Variable speed limits on Motorways

[Nick Odell]

(I am not a driver and have no personal axe to grind)

Somebody told me that they had received a penalty and had had three
points put on their licence for driving too fast in a variable speed
limit zone. The picture he received showed him driving at 56mph while
the limit was temporarily reduced to 40mph. He paid up but he grumbled
to me that he hadn't seen any limit indicted at the time. So how would
the authorities know that the electronic display was working correctly
or even working at all at the time they say? Could a motorist
challenge the penalty with a bald statement that "there was no limit
displayed"?

(Regulations for one stretch of motorway displayed below. I can
imagine anomalies occurring with the ten-second rule too)

Nick
===============
The M25 Motorway (Junctions 7 to 16) (Variable Speed Limits)
Regulations 2012
<snip>
Variable speed limits
3.—(1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a section of a road which is
subject to a variable speed limit at a speed exceeding that indicated
by a speed limit sign.

(2) A section of a road is subject to a variable speed limit in
relation to a vehicle being driven along it if—

(a)the road is specified in the Schedule; .
(b)the vehicle has passed a speed limit sign; and .
(c)the vehicle has not subsequently passed— .
(i)another speed limit sign indicating a different speed limit; or .
(ii)a traffic sign which indicates that the national speed limit is in
force. .
(3) In relation to a vehicle, the speed limit indicated by a speed
limit sign is the speed shown at the time the vehicle passes the sign,
or, if higher, the speed limit shown by the sign ten seconds before
the vehicle passed the sign.

(4) For the purpose of this regulation, a speed limit sign is to be
taken as not indicating any speed limit if, ten seconds before the
vehicle passed it, the sign had indicated no speed limit or that the
national speed limit was in force
==========

[Alex Heney]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 20:15:02 +0000, Nick Odell
<ni...@themusicworkshop.plus.com> wrote:

>(I am not a driver and have no personal axe to grind)
>
>Somebody told me that they had received a penalty and had had three
>points put on their licence for driving too fast in a variable speed
>limit zone. The picture he received showed him driving at 56mph while
>the limit was temporarily reduced to 40mph. He paid up but he grumbled
>to me that he hadn't seen any limit indicted at the time.

So he wasn't paying attention to the overhead gantries.

>So how would
>the authorities know that the electronic display was working correctly
>or even working at all at the time they say?

Because they get automatic feedback if a sign fails.

> Could a motorist
>challenge the penalty with a bald statement that "there was no limit
>displayed"?

He could try.

He would be *extremely* unlikely to succeed.

>
>(Regulations for one stretch of motorway displayed below. I can
>imagine anomalies occurring with the ten-second rule too)
>

Again, that is automated. The cameras don't switch to the new speed
until 10 seconds after the limit signs change.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Clarvoiants meeting canceled due to unforseen events.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[Steve Firth]

Nick Odell <ni...@themusicworkshop.plus.com>

> The picture he received showed him driving at 56mph while
> the limit was temporarily reduced to 40mph. He paid up but he grumbled
> to me that he hadn't seen any limit indicted at the time.

So he's also admitting to Driving Without Due Care and Attention?

> So how would
> the authorities know that the electronic display was working correctly
> or even working at all at the time they say? Could a motorist
> challenge the penalty with a bald statement that "there was no limit
> displayed"?

Well he could try a claim of the nature that you state, however the driver
would have to overcome a significant body of evidence from independent
systems that would confirm that a limit had been set and was visible to
drivers.

Those systems include the command and control systems where operators must
log the details of signal setting on the motorway, the automated logs that
show that a particular setting was demanded and then was set, the
confirmation in those logs that the signal was not faulty at the time, the
record that the separate physical confirmation systems that detect the
light from each pixel on the signal was illuminated in the appropriate
pattern to show the speed limit and the red ring indicator that makes the
signal mandatory, the use of fibre optic cables to physically copy the
light emitted by the display onto the exposure in the camera and the
physical tick marks on the lane to confirm the speed. That's before we get
to the crypto used to fingerprint each exposure and the use of unencrypted
images that conform to the appropriate Home Office guidance for evidential
use.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Neil Williams]

Nick Odell <ni...@themusicworkshop.plus.com> wrote:

> Somebody told me that they had received a penalty and had had three
> points put on their licence for driving too fast in a variable speed
> limit zone. The picture he received showed him driving at 56mph while
> the limit was temporarily reduced to 40mph. He paid up but he grumbled
> to me that he hadn't seen any limit indicted at the time. So how would
> the authorities know that the electronic display was working correctly
> or even working at all at the time they say?

The whole managed motorway concept includes full CCTV coverage because of
the hard shoulder running (the idea being that if someone breaks down the
hard shoulder can be immediately closed again). So I guess recalling the
footage to check what the gantry was showing at that point might be an
option.

I have seen faulty ones, but it's unusual for all four on a gantry to be
out. You'd have to be even unluckier for it to be the one at the start of
a restriction and the one with a speed camera (only about one in every
three has a speed camera on the M1 scheme).

> (4) For the purpose of this regulation, a speed limit sign is to be
> taken as not indicating any speed limit if, ten seconds before the
> vehicle passed it, the sign had indicated no speed limit or that the
> national speed limit was in force
> =========

Thanks for that, I had wondered what would happen if one changed as you
passed under it, and if there was some sort of delay to the cameras being
activated. To me, though, they should have used SPECS rather than GATSO
cameras, which would have reduced that problem and stopped another of
people speeding up between gantries and braking for the camera.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

[Neil Williams]

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> Those systems include the command and control systems where operators must
> log the details of signal setting on the motorway, the automated logs that
> show that a particular setting was demanded and then was set, the
> confirmation in those logs that the signal was not faulty at the time, the
> record that the separate physical confirmation systems that detect the
> light from each pixel on the signal was illuminated in the appropriate
> pattern to show the speed limit and the red ring indicator that makes the
> signal mandatory, the use of fibre optic cables to physically copy the
> light emitted by the display onto the exposure in the camera

Didn't know they did that - that's a rather clever solution.

[Roland Perry]

In message <e4u59812k4tptctc4...@4ax.com>, at 22:40:02 on
Thu, 1 Nov 2012, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> remarked:

>>So how would
>>the authorities know that the electronic display was working correctly
>>or even working at all at the time they say?
>
>Because they get automatic feedback if a sign fails.

That's interesting. So when there's a stretch of motorway with these
signs set to 40mph on an almost empty road (so no congestion) nor any
incident, they have a reason to do it - it isn't just the equipment
playing up?
--
Roland Perry

[Steve Firth]

Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote:
> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]

>> the use of fibre optic cables to physically copy the
>> light emitted by the display onto the exposure in the camera
>
> Didn't know they did that - that's a rather clever solution.

It was a rather clever man who thought of it.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Periander]

On 2-Nov-2012, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> >Because they get automatic feedback if a sign fails.
>
> That's interesting. So when there's a stretch of motorway with these
> signs set to 40mph on an almost empty road (so no congestion) nor any
> incident, they have a reason to do it - it isn't just the equipment
> playing up?

Yes, the reason being is that there's something ahead. By slowing the
traffic down in advance of the obstruction traffic very rarely actually gets
brought to a halt. When the cause of the obstruction is simple congestion
then if done wel the drivers approaching the congestion never even get to
see it. It's worked wonders on the M25.

--

All the best,

Periander

[Roland Perry]

In message <afhmta...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:55:02 on Fri, 2 Nov
2012, Periander <u...@britwar.couk> remarked:

>> >Because they get automatic feedback if a sign fails.
>>
>> That's interesting. So when there's a stretch of motorway with these
>> signs set to 40mph on an almost empty road (so no congestion) nor any
>> incident, they have a reason to do it - it isn't just the equipment
>> playing up?
>
>Yes, the reason being is that there's something ahead. By slowing the
>traffic down in advance of the obstruction traffic very rarely actually gets
>brought to a halt. When the cause of the obstruction is simple congestion
>then if done wel the drivers approaching the congestion never even get to
>see it. It's worked wonders on the M25.

That doesn't explain most of the times I've seen it. Simply from the
hour of the day and the lack of traffic, the possibility of "congestion
ahead" simply wouldn't arise. And there's never any wreckage from an
earlier 'incident'.

--
Roland Perry

[Periander]

On 2-Nov-2012, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> >Yes, the reason being is that there's something ahead. By slowing the
> >traffic down in advance of the obstruction traffic very rarely actually
> >gets
> >brought to a halt. When the cause of the obstruction is simple congestion
> >then if done wel the drivers approaching the congestion never even get to
> >see it. It's worked wonders on the M25.
>
> That doesn't explain most of the times I've seen it. Simply from the
> hour of the day and the lack of traffic, the possibility of "congestion
> ahead" simply wouldn't arise.

One idiot travelling to fast then braking hard can cause a domino effect
that stretches back miles; two or three heavies, being overtaken by a bus or
two whilst white van man is flat out in lane 3 at 70 ... same thing within a
minute a mile's worth of traffic is breaking and backing up ... the list
goes on ... assuming folks keep the limits though they keep moving and never
see the cause of the slowdown ... which of course does tend to encourage the
hard of thinking to believe that there was no such cause but that brings us
on to the subject of education ...

[Neil Williams]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> That's interesting. So when there's a stretch of motorway with these
> signs set to 40mph on an almost empty road (so no congestion) nor any
> incident, they have a reason to do it - it isn't just the equipment playing up?

I have never seen managed motorways signs set wrongly. Old style matrix
displays are (the kind that have no legal force) because they are monitored
to a vastly lower extent.

[Steve Firth]

Without specifics, and without access to the control room logs it is
impossible to give you a definitive answer. I have, in the past,
investigated many reports similar to yours from motorists. In all but a few
cases the motorists beliefs about road conditions were wrong.

I treasured one motorist's complaint that a 40 limit and signs saying
"smoke - slow down" had been set for "no reason". I reviewed the logs,
found the incident (HGV on fire) called him to confirm the details and pass
on the information. He was insistent that there had been no fire. I asked
him if he would mind giving his car details and a quick bit of video
searching showed him driving past the fire. He still refused to accept that
he had missed a large vehicle blazing away.

He also said the road was clear despite traffic having to pass the fire
crew at walking pace.

There is one type of problem that does occur, usually in the early hours of
the morning, street sweepers or simar slow moving vehicles trigger the
system causing "queue ahead" messages and 40 signs to be shown. These will
clear fairly quickly but obviously some motorists will see the signals set.
On balance the designers felt it was best to leave it that way to avoid the
problem of a dozy driver ramming a maintenance vehicle. Something that
happens a lot.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Periander" wrote in message news:afhuub...@mid.individual.net...

And the congestion travels backwards in waves, so the jam you experience may
be many miles from the original cause. On the M25 it is theoretically
possible for the ripples of congestion to go all the way round. Vehicles
just need need to be close enough together to react to the brake lights of
the car in front.

--
Chris R

========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======

[John Briggs]

On 02/11/2012 14:30, Neil Williams wrote:
> Roland Perry<rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> That's interesting. So when there's a stretch of motorway with these
>> signs set to 40mph on an almost empty road (so no congestion) nor any
>> incident, they have a reason to do it - it isn't just the equipment playing up?
>
> I have never seen managed motorways signs set wrongly. Old style matrix
> displays are (the kind that have no legal force) because they are monitored
> to a vastly lower extent.

It must be "vastly" because they are almost always wrong - and
universally ignored. But I have noticed recently that the M25 managed
signs are working less well than I remember - I think the improved M25
can again no longer cope with the weight of traffic, with the old
problems (excessively low limits being set, then released, only to
encounter congestion again immediately) recurring.
--
John Briggs

[Lordgnome]

On 02/11/2012 15:05, John Briggs wrote:
>
> It must be "vastly" because they are almost always wrong - and
> universally ignored. But I have noticed recently that the M25 managed
> signs are working less well than I remember - I think the improved M25
> can again no longer cope with the weight of traffic, with the old
> problems (excessively low limits being set, then released, only to
> encounter congestion again immediately) recurring.

We have some rather unhelpful displays on the A55 (Anglesey) The
messages vary from "Don't drink & drive" to "Sign under test"!

Les.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Nick Odell" <ni...@themusicworkshop.plus.com> wrote in message
news:rui5981ofatjba6h6...@4ax.com...

(I am not a driver and have no personal axe to grind)

Somebody told me that they had received a penalty and had had three
points put on their licence for driving too fast in a variable speed
limit zone. The picture he received showed him driving at 56mph while
the limit was temporarily reduced to 40mph. He paid up but he grumbled
to me that he hadn't seen any limit indicted at the time. So how would
the authorities know that the electronic display was working correctly
or even working at all at the time they say? Could a motorist
challenge the penalty with a bald statement that "there was no limit
displayed"?

With difficulty - the cameras are in the display units and presumably
capture what is on display as well.

[Clive Page]

On 02/11/2012 12:50, Roland Perry wrote:
> That doesn't explain most of the times I've seen it. Simply from the
> hour of the day and the lack of traffic, the possibility of "congestion
> ahead" simply wouldn't arise. And there's never any wreckage from an
> earlier 'incident'.

I also have experienced apparently bizarre speed limit settings several
times. A few years ago we drove around the M25 to get an early flight
from Gatwick. It was a clear sunny morning in summer before 6 am and
the M25 was almost deserted, perhaps a mile between each vehicle and the
next. For at least 15 miles around the south-west section, however, the
speed limit signs were all set to 40 mph. I obeyed the limit and we
came close to missing our flight as a result. I have no idea whether
the supposedly clever and fool-proof system had failed, or whether the
authorities were trying to catch a few motorists out (but there were few
of us the total fines must have been tiny), or whether they thought that
at that time of the morning nobody cared.

I assume that normally the signs are set automatically as a result of
some algorithm, because it is hard to believe that a human could set the
signs so badly, but that algorithm is clearly unstable and unfit for
purpose. Just yesterday going south on the M1 I saw successive signs
saying: 60, 50, 40, 50, 40, 60, no limit. The ones ahead of me were
switching so often from one speed to another that it was very hard to
remember what the sign had been displaying that one had just passed.
The traffic at the time was busy but nowhere near being congested enough
to warrant a speed limit of any kind.

For some months earlier this year near M1 J10 northbound there was a
roadworks sign saying 60 immediately adjacent to a "variable" sign which
invariably said 50 (presumably because of the road widening a bit
further north). By looking out sideways from the car it was just
possible to see that the 60 mph sign at the side of the road was
encountered a metre or so after the 50 mph sign above the lane - so that
the 50 mph limit applied for just a metre or so of roadway. Most
motorists, I guess, just ignored it, but the stupid arrangement
persisted for months.

The frequency with which one continues to see stupid anomalies of this
sort tend to discredit the system, which is very unfortunate, because in
principle it is a good one.


--
Clive Page

[Steve Firth]

John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> It must be "vastly" because they are almost always wrong - and
> universally ignored. But I have noticed recently that the M25 managed
> signs are working less well than I remember - I think the improved M25
> can again no longer cope with the weight of traffic, with the old
> problems (excessively low limits being set, then released, only to
> encounter congestion again immediately) recurring.

No that can't happen.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Roland Perry]

In message <9dydnevqwZmoRg7N...@brightview.co.uk>, at
14:45:02 on Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:

>And the congestion travels backwards in waves

"when there's a stretch of motorway with these signs set to 40mph on an

almost empty road..."
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message
<214494988373557321.530923%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org
>, at 14:25:02 on Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
remarked:

>> That doesn't explain most of the times I've seen it. Simply from the hour
>> of the day and the lack of traffic, the possibility of "congestion ahead"
>> simply wouldn't arise. And there's never any wreckage from an earlier 'incident'.
>
>Without specifics, and without access to the control room logs it is
>impossible to give you a definitive answer. I have, in the past,
>investigated many reports similar to yours from motorists. In all but a few
>cases the motorists beliefs about road conditions were wrong.
>
>I treasured one motorist's complaint that a 40 limit and signs saying
>"smoke - slow down" had been set for "no reason". I reviewed the logs,
>found the incident (HGV on fire) called him to confirm the details and pass
>on the information. He was insistent that there had been no fire. I asked
>him if he would mind giving his car details and a quick bit of video
>searching showed him driving past the fire. He still refused to accept that
>he had missed a large vehicle blazing away.

Last time I drove down the M11 to London (one weekend in the summer),
there were several signs warning about delays due to a "vehicle fire". I
watched carefully but there was no vehicle at all (on either side of the
carriageway), let alone one on fire. And no congestion either.

The only possible explanation (other than operator error) is a moving
vehicle on fire. But how likely is that?

>There is one type of problem that does occur, usually in the early hours of
>the morning, street sweepers or simar slow moving vehicles trigger the
>system causing "queue ahead" messages and 40 signs to be shown.

That sounds plausible.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message
<446398581373558911.326445we...@news.individual.
net>, at 14:30:10 on Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Neil Williams
<wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:

>> That's interesting. So when there's a stretch of motorway with these
>> signs set to 40mph on an almost empty road (so no congestion) nor any
>> incident, they have a reason to do it - it isn't just the equipment playing up?
>
>I have never seen managed motorways signs set wrongly. Old style matrix
>displays are (the kind that have no legal force) because they are monitored
>to a vastly lower extent.

The only bit of motorway I use that has managed signs that get set below
60 is the section of M25 near Heathrow. And the limits these signs show
frequently go up and down like a yo-yo, even when the road isn't busy.
--
Roland Perry

[Chris R]

> "Roland Perry" wrote in message news:$ga2qHQS...@perry.co.uk...

Well yes, if you snip the post I was replying to, I agree my post doesn't
make much sense.


--
Chris R

[Roland Perry]

In message <JeWdnWqy5MXVcQnN...@brightview.co.uk>, at
10:10:02 on Sat, 3 Nov 2012, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>

remarked:
>> >And the congestion travels backwards in waves
>>
>> "when there's a stretch of motorway with these signs set to 40mph on an
>> almost empty road..."
>
>Well yes, if you snip the post I was replying to, I agree my post doesn't
>make much sense.

