what a percentage actually meant, and didn't understand how to deduct 20% from 50 and didn't want me to even explain it because they knew it would be beyond them anyway.
As for basic probability, well you just need to read the lotto threads on PH to see how many people are completely lost with that.
I'm not surprised that the whole "average" concept is lost on the general populous.
a) asked me how many zeros were in 10K, saying "I've never got all those noughts business" and
b) had no idea what a percentage actually meant, and didn't understand how to deduct 20% from 50 and didn't want me to even explain it because they knew it would be beyond them anyway.
As for basic probability, well you just need to read the lotto threads on PH to see how many people are completely lost with that.
I'm not surprised that the whole "average" concept is lost on the general populous.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I think it's easy to underestimate just how poor a grasp the majority of people have on the most basic principles of maths. Within the last few months I've discovered 2 people in their 50s that I've know for years that:
a) asked me how many zeros were in 10K, saying "I've never got all those noughts business" and
b) had no idea what a percentage actually meant, and didn't understand how to deduct 20% from 50 and didn't want me to even explain it because they knew it would be beyond them anyway.
As for basic probability, well you just need to read the lotto threads on PH to see how many people are completely lost with that.
I'm not surprised that the whole "average" concept is lost on the general populous.
That's surprising. People of that age didn't have the use of calculators and so are generally better at mental arithmetic. a) asked me how many zeros were in 10K, saying "I've never got all those noughts business" and
b) had no idea what a percentage actually meant, and didn't understand how to deduct 20% from 50 and didn't want me to even explain it because they knew it would be beyond them anyway.
As for basic probability, well you just need to read the lotto threads on PH to see how many people are completely lost with that.
I'm not surprised that the whole "average" concept is lost on the general populous.
Maybe they were the exception. I used to annoy my Manager by doing calculations faster in my head than he could do on a calculator.
Tim
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff