Will average speed cameras caus more accidents?
Discussion
The inevitable and irresistable development of automated average speed camera enforcement, by way of satellite surveillance, should not come as a surprise to any of us.
However, there is unexploited loophole.
Between the detectors it is of course possible to increase your speed above the speed limit and not be detected. But only if, for example you had been otherwise travelling below the speed limit. The problem is the calculation. Electronic devices are already available (average speed calculators) designed for Road Rallies. The only hassle is you would have to keep zeroing them at every detector you pass.
I expect there will be a more sophisticated range of products available that, with detectors satellite mapped, will automatically advise you what speed you will be able to do and keep within the average speed. It will be interesting to see, on what grounds the authorities will seek to make these devices illegal. After all they are only providing the motorist with the same information that the Highways Commission, receive from the said devices.
The future still looks bleak however, from the viewpoint of road safety. People stationary on the M25, then accelerating at over 110mph and then having serious accidents will, lets hope, finally bring about the demise of these devices.
I think the Highways Commission might rightfully deserve nothing less. How can they suggest that the motorist determine his average speed, when he is not (currently) equipped to do so?
Odd how nobody's suggested that the satellite links, be used to monitor an penalise vehicles driving to close for the speed they are travelling at. That as we all know is the main reason for rear end collisions and they are probably the most serious of all motorway accidents
However, there is unexploited loophole.
Between the detectors it is of course possible to increase your speed above the speed limit and not be detected. But only if, for example you had been otherwise travelling below the speed limit. The problem is the calculation. Electronic devices are already available (average speed calculators) designed for Road Rallies. The only hassle is you would have to keep zeroing them at every detector you pass.
I expect there will be a more sophisticated range of products available that, with detectors satellite mapped, will automatically advise you what speed you will be able to do and keep within the average speed. It will be interesting to see, on what grounds the authorities will seek to make these devices illegal. After all they are only providing the motorist with the same information that the Highways Commission, receive from the said devices.
The future still looks bleak however, from the viewpoint of road safety. People stationary on the M25, then accelerating at over 110mph and then having serious accidents will, lets hope, finally bring about the demise of these devices.
I think the Highways Commission might rightfully deserve nothing less. How can they suggest that the motorist determine his average speed, when he is not (currently) equipped to do so?
Odd how nobody's suggested that the satellite links, be used to monitor an penalise vehicles driving to close for the speed they are travelling at. That as we all know is the main reason for rear end collisions and they are probably the most serious of all motorway accidents
Edited by crbox on Wednesday 21st April 13:37
Cruise control?
Following a car that's doing a steady speed?
The average speed cameras aren't tuned to 50mph on the dot they have the normal +10% +3mph that gatso's have so as long as you're not being silly just keep the same speed as everyone else you only need one person in each lane to be keeping an eye on their speed and due to the wonders of modern congestion no one behind them can speed. This means you get to use all your attention looking for the people who are stating at a dial on their dashboard rather than the road.
Following a car that's doing a steady speed?
The average speed cameras aren't tuned to 50mph on the dot they have the normal +10% +3mph that gatso's have so as long as you're not being silly just keep the same speed as everyone else you only need one person in each lane to be keeping an eye on their speed and due to the wonders of modern congestion no one behind them can speed. This means you get to use all your attention looking for the people who are stating at a dial on their dashboard rather than the road.
crbox said:
The inevitable and irresistable development of automated average speed camera enforcement, by way of satellite surveillance, should not come as a surprise to any of us.
It would come as a surprise to me! There is no way that putting cameras in the sky with the resolution and capability of tracking individual vehicles on a mass scale is technically realistic or financially viable. The "satellite surveillance" scare stories bandied around in the last couple of days use nothing more sinister than GPS so each camera knows where it is and is no more difficult to fool than normal SPECS. Trying to argue different is simply paranoia of the highest degree. Had a few close calls in the limited times I've been going though SPECS, namely because if there are 4 cars sat nose to tail (as they all seem to do) then there is a junction - the cars coming alongside then don't get let in, some try and force their way in. I've also had Doris in her Micra doing 25mph in a 50 limit (though in the outside lane of the two!) and my word that caused some problems (this was on the M25!).
ctallchris said:
Cruise control?
Following a car that's doing a steady speed?
The average speed cameras aren't tuned to 50mph on the dot they have the normal +10% +3mph that gatso's have so as long as you're not being silly just keep the same speed as everyone else you only need one person in each lane to be keeping an eye on their speed and due to the wonders of modern congestion no one behind them can speed. This means you get to use all your attention looking for the people who are stating at a dial on their dashboard rather than the road.