You were replying to a post which had snipped my original context, and
that's what I'm putting back. None of the comments made sense when my
context is restored.
--
Roland Perry

[John Briggs]

That's what I thought.
--
John Briggs

[Roland Perry]

In message <afhuub...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:10:02 on Fri, 2 Nov
2012, Periander <u...@britwar.couk> remarked:

>> >Yes, the reason being is that there's something ahead. By slowing the
>> >traffic down in advance of the obstruction traffic very rarely actually
>> >gets
>> >brought to a halt. When the cause of the obstruction is simple congestion
>> >then if done wel the drivers approaching the congestion never even get to
>> >see it. It's worked wonders on the M25.
>>
>> That doesn't explain most of the times I've seen it. Simply from the
>> hour of the day and the lack of traffic, the possibility of "congestion
>> ahead" simply wouldn't arise.
>
>One idiot travelling to fast then braking hard can cause a domino effect
>that stretches back miles;

Not when the traffic is very light - one vehicle every few hundred yards
in one lane, the other two lanes empty.

That was the situation I was describing (not normal heavy traffic, when
I agree the use of variable speed limits assists the flow very well).
--
Roland Perry

[Simon Finnigan]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <214494988373557321.530923%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org
>> , at 14:25:02 on Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked:
>>> That doesn't explain most of the times I've seen it. Simply from the hour
>>> of the day and the lack of traffic, the possibility of "congestion ahead"
>>> simply wouldn't arise. And there's never any wreckage from an earlier 'incident'.
>>
>> Without specifics, and without access to the control room logs it is
>> impossible to give you a definitive answer. I have, in the past,
>> investigated many reports similar to yours from motorists. In all but a few
>> cases the motorists beliefs about road conditions were wrong.
>>
>> I treasured one motorist's complaint that a 40 limit and signs saying
>> "smoke - slow down" had been set for "no reason". I reviewed the logs,
>> found the incident (HGV on fire) called him to confirm the details and pass
>> on the information. He was insistent that there had been no fire. I asked
>> him if he would mind giving his car details and a quick bit of video
>> searching showed him driving past the fire. He still refused to accept that
>> he had missed a large vehicle blazing away.
>
> Last time I drove down the M11 to London (one weekend in the summer),
> there were several signs warning about delays due to a "vehicle fire". I
> watched carefully but there was no vehicle at all (on either side of the
> carriageway), let alone one on fire. And no congestion either.
>
> The only possible explanation (other than operator error) is a moving
> vehicle on fire. But how likely is that?

I've seen two in only 15 years of driving. Both scrap wagons carrying
crushed cars. Apparently all the small pieces of metal soaked in oil
rubbing together can generate enough heat to catch fire. And often the
driver doesn't realise until someone points it out to him.

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Roland Perry" wrote in message news:9e9WVWhN...@perry.co.uk...

I'm sorry, I hadn't realised you had imposed restrictions on what we were
allowed to discuss.
--
Chris R

[Roland Perry]

In message <ztSdnZOR1oqlvQjN...@brightview.co.uk>, at
13:50:02 on Sat, 3 Nov 2012, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>

remarked:
>> >> >And the congestion travels backwards in waves
>> >>
>> >> "when there's a stretch of motorway with these signs set to 40mph on an
>> >> almost empty road..."
>> >
>> >Well yes, if you snip the post I was replying to, I agree my post doesn't
>> >make much sense.
>>
>> You were replying to a post which had snipped my original context, and
>> that's what I'm putting back. None of the comments made sense when my
>> context is restored.
>
>I'm sorry, I hadn't realised you had imposed restrictions on what we were
>allowed to discuss.

I haven't, but I want to make it clear that the conditions I was
describing were "almost empty road", and felt it had been misconstrued
as "plenty of traffic, but no congestion because the speed limits were
working as designed".
--
Roland Perry

[Steve Firth]

Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> wrote:

> For at least 15 miles around the south-west section, however, the
> speed limit signs were all set to 40 mph. I obeyed the limit and we
> came close to missing our flight as a result.

I'm sorry but that's just not possible, or you had cut your journey
incredibly fine. At 70 mph you would cover 15 miles in a little less
than 13 minutes. At 40 mph it would take you 23 minutes. An extra 10
minutes.

If you had cut your journey so fine that a delay of 10 minutes would
result in you missing your flight, you did not allow enough time for
contingencies. Delays on the M25 can, on occasions, exceed 60 minutes,
particularly over the stretch on either side of the M23, as they did
this weekend due to road works and multiple accidents.

> I assume that normally the signs are set automatically as a result of
> some algorithm, because it is hard to believe that a human could set the
> signs so badly, but that algorithm is clearly unstable and unfit for
> purpose.

It is clearly nothing of the sort. The basis on which signals are set
was devised by TRRL, researched extensively by the Highways Agency,
implemented on a trial basis with no signals being shown to motorists
for a trial of several years before it was actually brought into use.
Since it's implementation accident rates on the VSL sections of motorway
have greatly reduced and journey times have markedly improved. The VSL
sections of the M25 used to be a car park, now traffic moves and people
get to where they are going.

> Just yesterday going south on the M1 I saw successive signs
> saying: 60, 50, 40, 50, 40, 60, no limit.

Was this in a VSL limit area? I haven't worked on the motorways for some
time and it's a really long time since I drove on the M1. I can think of
a reason why an automatic system would show something similar, but I
doubt that the sequences was on "successive" signals since that sequence
breaks the rules for signal setting. ie. I think you remembered it
wrong. A 50 limit would not be shown at all for congestion, so the
sequence would consist of 60 and 40 limit signals. It is just possible
that two congestion events had been detected along a stretch of motorway
where the incidents were not so close that it counted as one incident
but too close together to permit traffic to speed up to 70 between the
two sites. That could then result in 60, 40, 40, 60, 40, 40, NSL
settings. A complication would be if there were also manual settings for
another type of incident. The system would then have to balance operator
selected signals against automatically imposed signals. In this event
the lowest setting has priority so it's possible that an operator
selected 50 overwrote an automatic 60.

Even so your sequence is not correct.

> The ones ahead of me were switching so often from one speed to another

Again, that simply can't happen. I suspect that in this instance you
don't mean "switching" but instead are referring to a sequence of
signals on different gantries.

> that it was very hard to remember what the sign had been displaying that
> one had just passed. The traffic at the time was busy but nowhere near
> being congested enough to warrant a speed limit of any kind.

The traffic was not congested because the speed settings were working.
That's the point of a VSL.

Oh and in the case of roadworks, the lower speed limit applies, so the
speed limit did not apply for "a metre or so".

[Steve Firth]

Yes, there are look-up tables for congestion in terms of speed and
vehicle headway, rules about overlapping signal sequences and "hold off
times" mandated for re-alerting if an incident occurs again in the same
stretch of motorway. The limits are, IMO, if anything too high, not too
low. But whatever happens congestion easing and then recurring can't
result in an immediate on/off of signals. The lowest speed limit that
will be set for congestion is 40mph. Lower than that and something else
is happening on the motorway.

[Steve Firth]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> Last time I drove down the M11 to London (one weekend in the summer),
> there were several signs warning about delays due to a "vehicle fire". I
> watched carefully but there was no vehicle at all (on either side of the
> carriageway), let alone one on fire. And no congestion either.
>
> The only possible explanation (other than operator error) is a moving
> vehicle on fire. But how likely is that?

Or, alternatively that by the time you passed the site of the fire the
fire had been extinguished and the vehicle removed from the hard
shoulder. It takes time to travel from the sign to the scene of an
incident and it's not possible to predict in advance how long attendance
at an incident will take.

Like many motorists you seem to be making the error of thinking that the
sign and signal setting is somehow oriented around *your* journey and
will always give you information tailored to your schedule. It is
however done on greatest good for the majority basis and if that results
in some motorists not seeing an incident well that's hardly much of a
problem in the grand scheme of things.

[Roland Perry]

In message <1kt00py.1fmvbcorj4ruN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, at 20:05:03 on
Sat, 3 Nov 2012, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked:

>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Last time I drove down the M11 to London (one weekend in the summer),
>> there were several signs warning about delays due to a "vehicle fire". I
>> watched carefully but there was no vehicle at all (on either side of the
>> carriageway), let alone one on fire. And no congestion either.
>>
>> The only possible explanation (other than operator error) is a moving
>> vehicle on fire. But how likely is that?
>
>Or, alternatively that by the time you passed the site of the fire the
>fire had been extinguished and the vehicle removed from the hard
>shoulder.

Unlikely as the signs said it was only a few miles ahead.

>It takes time to travel from the sign to the scene of an
>incident and it's not possible to predict in advance how long attendance
>at an incident will take.

And they usually take hours to damp down and tow away.

>Like many motorists you seem to be making the error of thinking that the
>sign and signal setting is somehow oriented around *your* journey and
>will always give you information tailored to your schedule.

If the sign isn't supposed to inform my journey (and those of the cars
around me), then it should be turned off.

--
Roland Perry

[Steve Firth]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1kt00py.1fmvbcorj4ruN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, at 20:05:03 on
> Sat, 3 Nov 2012, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>> Or, alternatively that by the time you passed the site of the fire the
>> fire had been extinguished and the vehicle removed from the hard
>> shoulder.
>
> Unlikely as the signs said it was only a few miles ahead.

There isn't an option to add that detail to the vehicle on fire message. I
fear you may be mistaken.

>> It takes time to travel from the sign to the scene of an
>> incident and it's not possible to predict in advance how long attendance
>> at an incident will take.
>
> And they usually take hours to damp down and tow away.

So when was the sign set? It may indeed have been hours ago.

>> Like many motorists you seem to be making the error of thinking that the
>> sign and signal setting is somehow oriented around *your* journey and
>> will always give you information tailored to your schedule.
>
> If the sign isn't supposed to inform my journey (and those of the cars
> around me), then it should be turned off.

