ANPR - Have Your Say

ANPR - Have Your Say

Author
Discussion

Pan Pan Pan

7,741 posts

76 months

Sunday 7th March
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
saaby93 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Aircraft are not they same as vehicles when it comes down to speeds.
At each stage of a flight they have an optimum speed, and for the heavies this can change based on aircraft weight.
Generally aircraft are not required to fly slow / fast. For most of the time they are required to fly at and stay at their optimum cruising speed.
Going more slowly is usually reserved for flying through certain conditions, such as clear air turbulence, or when slowing to flap and gear limiting speeds prior to landing.
I am not sure if aircraft provide much in the way of useful comparisons with vehicles, when referring to speeds?
How do you feel about letting the EU advisor know that?
Or maybe it is ok and there's an optimum speed for vehicle travel too. scratchchin
Why the EU? Since aircraft are a global transport element, aircraft are controlled overall by the ICAAO.
As for the optimum speed for vehicles that would be a hard one to define, but since the whole point of using motorized vehicles of any kind, is to move from one point on the Earths surface to another faster, more conveniently / comfortably, and safer than is permitted by other means, That would seem to be the basic speed requirement for any type of vehicle, other wise there would seem to be little point in having / using them.
We had the technology, eg with Concorde half a century ago, to do it a lot quicker than we do currently, but like I say it's a compromise & not just about as fast as what's possible. There are other motivators beside outright speed.
Indeed , but aircraft are not operated like ground vehicles, not least because other than restricted areas, where (for e.g fast jets) sonic booms are not permitted, or when slowing to enter a landing pattern / circuit where slower aircraft, can be encountered, there are not really speed limits in the skies.
You take off and climb out, at the optimum speeds for that part of the flight, and these are governed by aircraft weight, and limitations placed on the use of very high power settings of the engines'
You then climb at the optimum climb speed, and once cruising altitude has been attained, the aircraft is then levelled, and allowed to accelerate to its optimum cruise speed, at the cruising rpm / max continuous power output of the engine/s.
Here it will stay, unless e.g turbulence is encountered, requiring reduced speed to prevent structural damage to the airframe , or when (as above) slowing to enter a landing pattern.
There is no continuous need for slowing down, or speeding up, as is the normal procedure for of ground vehicles.
Aircraft are more like large ships, in the way an optimum cruise speed is established, at which they will remain until reaching their destination.

saaby93

28,103 posts

143 months

Sunday 7th March
quotequote all
Pan Pan Pan said:
vonhosen said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
saaby93 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Aircraft are not they same as vehicles when it comes down to speeds.
At each stage of a flight they have an optimum speed, and for the heavies this can change based on aircraft weight.
Generally aircraft are not required to fly slow / fast. For most of the time they are required to fly at and stay at their optimum cruising speed.
Going more slowly is usually reserved for flying through certain conditions, such as clear air turbulence, or when slowing to flap and gear limiting speeds prior to landing.
I am not sure if aircraft provide much in the way of useful comparisons with vehicles, when referring to speeds?
How do you feel about letting the EU advisor know that?
Or maybe it is ok and there's an optimum speed for vehicle travel too. scratchchin
Why the EU? Since aircraft are a global transport element, aircraft are controlled overall by the ICAAO.
As for the optimum speed for vehicles that would be a hard one to define, but since the whole point of using motorized vehicles of any kind, is to move from one point on the Earths surface to another faster, more conveniently / comfortably, and safer than is permitted by other means, That would seem to be the basic speed requirement for any type of vehicle, other wise there would seem to be little point in having / using them.
We had the technology, eg with Concorde half a century ago, to do it a lot quicker than we do currently, but like I say it's a compromise & not just about as fast as what's possible. There are other motivators beside outright speed.
Indeed , but aircraft are not operated like ground vehicles, not least because other than restricted areas, where (for e.g fast jets) sonic booms are not permitted, or when slowing to enter a landing pattern / circuit where slower aircraft, can be encountered, there are not really speed limits in the skies.
You take off and climb out, at the optimum speeds for that part of the flight, and these are governed by aircraft weight, and limitations placed on the use of very high power settings of the engines'
You then climb at the optimum climb speed, and once cruising altitude has been attained, the aircraft is then levelled, and allowed to accelerate to its optimum cruise speed, at the cruising rpm / max continuous power output of the engine/s.
Here it will stay, unless e.g turbulence is encountered, requiring reduced speed to prevent structural damage to the airframe , or when (as above) slowing to enter a landing pattern.
There is no continuous need for slowing down, or speeding up, as is the normal procedure for of ground vehicles.
Aircraft are more like large ships, in the way an optimum cruise speed is established, at which they will remain until reaching their destination.
So why are they using aircraft as a comparator?

Pan Pan Pan

7,741 posts

76 months

Sunday 7th March
quotequote all
saaby93 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
vonhosen said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
saaby93 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Aircraft are not they same as vehicles when it comes down to speeds.
At each stage of a flight they have an optimum speed, and for the heavies this can change based on aircraft weight.
Generally aircraft are not required to fly slow / fast. For most of the time they are required to fly at and stay at their optimum cruising speed.
Going more slowly is usually reserved for flying through certain conditions, such as clear air turbulence, or when slowing to flap and gear limiting speeds prior to landing.
I am not sure if aircraft provide much in the way of useful comparisons with vehicles, when referring to speeds?
How do you feel about letting the EU advisor know that?
Or maybe it is ok and there's an optimum speed for vehicle travel too. scratchchin
Why the EU? Since aircraft are a global transport element, aircraft are controlled overall by the ICAAO.
As for the optimum speed for vehicles that would be a hard one to define, but since the whole point of using motorized vehicles of any kind, is to move from one point on the Earths surface to another faster, more conveniently / comfortably, and safer than is permitted by other means, That would seem to be the basic speed requirement for any type of vehicle, other wise there would seem to be little point in having / using them.
We had the technology, eg with Concorde half a century ago, to do it a lot quicker than we do currently, but like I say it's a compromise & not just about as fast as what's possible. There are other motivators beside outright speed.
Indeed , but aircraft are not operated like ground vehicles, not least because other than restricted areas, where (for e.g fast jets) sonic booms are not permitted, or when slowing to enter a landing pattern / circuit where slower aircraft, can be encountered, there are not really speed limits in the skies.
You take off and climb out, at the optimum speeds for that part of the flight, and these are governed by aircraft weight, and limitations placed on the use of very high power settings of the engines'
You then climb at the optimum climb speed, and once cruising altitude has been attained, the aircraft is then levelled, and allowed to accelerate to its optimum cruise speed, at the cruising rpm / max continuous power output of the engine/s.
Here it will stay, unless e.g turbulence is encountered, requiring reduced speed to prevent structural damage to the airframe , or when (as above) slowing to enter a landing pattern.
There is no continuous need for slowing down, or speeding up, as is the normal procedure for of ground vehicles.
Aircraft are more like large ships, in the way an optimum cruise speed is established, at which they will remain until reaching their destination.
So why are they using aircraft as a comparator?
I really don't know, since from my POV there is little to enable them to be compared (particularly with regards to speeds) to ground vehicles.

bigothunter

973 posts

25 months

Sunday 7th March
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
bigothunter said:
bigothunter said:
How many drivers will push into a high load accelerator pedal whilst ignoring an insistent electronic chime? Not many and not for long because it's too uncomfortable. The 'problem' of speeding drivers is solved.
vonhosen said:
Those for who exceeding the speed limit is more important.
You are also ignoring in your 'soon' all of the pre 2022 vehicles on the road that will stay on the road.
Soon new cars will be sat in front of you on the motorway at a constant 70mph (except for those driven by masochists who enjoy discomfort). Just like trucks do today at 56mph.
That's no different to now.
Some doing 70 & some doing less than 70 too.
To be honest I worry more about the times I'm sat still on motorways or in stop start traffic than when I'm able to do a constant 70.
Then you will be entirely happy with the new speed limiters whether soft or hard. Good thumbup

Durzel

9,778 posts

133 months

Wednesday 10th March
quotequote all
So CCTV spotted Sarah Everard 30 minutes after she left her friends house, and presumably before that too, localising the point of her disappearance past that point (currently browned to be Clapham Common). The image quality was good enough to show exactly what she was wearing at the time (so not having to rely on eyewitness account)

It was apparently a 50 minute journey from her friends house to hers. It strikes me that without a camera network all the Police would have to go on is that she left the house at roughly X o’clock, and that’s that.

If CCTV and ANPR lead to finding her quicker, or whomever is responsible for her disappearance, I’d suggest the ends justify the means.

Evanivitch

9,061 posts

87 months

Wednesday 10th March
quotequote all
Durzel said:
If CCTV and ANPR lead to finding her quicker, or whomever is responsible for her disappearance, I’d suggest the ends justify the means.
Wow. That's truly an astounding trade for privacy and liberty of the population.

swisstoni

10,745 posts

244 months

Wednesday 10th March
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Durzel said:
If CCTV and ANPR lead to finding her quicker, or whomever is responsible for her disappearance, I’d suggest the ends justify the means.
Wow. That's truly an astounding trade for privacy and liberty of the population.
Wow, yourself.
Most people find the presence of cameras a comfort imho. Just like the old fashioned ‘Bobby in the beat’ used to.
True crims have ways of evading this stuff easily enough.
For everyone else it’s a comfort that they cannot simply disappear from a street without trace.