So you are saying that every car has cruise control? Because the majority don't as at the moment there isn't a need to monitor your speed that closely. Oh, and to add ruise control isn't infallable, on reasonable declines it will allow you're car to go way over the stated speed.Following a car that's doing a steady speed?
The average speed cameras aren't tuned to 50mph on the dot they have the normal +10% +3mph that gatso's have so as long as you're not being silly just keep the same speed as everyone else you only need one person in each lane to be keeping an eye on their speed and due to the wonders of modern congestion no one behind them can speed. This means you get to use all your attention looking for the people who are stating at a dial on their dashboard rather than the road.
I think this would make more motorist take their attention away from the road on their speed meaning people will just travel 5mph under the speed limit which will just make. The conjestion more serious.
What is wrong with the road safety we have now? Do we really need to impliment this kind of radical Big Brother system?
crbox said:
I think the Highways Commission might rightfully deserve nothing less. How can they suggest that the motorist determine his average speed, when he is not (currently) equipped to do so?
Why would they be concerned about whether a motorist can calculate his average speed?An average speed camera on a 50mph road does not legally allow you to drive at an 'average of 50mph'. The legal limit is still 50mph, and therefore all the motorist needs to know to stay legal is their current speed, which they must keep below 50mph.
I do recognise that a motorist can break the law and avoid detection by keeping to an average speed of 50mph, but neither the "Highways Commission" you refer to, nor and other government body, will require a motorist to monitor their average speed.
_rubinho_ said:
crbox said:
The inevitable and irresistable development of automated average speed camera enforcement, by way of satellite surveillance, should not come as a surprise to any of us.
It would come as a surprise to me! There is no way that putting cameras in the sky with the resolution and capability of tracking individual vehicles on a mass scale is technically realistic or financially viable. The "satellite surveillance" scare stories bandied around in the last couple of days use nothing more sinister than GPS so each camera knows where it is and is no more difficult to fool than normal SPECS. Trying to argue different is simply paranoia of the highest degree. crbox said:
_rubinho_ said:
crbox said:
The inevitable and irresistable development of automated average speed camera enforcement, by way of satellite surveillance, should not come as a surprise to any of us.
It would come as a surprise to me! There is no way that putting cameras in the sky with the resolution and capability of tracking individual vehicles on a mass scale is technically realistic or financially viable. The "satellite surveillance" scare stories bandied around in the last couple of days use nothing more sinister than GPS so each camera knows where it is and is no more difficult to fool than normal SPECS. Trying to argue different is simply paranoia of the highest degree. none of this information would be coming accross trusted links so as it's coming into a secure government system each message would have to be individually checked for viruses so the average message contains a minimum of the following info
GPS location 20 bytes
registration 8 bytes
speed 6 bytes
Presumably driver name for accountablility (20 bytes driving licence number)
- 2 for filestructure and indexing
If each car sent once a mile with the average motorist trvelling 40 miles a day
average driver covers 40 miles
so thats 86Gb of data per day Or 32 Tb a year most of which would come in rushes. Ever run a query on a long 1Tb table and you will know it's not really feasable to actually use that many distinct records in any computer system
I would love to design a system to do this but no well advised government would attempt it. It would certainly be an exceedingly large government system with astronmical implementation costs. Much simpler to add rfid tags to cars and set up a limited number of short range detectors on roads you are interested in
ctallchris said:
crbox said:
_rubinho_ said:
crbox said:
The inevitable and irresistable development of automated average speed camera enforcement, by way of satellite surveillance, should not come as a surprise to any of us.
It would come as a surprise to me! There is no way that putting cameras in the sky with the resolution and capability of tracking individual vehicles on a mass scale is technically realistic or financially viable. The "satellite surveillance" scare stories bandied around in the last couple of days use nothing more sinister than GPS so each camera knows where it is and is no more difficult to fool than normal SPECS. Trying to argue different is simply paranoia of the highest degree. none of this information would be coming accross trusted links so as it's coming into a secure government system each message would have to be individually checked for viruses so the average message contains a minimum of the following info
GPS location 20 bytes
registration 8 bytes
speed 6 bytes
Presumably driver name for accountablility (20 bytes driving licence number)
- 2 for filestructure and indexing
If each car sent once a mile with the average motorist trvelling 40 miles a day
average driver covers 40 miles
so thats 86Gb of data per day Or 32 Tb a year most of which would come in rushes. Ever run a query on a long 1Tb table and you will know it's not really feasable to actually use that many distinct records in any computer system
I would love to design a system to do this but no well advised government would attempt it. It would certainly be an exceedingly large government system with astronmical implementation costs. Much simpler to add rfid tags to cars and set up a limited number of short range detectors on roads you are interested in
If it's under a month then presumably all you need to crunch the data do is buy 31 Dell Desktops, #1 does data from the 1st of the month... #28/29/30or31 does the data from the last day of the month. Then send the fines out and get the computer whirring on next months data. Or, if you need to get the fines out quicker, use 90 computers and give each 1/3rd of a day and it will be done in 10 days, quick enough to post the NIP in time for the 14 day deadline.