That is what is done. However ACPO rules prevent an operator from clearing
signs or signals until the senior officer at the scene declares that the
incident is clear. Inevitably thus means some drivers pass a sign, at the
same moment the officer declares the scene to be clear. The sign is turned
off but the motorist cannot see this happening. When the motorist reaches
the scene of the incident the vehicles have all gone.

As I said, without details of time and location no one can tell you exactly
what happened.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Graham Murray]

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes:

> That is what is done. However ACPO rules prevent an operator from clearing
> signs or signals until the senior officer at the scene declares that the
> incident is clear.

From where does ACPO (a private company) get the authority to make
*rules*? ACPO can make recommendations and give advice, but is it not up
to the Highways Agency or DfT to make the rules?

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 15:35:02 +0000, Graham Murray put finger to keyboard
and typed:

The police make the rules. The police follow ACPO guidelines when making
the rules. So, to all intents and purposes, it's ACPO making the rules.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[Periander]

On 2-Nov-2012, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> That doesn't explain most of the times I've seen it. Simply from the
> hour of the day and the lack of traffic, the possibility of "congestion
> ahead" simply wouldn't arise. And there's never any wreckage from an
> earlier 'incident'.

If you haven't seen an incident then it hasn't happened?

If you're kept 5 miles behind slow moving traffic and never seeing it rather
than being allowed to race up its arse there wasn't any slow moving traffic.

Clive makes the same claim ...

I have to use the M25 on a regular basis and having done so for many years
both before and after the introduction of the VSL I have no alternative to
say anything other than I have far, far more faith in the judgement of the
operators than yours or Clives powers of observation or apparent road sense.

--

All the best,

Periander

[Steve Firth]

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 15:35:02 +0000, Graham Murray put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> That is what is done. However ACPO rules prevent an operator from clearing
>>> signs or signals until the senior officer at the scene declares that the
>>> incident is clear.
>>
>> From where does ACPO (a private company) get the authority to make
>> *rules*? ACPO can make recommendations and give advice, but is it not up
>> to the Highways Agency or DfT to make the rules?
>
> The police make the rules. The police follow ACPO guidelines when making
> the rules. So, to all intents and purposes, it's ACPO making the rules.

And they are published as the ACPO rules with the ACPO logo on the cover.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Roland Perry]

In message
<1675906837373720368.711167%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.or
g>, at 12:10:01 on Sun, 4 Nov 2012, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
remarked:

>>> Or, alternatively that by the time you passed the site of the fire the
>>> fire had been extinguished and the vehicle removed from the hard
>>> shoulder.
>>
>> Unlikely as the signs said it was only a few miles ahead.
>
>There isn't an option to add that detail to the vehicle on fire message. I
>fear you may be mistaken.

Why is that? I was on the M11 on Friday, on the way to Essex, and the
signs had plenty of room to say the M25 was congested from J1A to J29.
(Which seems a roundabout way of saying "almost all the M25".)

I can't recall if it was the signs, or the radio traffic news, that told
me where to expect an incident. I remember thinking (somewhat
mischievously) it would break the monotony of the trip. But nothing
there.

>>> It takes time to travel from the sign to the scene of an
>>> incident and it's not possible to predict in advance how long attendance
>>> at an incident will take.
>>
>> And they usually take hours to damp down and tow away.
>
>So when was the sign set? It may indeed have been hours ago.

They don't say. Adding some timing information might be quite useful.

>>> Like many motorists you seem to be making the error of thinking that the
>>> sign and signal setting is somehow oriented around *your* journey and
>>> will always give you information tailored to your schedule.
>>
>> If the sign isn't supposed to inform my journey (and those of the cars
>> around me), then it should be turned off.
>
>That is what is done. However ACPO rules prevent an operator from clearing
>signs or signals until the senior officer at the scene declares that the
>incident is clear. Inevitably thus means some drivers pass a sign, at the
>same moment the officer declares the scene to be clear.

Or they pass a sign that's been there three hours, the scene was cleared
an hour ago, but no senior officer has confirmed it yet.

>As I said, without details of time and location no one can tell you exactly
>what happened.

Who should I ask, next time this happens?
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 17:50:02 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>In message
><1675906837373720368.711167%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.or
>g>, at 12:10:01 on Sun, 4 Nov 2012, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
>remarked:
>
>>>> Or, alternatively that by the time you passed the site of the fire the
>>>> fire had been extinguished and the vehicle removed from the hard
>>>> shoulder.
>>>
>>> Unlikely as the signs said it was only a few miles ahead.
>>
>>There isn't an option to add that detail to the vehicle on fire message. I
>>fear you may be mistaken.
>
>Why is that? I was on the M11 on Friday, on the way to Essex, and the
>signs had plenty of room to say the M25 was congested from J1A to J29.
>(Which seems a roundabout way of saying "almost all the M25".)
>
>I can't recall if it was the signs, or the radio traffic news, that told
>me where to expect an incident. I remember thinking (somewhat
>mischievously) it would break the monotony of the trip. But nothing
>there.

If it was the radio, then by the time you heard it it was almost certainly
well out of date.

[Roland Perry]

In message <afnm3r...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:15:02 on Sun, 4 Nov
2012, Periander <u...@britwar.couk> remarked:

>
>On 2-Nov-2012, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> That doesn't explain most of the times I've seen it. Simply from the
>> hour of the day and the lack of traffic, the possibility of "congestion
>> ahead" simply wouldn't arise. And there's never any wreckage from an
>> earlier 'incident'.
>
>If you haven't seen an incident then it hasn't happened?
>
>If you're kept 5 miles behind slow moving traffic and never seeing it rather
>than being allowed to race up its arse there wasn't any slow moving traffic.

It's completely implausible that at the traffic levels I'm describing
there is a "plug" of slow-moving traffic which I need to be kept behind.

>Clive makes the same claim ...
>
>I have to use the M25 on a regular basis and having done so for many years
>both before and after the introduction of the VSL I have no alternative to
>say anything other than I have far, far more faith in the judgement of the
>operators than yours or Clives powers of observation or apparent road sense.

Clearly so, but your faith in the operators, or their equipment, is
misplaced. I know when the road has one car every quarter of a mile, and
when the signs mistakenly tell me to slow down (which we are told is
done because of congestion).
--
Roland Perry

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:30:10 -0000, Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote:

> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>

>> That's interesting. So when there's a stretch of motorway with these
>> signs set to 40mph on an almost empty road (so no congestion) nor any
>> incident, they have a reason to do it - it isn't just the equipment playing up?
>
> I have never seen managed motorways signs set wrongly. Old style matrix
> displays are (the kind that have no legal force) because they are monitored
> to a vastly lower extent.

A speed limit sign I can ignore. This sounds interesting, do tell......

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A waiter brings the customer the steak he ordered with his thumb over the meat.
"Are you crazy?" yelled the customer, "with your hand on my steak?"
"What" answers the waiter, "You want it to fall on the floor again?"

[PJK]

On 04/11/2012 17:50, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message

>
> Why is that? I was on the M11 on Friday, on the way to Essex, and the
> signs had plenty of room to say the M25 was congested from J1A to J29.
> (Which seems a roundabout way of saying "almost all the M25".)
>

I was also on that stretch of road at that time. The signs in fact said
from J29 to J1A, which is far from almost all the M25.

Peter.

[Periander]

On 4-Nov-2012, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> >>> That is what is done. However ACPO rules prevent an operator from
> >>> clearing
> >>> signs or signals until the senior officer at the scene declares that
> >>> the
> >>> incident is clear.
> >>
> >> From where does ACPO (a private company) get the authority to make
> >> *rules*? ACPO can make recommendations and give advice, but is it not
> >> up
> >> to the Highways Agency or DfT to make the rules?
> >
> > The police make the rules. The police follow ACPO guidelines when making
> > the rules. So, to all intents and purposes, it's ACPO making the rules.
>
> And they are published as the ACPO rules with the ACPO logo on the cover.

To save any more posts along the lines of "oh really?"

Baring in mind that as it is the police who ultimately enforce driving
regulations (yes even on motorways) then as Steve says, it makes perfect
sense that police write the instructions (with The Highways Agency who own
the signs) relating to the operation of said regulations ...

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2007/2007UOPolofRoads.pdf

See section 6.4.1

[Percy Picacity]

For the avoidance ambiguity, the problem I have with ACPO is that we
constitutionally have independent local police forces, but they seem to
have united to set up a potentially unconstitutional national policy
organisation. I am aware that this may not be harmful, depending on
what national policies they try to set. But, before you know it, the
new crime commissioners will have set up a national committee to
*control* ACPO, and then where will we be?

--

Percy Picacity

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:45:03 -0000, Lordgnome <l...@nospam.null> wrote:

> On 02/11/2012 15:05, John Briggs wrote:
>>
>> It must be "vastly" because they are almost always wrong - and
>> universally ignored. But I have noticed recently that the M25 managed
>> signs are working less well than I remember - I think the improved M25
>> can again no longer cope with the weight of traffic, with the old
>> problems (excessively low limits being set, then released, only to
>> encounter congestion again immediately) recurring.

> We have some rather unhelpful displays on the A55 (Anglesey) The
> messages vary from "Don't drink & drive" to "Sign under test"!