Evanivitch

9,061 posts

87 months

Wednesday 10th March
quotequote all
swisstoni said:
Evanivitch said:
Durzel said:
If CCTV and ANPR lead to finding her quicker, or whomever is responsible for her disappearance, I’d suggest the ends justify the means.
Wow. That's truly an astounding trade for privacy and liberty of the population.
Wow, yourself.
Most people find the presence of cameras a comfort imho. Just like the old fashioned ‘Bobby in the beat’ used to.
True crims have ways of evading this stuff easily enough.
For everyone else it’s a comfort that they cannot simply disappear from a street without trace.
You're going to have to expand on the "presence of cameras" because I think people draw the line between government CCTV on their front door and a camera on a dark, poorly lit street. Feel free to point me to the authority that allows you to speak for most people.

Durzel

9,778 posts

133 months

Wednesday 10th March
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Durzel said:
If CCTV and ANPR lead to finding her quicker, or whomever is responsible for her disappearance, I’d suggest the ends justify the means.
Wow. That's truly an astounding trade for privacy and liberty of the population.
What privacy do you realistically expect to have in public spaces?

swisstoni

10,745 posts

244 months

Wednesday 10th March
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
swisstoni said:
Evanivitch said:
Durzel said:
If CCTV and ANPR lead to finding her quicker, or whomever is responsible for her disappearance, I’d suggest the ends justify the means.
Wow. That's truly an astounding trade for privacy and liberty of the population.
Wow, yourself.
Most people find the presence of cameras a comfort imho. Just like the old fashioned ‘Bobby in the beat’ used to.
True crims have ways of evading this stuff easily enough.
For everyone else it’s a comfort that they cannot simply disappear from a street without trace.
You're going to have to expand on the "presence of cameras" because I think people draw the line between government CCTV on their front door and a camera on a dark, poorly lit street. Feel free to point me to the authority that allows you to speak for most people.
I’m just giving you my personal opinion.
So I’m not authorised I’m afraid.

But as you clearly operate to higher standards, perhaps you’d let me know how you know where “people draw the line” as you put it?

Volvolover

563 posts

6 months

Wednesday 10th March
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Durzel said:
If CCTV and ANPR lead to finding her quicker, or whomever is responsible for her disappearance, I’d suggest the ends justify the means.
Wow. That's truly an astounding trade for privacy and liberty of the population.
How does a camera take away your liberty? What is it preventing you from doing?

Durzel

9,778 posts

133 months

Wednesday 10th March
quotequote all
My simple line of thinking is that people can't realistically expect to have privacy in public spaces. If this consequently means you're filmed by the Police, or by shopkeepers, or any number of businesses that have CCTV, for whatever reason they've deployed them, then so be it.

Whining about loss of liberty when you can't practicably know where, when or even if you've been filmed, or who has watched that recording, when you can't control it in any event - seems to me like a recipe for madness.

Durzel

9,778 posts

133 months

Wednesday 10th March
quotequote all
Volvolover said:
Evanivitch said:
Durzel said:
If CCTV and ANPR lead to finding her quicker, or whomever is responsible for her disappearance, I’d suggest the ends justify the means.
Wow. That's truly an astounding trade for privacy and liberty of the population.
How does a camera take away your liberty? What is it preventing you from doing?
Just being free man, free to do some drug deals in peace.. or something, I dunno.

bigothunter

973 posts

25 months

Wednesday 10th March
quotequote all
swisstoni said:
Evanivitch said:
Durzel said:
If CCTV and ANPR lead to finding her quicker, or whomever is responsible for her disappearance, I’d suggest the ends justify the means.
Wow. That's truly an astounding trade for privacy and liberty of the population.
Wow, yourself.
Most people find the presence of cameras a comfort imho. Just like the old fashioned ‘Bobby in the beat’ used to.
True crims have ways of evading this stuff easily enough.
For everyone else it’s a comfort that they cannot simply disappear from a street without trace.
For ultimate safety, why not make personal safety tracking devices compulsory? scratchchin


Durzel

9,778 posts

133 months

Wednesday 10th March
quotequote all
Ah the classic thin end of the wedge argument.

If you're happy with X you must necessarily embrace X+1000!!

bigothunter

973 posts

25 months

Wednesday 10th March
quotequote all
Durzel said:
Ah the classic thin end of the wedge argument.

If you're happy with X you must necessarily embrace X+1000!!

Durzel

9,778 posts

133 months

Wednesday 10th March
quotequote all
bigothunter said:
Durzel said:
Ah the classic thin end of the wedge argument.

If you're happy with X you must necessarily embrace X+1000!!
Great retort. Any more image macros to use in place of an an actual coherent argument?

Are you aware that quote is more than 10 years old? Or did you not care to check?

This crossroads we're at today (and for the past 10 years) sure is ominous.

bigothunter

973 posts

25 months

Wednesday 10th March
quotequote all
Durzel said:
This crossroads we're at today (and for the past 10 years) sure is ominous.
Pleased you agree. We have the same concern.

Evanivitch

9,061 posts

87 months

Wednesday 10th March
quotequote all
I'm glad this thread continues to spiral from complete government surveillance is fine as long as it catches criminals, all the way to it is justified if it finds just one missing person.

I'm not going through that dance again, feel free to dig out a previous post of mine in this thread on these questions.