ETA: Actually you still only need 30 computers, give each one 1/30th of the single day's data and they will be collectivly done in 24 hours, ready for the following day. This way you only need 30 machines but get it done in a 24hour turn-around by dividing the task differently.
Edited by mrmr96 on Wednesday 21st April 16:55
mrmr96 said:
How long would a query take to run on 86Gb of data running on a Dell Desktop equiped with a 100Gb HDD? Under a month if you run it 24/7?
If it's under a month then presumably all you need to crunch the data do is buy 31 Dell Desktops, #1 does data from the 1st of the month... #28/29/30or31 does the data from the last day of the month. Then send the fines out and get the computer whirring on next months data. Or, if you need to get the fines out quicker, use 90 computers and give each 1/3rd of a day and it will be done in 10 days, quick enough to post the NIP in time for the 14 day deadline.
:Rofl:If it's under a month then presumably all you need to crunch the data do is buy 31 Dell Desktops, #1 does data from the 1st of the month... #28/29/30or31 does the data from the last day of the month. Then send the fines out and get the computer whirring on next months data. Or, if you need to get the fines out quicker, use 90 computers and give each 1/3rd of a day and it will be done in 10 days, quick enough to post the NIP in time for the 14 day deadline.
good one
I agree you could analyse the table on a desktop computer I am going to assume you've never worked on a large it deployment
Edited by ctallchris on Wednesday 21st April 17:13
ctallchris said:
:Rofl:
good one
I agree you could analyse the table on a desktop computer I am going to assume you've never worked on a large it deployment
Cheers!good one
I agree you could analyse the table on a desktop computer I am going to assume you've never worked on a large it deployment
Yeah, I know f
k-all about computers really. I just wanted to make the point that the job of analysing the data could be divided up, so you don't have to query a 1Tb table. Or something.Some points to consider:
a) Changing lanes into other cars causes a significant proportion of accidents on motorways, and in my experience of driving across Europe, the more driver's adhere to the limits and the lower the speed differential between adjacent lanes, the greater the chance of a lane change accident. In the UK I've seen several near misses with lane changing, and in Holland it's even worse. In Germany it never happens, because the speed differential between lanes is such that cars don't spend very long alongside each other (a few tenths of a second at most), making this sort of accident much rarer (I've done most of my Euro driving in Germany and have never seen a lane change incident).
b) By forcing driver's to drive at a speed they find boring, their attention span is likely to wander. I know this because often I deliberately set out on a journey early so I can save money by cruising with the lorries in lane 1, and I find it much more of a struggle to stay alert at this speed.
c) It's very soul destroying to crawl along at a low speed on the motorway, and if there's no significant increased risk with driving faster, then why not make the UK a happier place and give people the freedom to open up the roads and drive at a speed that suits them and their agenda better?
a) Changing lanes into other cars causes a significant proportion of accidents on motorways, and in my experience of driving across Europe, the more driver's adhere to the limits and the lower the speed differential between adjacent lanes, the greater the chance of a lane change accident. In the UK I've seen several near misses with lane changing, and in Holland it's even worse. In Germany it never happens, because the speed differential between lanes is such that cars don't spend very long alongside each other (a few tenths of a second at most), making this sort of accident much rarer (I've done most of my Euro driving in Germany and have never seen a lane change incident).
b) By forcing driver's to drive at a speed they find boring, their attention span is likely to wander. I know this because often I deliberately set out on a journey early so I can save money by cruising with the lorries in lane 1, and I find it much more of a struggle to stay alert at this speed.
c) It's very soul destroying to crawl along at a low speed on the motorway, and if there's no significant increased risk with driving faster, then why not make the UK a happier place and give people the freedom to open up the roads and drive at a speed that suits them and their agenda better?
Is there a 'daft question' competition?
SPECS has been around for quite a few years now. It reduces the number of accidents in roadworks (where there are people working in the road) and reduces the severity of accidents when they do happen.
And just to annoy you: how do you know that the cameras are paired in order?
Say on a stretch of road there are six gantries. Are they 1-1-2-2-3-3? In which case you could do any speed you liked between the 2/3 and 4/5 pair. 1-2-3-2-3-1? Makes a bit more sense... there are loads of arrangements and you simply can't know.
SPECS has been around for quite a few years now. It reduces the number of accidents in roadworks (where there are people working in the road) and reduces the severity of accidents when they do happen.