On the M9, a couple of hundred yards before a bridge (and because you're on a motorway you can't turn round or leave it):
"M9 bridges, check your height".

[Andy Champ]

On 04/11/2012 17:50, Roland Perry wrote:

> Why is that? I was on the M11 on Friday, on the way to Essex, and the
> signs had plenty of room to say the M25 was congested from J1A to J29.
> (Which seems a roundabout way of saying "almost all the M25".)

Today I saw "M25 J23-24 congestion" on the M11. I don't know for sure if
there was some, because I went around it - but the M25 after that was
pretty quiet. Later I saw "M25 J3-J29 congestion". I took that to mean
the bit around the Thames Crossing - M20 to Brentwood - rather than the
other 90%. Which was patently fine, at least in part.

Andy

[Steve Firth]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1675906837373720368.711167%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.or

>> , at 12:10:01 on Sun, 4 Nov 2012, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>> Or, alternatively that by the time you passed the site of the fire the
>>>> fire had been extinguished and the vehicle removed from the hard
>>>> shoulder.
>>>
>>> Unlikely as the signs said it was only a few miles ahead.
>>
>> There isn't an option to add that detail to the vehicle on fire message. I
>> fear you may be mistaken.
>
> Why is that?

Because the message vehicle on fire does not support the entry of
additional text.

> I was on the M11 on Friday, on the way to Essex, and the signs had
> plenty of room to say the M25 was congested from J1A to J29. (Which seems
> a roundabout way of saying "almost all the M25".)

I didn't say there wasn't room to display additional text, I said there's
no option to add the text. There is an option to specify road numbers,
junction numbers with some messages but not with all messages.

> I can't recall if it was the signs, or the radio traffic news, that told
> me where to expect an incident.

It would not be the signs. And radio reports are generally as accurate as a
chocolate watch.

>> So when was the sign set? It may indeed have been hours ago.
>
> They don't say. Adding some timing information might be quite useful.

Really, no. The system is for tactical and strategic messaging. Timing
information is just monkey curiosity stuff.

[snip]

> Or they pass a sign that's been there three hours, the scene was cleared
> an hour ago, but no senior officer has confirmed it yet.

Possible but unlikely given the 20 minute response requirement.

>> As I said, without details of time and location no one can tell you exactly
>> what happened.
>
> Who should I ask, next time this happens?

Look on the Traffic England website. It gives information on incidents and
contact details.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Periander]

On 4-Nov-2012, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:

> For the avoidance ambiguity, the problem I have with ACPO is that we
> constitutionally have independent local police forces

In your dreams mate ... the magistrates were thrown out years ago and
replaced with local politicians, the CPS now rule access to the courts and
it's even been made unlawful for the police to do one of its core duties -
that is prosecute offenders. In a few weeks we'll have Gauleiters running
all the Home Office forces - allegedly to bring in "local accountability" in
reality to impose centralised political control over the constabularies as
first mandated in 1940 by SS Brigadier General Walter Schellenberg
'Informationsheft GB' who in all fairness like most Europeans in positions
of authority simply could comprehend that a police force should be
accountable to the law rather than those who wielded political authority.
"Local accountability" for fucks sake which one of the 9 million people in
London should the Met Police commissioner be accountable? Those in the East
End running the vigilante groups enforcing Sharia Law? Mr and Mrs Daily Mail
reader in Bromley? Just how the fuck is the law going to be applied equally
when the politicians are in charge?
But anyway, with my rant over and done with and back to your point about
ACPO. In essence I don't have a problem with the principle behind ACPO (but
see below) per se. If we accept that the law should be applied equally to
all persons then it follows that this should not just be true within a
particular police area but also from one police area to another. ACPO was
certainly the best mechanism by which national guidelines could be
formulated and promulgated. After all it makes little sense if a person at
45 in a 30 zone in Kent gets a ticket if (say) next door in Surrey speeds up
to 49 would result in a verbal warning.
But moving on ACPO have certainly got to big for its boots, just like the
CPS they often appear to think that their edicts now have the force of law
and without wasting time on details they need to be reigned in.
It has to be remembered though that ACPO is a creation of politicans, just
like the Superintendents Association and the Police Federation. It was along
with the other staff associations set up to prevent the police officers of
the country speaking with one voice and exerting a degree of political
control over senior police officers. Toe the line or you don't get an ACPO
role ... ho humm.

Still once I'm apointed supreme leader and father of my people you can be
assured that I will put everything to rights.

[Periander]

On 2-Nov-2012, "R. Mark Clayton" <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> limit zone. The picture he received showed him driving at 56mph while
> the limit was temporarily reduced to 40mph.

I think Steve has already given chapter and verse as to how the driver in
that situation is stuffed, if teh sign for whatever reason isn't working
correctly that shows up instantly. What wasn't mentioned is that there's
also a 10 second period of grace after the indicated speed limit changes.

[BartC]

"Periander" <u...@britwar.couk> wrote in message
news:afnm3r...@mid.individual.net...

>
> On 2-Nov-2012, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> That doesn't explain most of the times I've seen it. Simply from the
>> hour of the day and the lack of traffic, the possibility of "congestion
>> ahead" simply wouldn't arise. And there's never any wreckage from an
>> earlier 'incident'.
>
> If you haven't seen an incident then it hasn't happened?

When the same thing happens a hundred times: you get a hazard warning for a
hazard that never appears, then you simply stop believing those signs.

Sometimes, when you're warned to slow to 60mph or 40mph because of a queue,
then there is actually some congested traffic a mile or two ahead, but
nothing beyond that congestion to explain it (except an 'End' message on the
signs).

That's when you start thinking that it is the signs themselves that are
causing the congestion!

--
Bartc

[Periander]

On 4-Nov-2012, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> >If you haven't seen an incident then it hasn't happened?
> >
> >If you're kept 5 miles behind slow moving traffic and never seeing it
> >rather than being allowed to race up its arse there wasn't any slow
> >moving
> >traffic.
>
> It's completely implausible that at the traffic levels I'm describing
> there is a "plug" of slow-moving traffic which I need to be kept behind.

Cool, if you could let me know where I can buy some of those goggles of
yours that let you see 5 miles ahead of you I'll gladly buy some. The very
most you can claim is that the levels of traffic where you are would appear
not to warrant a restriction. Any more than that and it's time for the tarot
cards. Seriously, surely you must see the distinction between circumstances
where you are and circumstances ahead ... and surely you must comprehend
that when the VSL is in operation and you are slowed down and never reach
the obstruction or are brought to a total halt that is evidence of the
system working?

> >Clive makes the same claim ...
> >
> >I have to use the M25 on a regular basis and having done so for many
> >years both before and after the introduction of the VSL I have no
> >alternative
> >to say anything other than I have far, far more faith in the judgement of
> >the operators than yours or Clives powers of observation or apparent road
> >sense.
>
> Clearly so, but your faith in the operators, or their equipment, is
> misplaced. I know when the road has one car every quarter of a mile, and
> when the signs mistakenly tell me to slow down (which we are told is
> done because of congestion).

<reaches for tarot cards>
Yes, you're quite corect the level of traffic where you are is a clear
indicator of what's ahead
</reaches for tarot cards>

Roland, you're not thick and I really am trying to not make this a personal
attack - it's really not meant to be; but just sit back and actually think
about your claims.

[BartC]

"Neil Williams" <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote in message
news:446398581373558911.326445we...@news.individual.net...

> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> That's interesting. So when there's a stretch of motorway with these
>> signs set to 40mph on an almost empty road (so no congestion) nor any
>> incident, they have a reason to do it - it isn't just the equipment
>> playing up?
>
> I have never seen managed motorways signs set wrongly. Old style matrix
> displays are (the kind that have no legal force) because they are
> monitored
> to a vastly lower extent.

The matrix signs are the ones that sometimes used to display that mysterious
'F09' code.

Later I realised it meant 'Fog'.

--
Bartc

[John Briggs]

10 seconds isn't a lot of time to brake from 56mph to 40, when the sign
changes from 60 to 40 (he's already told us that 50 isn't used.)
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

On 04/11/2012 23:40, Periander wrote:
> On 4-Nov-2012, Percy Picacity<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
>> For the avoidance ambiguity, the problem I have with ACPO is that we
>> constitutionally have independent local police forces
>
> In your dreams mate ... the magistrates were thrown out years ago and
> replaced with local politicians, the CPS now rule access to the courts and
> it's even been made unlawful for the police to do one of its core duties -
> that is prosecute offenders. In a few weeks we'll have Gauleiters running
> all the Home Office forces - allegedly to bring in "local accountability" in
> reality to impose centralised political control over the constabularies as
> first mandated in 1940 by SS Brigadier General Walter Schellenberg
> 'Informationsheft GB' who in all fairness like most Europeans in positions
> of authority simply could comprehend that a police force should be
> accountable to the law rather than those who wielded political authority.

In 1940, Walter Schellenberg was only a Sturmbannführer (Major) - and
not in a position to "mandate" anything much. He only made Brigadier by
the end of the war. (Same rank as Enoch Powell, for what it's worth.)
--
John Briggs

[Periander]

On 5-Nov-2012, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:


> Sometimes, when you're warned to slow to 60mph or 40mph because of a
> queue, then there is actually some congested traffic a mile or two ahead,
> but
> nothing beyond that congestion to explain it (except an 'End' message on
> the signs).

Usually bad drivers travelling to fast, braking hard and with idiots also
behind them not leaving a sufficient gap also braking you get a compresion
wave effect. Alternatively a heavy trying to overtake uphill who in turn is
being overtaken by Mr Flat capp in his volvo at 60 ... simple bad driving.
Folks not looking ahead, not anticipating hazards, not leaving sufficient
gaps, comfort braking, not looking when they change lanes, BMWs ... the list
is near endless.

If folks actually drove a little better not only would they get to their
destination a little more quickly (and safely) but most congestion would
simply not occour.

[Neil Williams]

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> Oh and in the case of roadworks, the lower speed limit applies, so the
> speed limit did not apply for "a metre or so".

Logical, but the "end of variable speed limit" signs on the M1 suggest
otherwise. Perhaps these should not be placed, as I think they make it
legally questionable.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

[Neil Williams]

John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> 10 seconds isn't a lot of time to brake from 56mph to 40, when the sign
> changes from 60 to 40 (he's already told us that 50 isn't used.)

50 is used, though possibly not for automatic congestion reduction.

[Neil Williams]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:30:10 -0000, Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> That's interesting. So when there's a stretch of motorway with these
>>> signs set to 40mph on an almost empty road (so no congestion) nor any
>>> incident, they have a reason to do it - it isn't just the equipment playing up?
>>
>> I have never seen managed motorways signs set wrongly. Old style matrix
>> displays are (the kind that have no legal force) because they are monitored
>> to a vastly lower extent.
>
> A speed limit sign I can ignore. This sounds interesting, do tell......

A speed limit sign other than the National Speed Limit for your vehicle on
that road only has legal force if it is shown in a red circle. The ones
you see at roadworks with "Max Speed X" on a rectangular sign without the
red circle, or traditional motorway matrix signs, have no legal force as a
speed limit (though if they showed 20 and you were doing 70 and you crashed
as a result then I would think a charge of driving without due care and
attention might well stick).

My usual response to seeing matrices (as opposed to variable limits with
the red circle) set on the motorway is to change my driving with an
expectation that there will be a need to stop suddenly ahead, most probably
slowing down, but not necessarily to comply strictly with the indicated
speed. This seems a common approach.

[Roland Perry]

In message
<109405170373762433.489283%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org
>, at 23:10:02 on Sun, 4 Nov 2012, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
remarked:

>the message vehicle on fire does not support the entry of
>additional text.
>
>> I was on the M11 on Friday, on the way to Essex, and the signs had
>> plenty of room to say the M25 was congested from J1A to J29. (Which seems
>> a roundabout way of saying "almost all the M25".)
>
>I didn't say there wasn't room to display additional text, I said there's
>no option to add the text. There is an option to specify road numbers,
>junction numbers with some messages but not with all messages.

So a sign saying "vehicle on fire" might refer to an incident 100 miles
away, which gets to my underlying point here which is "red herring"
signs like that devalue the whole signage exercise.

In this case, however, I drove all the way to the end of the M11[1], and
find it difficult to believe the sign was referring to an incident
behind me.

[1] I wouldn't normally do that, but it was the weekend, traffic was
very light, and I was taking my daughter to college at the start of
term.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <G8idnQwAtp3xbAvN...@eclipse.net.uk>, at
22:55:02 on Sun, 4 Nov 2012, Andy Champ <no....@nospam.invalid>
remarked:

>> Why is that? I was on the M11 on Friday, on the way to Essex, and the
>> signs had plenty of room to say the M25 was congested from J1A to J29.
>> (Which seems a roundabout way of saying "almost all the M25".)
>
>Today I saw "M25 J23-24 congestion" on the M11. I don't know for sure
>if there was some, because I went around it - but the M25 after that
>was pretty quiet. Later I saw "M25 J3-J29 congestion". I took that to
>mean the bit around the Thames Crossing - M20 to Brentwood - rather
>than the other 90%.

That's certainly one possible interpretation of the sign you saw. But
J1A is the beginning of the A282 (the Crossing) so it's not obvious that
congestion "on the M25" starting or ending there actually refers to
congestion on the A282.

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <afocvo...@mid.individual.net>, at 23:50:02 on Sun, 4 Nov
2012, Periander <u...@britwar.couk> remarked:

>> It's completely implausible that at the traffic levels I'm describing
>> there is a "plug" of slow-moving traffic which I need to be kept behind.
>
>Cool, if you could let me know where I can buy some of those goggles of
>yours that let you see 5 miles ahead of you I'll gladly buy some. The very
>most you can claim is that the levels of traffic where you are would appear
>not to warrant a restriction.

Such incidents aren't happening in the rush hour. It's when there is
very light traffic (maybe one car every ten seconds totting up all four
lanes).

>Any more than that and it's time for the tarot
>cards. Seriously, surely you must see the distinction between circumstances
>where you are and circumstances ahead ... and surely you must comprehend
>that when the VSL is in operation and you are slowed down and never reach
>the obstruction or are brought to a total halt that is evidence of the
>system working?

Seriously, outside the normally busy hours, yes.

--
Roland Perry

[Steve Firth]

When signals change they count down and not change immediately from a
higher setting to a lower one. You are extrapolating from something I said
about automatic signalling to the process of changing the setting on a
signal and you are arriving at an incorrect assumption.

And 10 seconds is more than adequate to slow down. It does not demand panic
braking and only requires someone to lift their foot off the accelerator.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Nightjar]

It is long enough to cover a quarter of a kilometre if you don't slow
down. To slow from 60mph to 40mph in 10 seconds is a steady rate
deceleration of about 0.1g.

Colin Bignell

[Periander]

On 5-Nov-2012, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> 10 seconds isn't a lot of time to brake from 56mph to 40 ...

Surely you jest?

[Roland Perry]

In message <633gqs....@news.alt.net>, at 22:50:02 on Sun, 4 Nov
2012, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:

>For the avoidance ambiguity, the problem I have with ACPO is that we
>constitutionally have independent local police forces, but they seem to
>have united to set up a potentially unconstitutional national policy
>organisation.

The alternative is to have over forty forces all working on their own
policy and guidelines, which would be a huge waste of resources and
result in sub-optimal policies when that particular force doesn't have a
relevant subject expert on the books.

>I am aware that this may not be harmful, depending on what national
>policies they try to set. But, before you know it, the new crime
>commissioners will have set up a national committee to *control* ACPO,
>and then where will we be?

It did occur to me the other day that the Crime Commissioners need to
set up some kind of body to co-ordinate their activities and give one
another helpful advice. Which is what the Chief Constables have in ACPO.

And as for the new Commissioners being publicly accountable, one of my
local candidates is known to me :)

ps There isn't an election for a Commissioner for London, because Boris
fulfils that role already.
--
Roland Perry

[Periander]

On 5-Nov-2012, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> In 1940, Walter Schellenberg was only a Sturmbannführer (Major) - and
> not in a position to "mandate" anything much. He only made Brigadier by
> the end of the war. (Same rank as Enoch Powell, for what it's worth.)

In 1940 Monty was still a major-general but we still addres him as Field
Marshal ... it's a matter of common courtesy. You also appear to be to
falling into the trap of confusing rank with responsibility and influence.

[Andy Burns]

Neil Williams wrote:

> John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> 10 seconds isn't a lot of time to brake from 56mph to 40, when the sign
>> changes from 60 to 40 (he's already told us that 50 isn't used.)
>
> 50 is used

Indeed, I've been travelling along the M1 stretch with the gantries at
60, when approaching the next gantry I realised (rather later that
ideal) that the next one wasn't showing 60 but 50, which required the
sort of braking likely to set up the "domino" effect these schemes are
intended to reduce, to make it worse the next gantry was back to 60 anyway.

[tim.....]

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2041818346373499897.865653%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Nick Odell <ni...@themusicworkshop.plus.com>

>
>> The picture he received showed him driving at 56mph while

>> the limit was temporarily reduced to 40mph. He paid up but he grumbled
>> to me that he hadn't seen any limit indicted at the time.
>
> So he's also admitting to Driving Without Due Care and Attention?
>


Can't speak for everybody else, but I personally find it very difficult to
distinguish between these matrix signs saying 50 and 60 until I am very
close to them.

I don't have perfect eyesight, but I do have corrective glasses that easily
let me pass the eyesight "test" for printed signs, but they just don't seem
to let me read these dot matrix signs correctly from 100/200? yards away.

Why should I be at risk of being punished because a poorly implemented
technical solution doesn't take account of my "disability"?

tim

[Steve Firth]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message

> So a sign saying "vehicle on fire" might refer to an incident 100 miles
> away, which gets to my underlying point here which is "red herring" signs
> like that devalue the whole signage exercise.

No, a sign saying vehicle on fire is a tactical sign and will not be set
for an incident "100 miles away". You seem, for whatever reason, to be
trying to imagine or create scenarios to bring the system into disrepute
without actually bothering to learn how the system works or how it is
operated.

> In this case, however, I drove all the way to the end of the M11[1], and
> find it difficult to believe the sign was referring to an incident behind me.

More than one person has explained this to you. You do not have the ability
to see events in the motorway from end to end while driving your car.

> [1] I wouldn't normally do that, but it was the weekend, traffic was very
> light, and I was taking my daughter to college at the start of term.

I admire your parental dedication. I tell mine to use the train.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Steve Firth]

John has misquoted me. I did not say that 50 is not used. I did say its not
used in the context if automatic congestion signalling.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Steve Firth]

Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote:
> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Oh and in the case of roadworks, the lower speed limit applies, so the
>> speed limit did not apply for "a metre or so".
>
> Logical, but the "end of variable speed limit" signs on the M1 suggest
> otherwise. Perhaps these should not be placed, as I think they make it
> legally questionable.

If you are talking about signals that do not have the red ring indicator
then these are advisory (but if you ignore them you may be charged with a
more serious offence than speeding).

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Nick Leverton]

In article <PBSqihAz...@perry.co.uk>,

I'm not sure that most people would be that accurate about the naming so
the sign operators may be using "usenet licence" (it's almost certainly
not dry humour anyway).

A wholly unscientific poll of usage by asking Google suggests:
"M25 Dartford Crossing" - about 218,000 results
"A282 Dartford Crossing" - about 27,400 results

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

[Roland Perry]

In message <k787g2$cv5$1...@leverton.org>, at 11:25:10 on Mon, 5 Nov 2012,
Nick Leverton <ni...@leverton.org> remarked:

>"usenet licence"

Hmm, that terminology is catching on. Good.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message
<933981783373805336.416013%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org
>, at 11:15:02 on Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
remarked:

>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>
>> So a sign saying "vehicle on fire" might refer to an incident 100 miles
>> away, which gets to my underlying point here which is "red herring" signs
>> like that devalue the whole signage exercise.
>
>No, a sign saying vehicle on fire is a tactical sign and will not be set
>for an incident "100 miles away". You seem, for whatever reason, to be
>trying to imagine or create scenarios to bring the system into disrepute
>without actually bothering to learn how the system works or how it is
>operated.

Which makes it even stranger to see those signs and then not pass a
burnt out vehicle, a fire engine on the hard shoulder, or any sign that
any of those were ever there [that day].

>> In this case, however, I drove all the way to the end of the M11[1], and
>> find it difficult to believe the sign was referring to an incident behind me.
>
>More than one person has explained this to you. You do not have the ability
>to see events in the motorway from end to end while driving your car.

As you've assured us the event wasn't "behind me" (excuse the panto),
and I drove all the way to the London end, which was 35 minutes worth,
and given some of the timings mentioned in this thread, it becomes
clearer why my opinion is that the sign was a bluff.

>> [1] I wouldn't normally do that, but it was the weekend, traffic was very
>> light, and I was taking my daughter to college at the start of term.
>
>I admire your parental dedication. I tell mine to use the train.

Too many personal effects for that to work. Nothing out of the ordinary,
just clothes, books, a PC and printer, and enough food and pots/pans/
crockery to get the self catering off to a flying start.
--
Roland Perry

[Nick Leverton]

In article <Vn8ML2RJ...@perry.co.uk>,

I recalled the source before choosing it.

[Neil Williams]

Andy Burns <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:

> Indeed, I've been travelling along the M1 stretch with the gantries at
> 60, when approaching the next gantry I realised (rather later that ideal)
> that the next one wasn't showing 60 but 50, which required the sort of
> braking likely to set up the "domino" effect these schemes are intended
> to reduce, to make it worse the next gantry was back to 60 anyway.

Because of the repetitive nature of these limits, and because unlike on a
static speed limit the repeaters are not of a smaller size, I think one
design change needed is to flash the yellow lights on the matrix where the
limit is changing from the previous gantry to draw attention to the change.

[Neil Williams]

"tim....." <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Can't speak for everybody else, but I personally find it very difficult
> to distinguish between these matrix signs saying 50 and 60 until I am very close to them.

With glasses, as I wear when driving, my eyesight is somewhat better than
20-20, but I agree that 50 and 60 look too similar from a distance on these
signs. Perhaps a change of font is necessary.

[Clive Page]

On 04/11/2012 23:50, Periander wrote:

> Roland, you're not thick and I really am trying to not make this a personal
> attack - it's really not meant to be; but just sit back and actually think
> about your claims.

From casual conversations over the years, I'm sure there are many
drivers other than Roland and myself who find the system not at all
optimal in some conditions. I agree that it seems to work moderately
well when there is congestion from sheer volume of traffic, but there
seem to be several cases in which drivers find it annoying, for example:

(1) In the early hours of the morning in sunshine and perfect weather
when there are clearly no incidents or obstructions, the system shows a
low limit for a considerable distance. I assume the operators are
testing it, but it would be nice if they were able to display on the
matrix signs something like: "system test - ignore posted limits".

(2) When an incident occurs but has been cleared, the limits sometimes
seem to be set long after there is no longer any reason for it. This
may be the fault of the police, I've no idea. But the result is that it
*looks* as if the system is being badly run.

(3) When there is a trivial incident, such as a car stopped on the hard
shoulder, sometimes the limits gradually descend to 40 mph at the point
of the breakdown. Since one often sees vehicles stopped on the hard
shoulder without such limits being imposed, it's hard to see why the
authorities think they are needed in a few cases.

The view some have expressed here that the system is perfect and
operated by people who do their jobs perfectly 100% of the time just
doesn't seem plausible, considering what usually happens when humans
design and operate complex systems.

--
Clive Page

[John Briggs]

The SS was a criminal organisation - that is its current legal status.
The question of "common courtesy" hardly arises.
--
John Briggs

[Neil Williams]

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> If you are talking about signals that do not have the red ring indicator
> then these are advisory (but if you ignore them you may be charged with a
> more serious offence than speeding).

I have on the new section on the M1 around Luton seen fixed 50 signs but a
different speed displayed on the gantries. Not often, though.

[BartC]

"Periander" <u...@britwar.couk> wrote in message
news:afph9c...@mid.individual.net...

>
> On 5-Nov-2012, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> 10 seconds isn't a lot of time to brake from 56mph to 40 ...
>
> Surely you jest?

If there's traffic a few feet behind you (perhaps in the form of a huge
truck), then it's best to break gently. Especially when the other traffic
expects you, because of their local knowledge of what they can get away
with, to still go at 5 or 6 mph above the displayed limits.

Then you have to choose between getting a ticket, and possibly causing an
accident.

--
Bartc

[Lordgnome]

Not that I wish to defend the SS, but is your statement true? I thought
that allowing for the strange regime in power, that it was just another
wing (albeit ghastly) of the forces at the time. Certainly individuals
of the SS were convicted.

Les.

[Steve Firth]

Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote:
> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> If you are talking about signals that do not have the red ring indicator
>> then these are advisory (but if you ignore them you may be charged with a
>> more serious offence than speeding).
>
> I have on the new section on the M1 around Luton seen fixed 50 signs but a
> different speed displayed on the gantries. Not often, though.

That's a foul-up on the part of the control room. Where there are fixed
signs, either permanently or for roadworks, it is possible to enter that
info into the system. When signals are set it will then inhibit the display
if speeds the same as or higher than the permanent signs.

If the matrix shows a lower speed then the lower speed applies.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Neil Williams]

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> That's a foul-up on the part of the control room. Where there are fixed
> signs, either permanently or for roadworks, it is possible to enter that
> info into the system. When signals are set it will then inhibit the display
> if speeds the same as or higher than the permanent signs.
>
> If the matrix shows a lower speed then the lower speed applies.

Surely the "end of variable speed limit (50)" signs would negate that? If
not, why place them? It would seem to make sense to simply place regular
50 signs?

It mostly works, though, so I think in this instance it is an error. I
have wondered, though, if the use of the variable limit displays may end up
replacing roadworks fixed signs in the medium to long term, particularly as
it would allow a higher limit to be used when work was not in progress
without a need to go replacing signs?

I assume there is specific legislation that states that in a variable speed
limit area where two speeds are shown, the lower applies, rather than if
this situation occurred involving fixed signs it could invalidate both (as
the limit was incorrectly signed) and cause NSL to apply?

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:25:09 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>In message
><933981783373805336.416013%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org
> >, at 11:15:02 on Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
>remarked:
>>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message
>>
>>> So a sign saying "vehicle on fire" might refer to an incident 100 miles
>>> away, which gets to my underlying point here which is "red herring" signs
>>> like that devalue the whole signage exercise.
>>
>>No, a sign saying vehicle on fire is a tactical sign and will not be set
>>for an incident "100 miles away". You seem, for whatever reason, to be
>>trying to imagine or create scenarios to bring the system into disrepute
>>without actually bothering to learn how the system works or how it is
>>operated.
>
>Which makes it even stranger to see those signs and then not pass a
>burnt out vehicle, a fire engine on the hard shoulder, or any sign that
>any of those were ever there [that day].

Well, it's already been shown that your memory is faulty as regards what
the sign actually said (since you recalled it as saying something it could
not have said). It is not unreasonable, therefore, to conclude that other
aspects of the incident have also escaped your memory.

I actually think it's quite likely that you passed the relevant vehicle on
the hard shoulder without realising that it was the one which had been on
fire, especially if you were expecting to see flames or smoke. And, because
it wasn't anything out of the ordinary (vehicles on the hard shoulder are a
relatively common observation on the motorway), it simply didn't register
when you passed it.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[John Briggs]

The statement is true. The SS became so all-pervasive that it would be
more correct to regard the regime as a wing of the SS. The Nuremburg
Trials condemned the SS and all its branches as a criminal organisation,
and that remains its status.
--
John Briggs

[Steve Firth]

Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote:
> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> That's a foul-up on the part of the control room. Where there are fixed
>> signs, either permanently or for roadworks, it is possible to enter that
>> info into the system. When signals are set it will then inhibit the display
>> if speeds the same as or higher than the permanent signs.
>>
>> If the matrix shows a lower speed then the lower speed applies.
>
> Surely the "end of variable speed limit (50)" signs would negate that? If
> not, why place them? It would seem to make sense to simply place regular
> 50 signs?

The problem I'm getting now is that you're using mixed terms. Signs are
things with writing on them, signals show speeds, lane closures etc.

A sign saying "end of variable speed limit" does not cancel a setting shown
in a signal nor does it cancel the limit imposed by permanent speed
settings (paint on metal). Those limits are cencelled by display of the NSL
signal or by permanent signs showing NSL.

There's a bit of a problem at the end of variable limit sections where an
"End" may be shown which doesn't have the force in law of (/).

I don't know if that was resolved after I changed job or not.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Nightjar]

On 05/11/2012 14:10, BartC wrote:
>
>
> "Periander" <u...@britwar.couk> wrote in message
> news:afph9c...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> On 5-Nov-2012, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 10 seconds isn't a lot of time to brake from 56mph to 40 ...
>>
>> Surely you jest?
>
> If there's traffic a few feet behind you (perhaps in the form of a huge

> truck), then it's best to break gently....

Dropping from 56mph to 40mph in 10 seconds *is* braking gently. It will
take over a furlong to achieve.

Colin Bignell

[Andy Champ]

On 05/11/2012 08:15, Steve Firth wrote:
> When signals change they count down and not change immediately from a
> higher setting to a lower one. You are extrapolating from something I said
> about automatic signalling to the process of changing the setting on a
> signal and you are arriving at an incorrect assumption.
>
> And 10 seconds is more than adequate to slow down. It does not demand panic
> braking and only requires someone to lift their foot off the accelerator.

We on the same motorways? I've seen blank to 30 on the M25. No
countdown, no 60 50 40, just coming on. (no, I can't tell you when. Last
summer possibly)

and 10 seconds from 60 to 40 is ... err... oh. A tenth of a g. You
have point there!

Andy

[Steve Firth]

Andy Champ <no....@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> We on the same motorways? I've seen blank to 30 on the M25. No
> countdown, no 60 50 40, just coming on. (no, I can't tell you when. Last summer possibly)

Err no there's no way that you could have seen that. Although its possible
you didn't notice the change, I suppose.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[Periander]

On 5-Nov-2012, Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:

> furlong

Now you've really confused the issue ;-)

Still it saved me the trouble of replying.

[Periander]

On 5-Nov-2012, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> wrote:

> The view some have expressed here that the system is perfect and
> operated by people who do their jobs perfectly 100% of the time just
> doesn't seem plausible, considering what usually happens when humans
> design and operate complex systems.

Firstly thank you for taking my criticism of your point in the spirit it was
intended but no that's not quite the point I'm making. I'm not saying that
the system works at 100% efficiency or that it is perfect. However I am
saying that the odds of it being wrong when compared to a driver making an
error (or series of errors) is tiny and that in the absence of clear
evidence the benefit of the doubt goes to the system.

[Periander]

On 5-Nov-2012, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> >> In 1940, Walter Schellenberg was only a Sturmbannf�hrer (Major) - and

> >> not in a position to "mandate" anything much. He only made Brigadier by
> >> the end of the war. (Same rank as Enoch Powell, for what it's worth.)
> >
> > In 1940 Monty was still a major-general but we still addres him as Field
> > Marshal ... it's a matter of common courtesy. You also appear to be to
> > falling into the trap of confusing rank with responsibility and
> > influence.
>
> The SS was a criminal organisation - that is its current legal status.
> The question of "common courtesy" hardly arises.

Oh gosh oh to be so certain. Well at least you aren't arguing that rank,
role and responsibility are the same things so I should be thankful for
small mercies.

I've read your reply to Les as well, thank you for making me smile, it's far
to late at night for anything else.

[Roland Perry]

In message <afr7ln...@mid.individual.net>, at 01:35:02 on Tue, 6 Nov
2012, Periander <u...@britwar.couk> remarked:

>> The view some have expressed here that the system is perfect and
>> operated by people who do their jobs perfectly 100% of the time just
>> doesn't seem plausible, considering what usually happens when humans
>> design and operate complex systems.
>
>Firstly thank you for taking my criticism of your point in the spirit it was
>intended but no that's not quite the point I'm making. I'm not saying that
>the system works at 100% efficiency or that it is perfect. However I am
>saying that the odds of it being wrong when compared to a driver making an
>error (or series of errors) is tiny and that in the absence of clear
>evidence the benefit of the doubt goes to the system.

Tiny errors like thinking the signs said "40" when they are actually
unlit, thinking it's 6am when it's really midday, and thinking there was
one car every half mile on the road when in fact it was bumper to bumper
in all three lanes?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <aptf9891u5aebqbum...@news.markshouse.net>, at
17:35:02 on Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>Well, it's already been shown that your memory is faulty as regards what
>the sign actually said (since you recalled it as saying something it could
>not have said).

I agree it's unlikely that the sign gave a junction number, because then
I would have known when to stop looking. And I didn't stop looking until
the end of the motorway.

>It is not unreasonable, therefore, to conclude that other
>aspects of the incident have also escaped your memory.
>
>I actually think it's quite likely that you passed the relevant vehicle on
>the hard shoulder without realising that it was the one which had been on
>fire, especially if you were expecting to see flames or smoke.

I did not pass any vehicle on the hard shoulder, I was looking out very
carefully, there wasn't much else to do it was so quiet on the road.

>And, because it wasn't anything out of the ordinary (vehicles on the
>hard shoulder are a relatively common observation on the motorway), it
>simply didn't register when you passed it.

There was nothing to pass.

This isn't some generic recollection of a random trip.

Having seen the signs I was specifically checking whether the signs were
a bluff or not, as it's a bit of a bete noire of mine.
--
Roland Perry

[Neil Williams]

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> There's a bit of a problem at the end of variable limit sections where an
> "End" may be shown which doesn't have the force in law of (/).
>
> I don't know if that was resolved after I changed job or not.

I think it wasn't as it sounds like the situation I describe.

Essentially the situation is that at the start of the roadworks there is a
physical sign saying "End of variable limit (50)" followed by regular
physical signs saying (50), whereas the signals on the gantries say
something different, be that higher or lower.

I compared this to a situation where on a non-motorway temporary lower
speed limit signs were in place without covering the existing higher limit
repeater signs, which ISTR makes both limits legally questionable.

The sensible action by the motorist is to follow the lowest, and that is
clearly the intention, but I think it is questionable as to what, if
anything, applies legally. For a court to decide, I suppose.

[Nightjar]

On 06/11/2012 01:30, Periander wrote:
> On 5-Nov-2012, Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> furlong
>
> Now you've really confused the issue ;-)

It came out so close, I just had to use that and the speed is in mph. :-)

> Still it saved me the trouble of replying.

Pleased to be of service.

Colin Bignell

[Clive Page]

On 06/11/2012 07:45, Roland Perry wrote:
> Tiny errors like thinking the signs said "40" when they are actually
> unlit, thinking it's 6am when it's really midday, and thinking there was
> one car every half mile on the road when in fact it was bumper to bumper
> in all three lanes?

Well put, Roland. We drivers are always making tiny errors like that. :-)

Whereas systems designed and run by the government and its agents are
almost never wrong, and certainly their accuracy is not to be questioned
unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.

Opinions are obviously going to differ on that.

--
Clive Page

[BartC]

"Nightjar" <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote in message
news:a9ydnYLpLecElQXN...@giganews.com...

But you don't think in those terms. In fact most people would know nothing
about the ten-second rule. And if they did, they wouldn't necessarily know
when the 'countdown' started, as they might only just have noticed the speed
was different from before (when the limits keep changing, it's difficult to
keep track).

Under those circumstances, you don't want to touch the brakes (with traffic
right behind that might have speedometers reading lower than yours, or are
just more reckless, or both), but just hope the vehicle will slow down
enough by the time it gets to the area covered by the camera.

--
Bartc

[Periander]

On 6-Nov-2012, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:

> > Dropping from 56mph to 40mph in 10 seconds *is* braking gently. It will
> > take over a furlong to achieve.
>
> But you don't think in those terms. In fact most people would know nothing
> about the ten-second rule. And if they did, they wouldn't necessarily know
>
> when the 'countdown' started, as they might only just have noticed the
> speed was different from before (when the limits keep changing, it's
> difficult
> to keep track).
>
> Under those circumstances, you don't want to touch the brakes (with
> traffic right behind that might have speedometers reading lower than
> yours, or are
>
> just more reckless, or both), but just hope the vehicle will slow down
> enough by the time it gets to the area covered by the camera.

Yes, the daily carnage with dozens of accidents an hour on the VLS section
of the M25 and other VLS motorways attest to the fact that a significant
number of drivers are unable to cope with adhering to a changing speed
limit. Bart ... sorry to say but the evidence is against you; in VLS
sections of motorway average journey times are significantly reduced
(attesting to a higher average speed) and accidents are down, suggesting
that drivers are taking more care.

Yes, there'll always be BMWs on our roads and consequently there'll always
be some who treat the VLS as a series of high speed sprints between heavy
breaking but they'll kill themselves eventually so why worry.