And just to annoy you: how do you know that the cameras are paired in order?
Say on a stretch of road there are six gantries. Are they 1-1-2-2-3-3? In which case you could do any speed you liked between the 2/3 and 4/5 pair. 1-2-3-2-3-1? Makes a bit more sense... there are loads of arrangements and you simply can't know.
Gizmo! said:
Is there a 'daft question' competition?
SPECS has been around for quite a few years now. It reduces the number of accidents in roadworks (where there are people working in the road) and reduces the severity of accidents when they do happen.
Actually, I believe that cameras (including specs) in roadworks increases the risk of accidents according to the governments own reports: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trl595.htmlSPECS has been around for quite a few years now. It reduces the number of accidents in roadworks (where there are people working in the road) and reduces the severity of accidents when they do happen.
I personally find that when everyone is travelling at the same speed it is much more difficult to plan motorway overtakes, and to change lane ready for a junction. It can often require a lot more distance for cars to naturally seperate than when everyone is travelling at reasonably different speeds.
ctallchris said:
Presumably send information via 3g or similar network you'd have to pay a lot for the bandwidth not to mention the effort required to organise 20 million (?cars in the uk?) individual publishers
none of this information would be coming accross trusted links so as it's coming into a secure government system each message would have to be individually checked for viruses so the average message contains a minimum of the following info
GPS location 20 bytes
registration 8 bytes
speed 6 bytes
Presumably driver name for accountablility (20 bytes driving licence number)
If each car sent once a mile with the average motorist trvelling 40 miles a day
average driver covers 40 miles
so thats 86Gb of data per day Or 32 Tb a year most of which would come in rushes. Ever run a query on a long 1Tb table and you will know it's not really feasable to actually use that many distinct records in any computer system
I would love to design a system to do this but no well advised government would attempt it. It would certainly be an exceedingly large government system with astronmical implementation costs. Much simpler to add rfid tags to cars and set up a limited number of short range detectors on roads you are interested in
86Gb is the square root of fnone of this information would be coming accross trusted links so as it's coming into a secure government system each message would have to be individually checked for viruses so the average message contains a minimum of the following info
GPS location 20 bytes
registration 8 bytes
speed 6 bytes
Presumably driver name for accountablility (20 bytes driving licence number)
- 2 for filestructure and indexing
If each car sent once a mile with the average motorist trvelling 40 miles a day
average driver covers 40 miles
so thats 86Gb of data per day Or 32 Tb a year most of which would come in rushes. Ever run a query on a long 1Tb table and you will know it's not really feasable to actually use that many distinct records in any computer system
I would love to design a system to do this but no well advised government would attempt it. It would certainly be an exceedingly large government system with astronmical implementation costs. Much simpler to add rfid tags to cars and set up a limited number of short range detectors on roads you are interested in
k all in data terms.mikeg996 said:
ctallchris said:
Presumably send information via 3g or similar network you'd have to pay a lot for the bandwidth not to mention the effort required to organise 20 million (?cars in the uk?) individual publishers
none of this information would be coming accross trusted links so as it's coming into a secure government system each message would have to be individually checked for viruses so the average message contains a minimum of the following info
GPS location 20 bytes
registration 8 bytes
speed 6 bytes
Presumably driver name for accountablility (20 bytes driving licence number)
If each car sent once a mile with the average motorist trvelling 40 miles a day
average driver covers 40 miles
so thats 86Gb of data per day Or 32 Tb a year most of which would come in rushes. Ever run a query on a long 1Tb table and you will know it's not really feasable to actually use that many distinct records in any computer system
I would love to design a system to do this but no well advised government would attempt it. It would certainly be an exceedingly large government system with astronmical implementation costs. Much simpler to add rfid tags to cars and set up a limited number of short range detectors on roads you are interested in
86Gb is the square root of fnone of this information would be coming accross trusted links so as it's coming into a secure government system each message would have to be individually checked for viruses so the average message contains a minimum of the following info
GPS location 20 bytes
registration 8 bytes
speed 6 bytes
Presumably driver name for accountablility (20 bytes driving licence number)
- 2 for filestructure and indexing
If each car sent once a mile with the average motorist trvelling 40 miles a day
average driver covers 40 miles
so thats 86Gb of data per day Or 32 Tb a year most of which would come in rushes. Ever run a query on a long 1Tb table and you will know it's not really feasable to actually use that many distinct records in any computer system
I would love to design a system to do this but no well advised government would attempt it. It would certainly be an exceedingly large government system with astronmical implementation costs. Much simpler to add rfid tags to cars and set up a limited number of short range detectors on roads you are interested in
k all in data terms.Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff