New speed cameras on A14?
Philip Colmer
It looks as if two new speed cameras have been installed on the A14 by the
Fen Ditton junction. This aren't the more typical Gatso camera, though.
These are high up on blue posts, with the cameras themselves painted "speed
camera yellow". They face towards the traffic and it doesn't look as if
there is any sort of flash mechanism to tell you that a photo has been
taken. Instead, the cameras appear to use infra-red.
If you head east bound, there is a sign saying that the camera isn't in use
yet, but the installation looks as if it is a permanent one.
--Philip
DavidD
"Philip Colmer" <philip...@proquest.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e75e572$0$4863$ed9e...@reading.news.pipex.net...
http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/SpeedCameraGuide.htm#SPECS%20System
Not nice :(
D.
William Munns
cam.transport is over there ->>>
Message-ID: <3E687682...@pace.co.uk>
Andrew Mobbs
>
>>
>Specs speed cameras..
>
>http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/SpeedCameraGuide.htm#SPECS%20System
>
>Not nice :(
In what way are they not nice? They regulate speed without causing
dangerous attempts at evading the system through sudden braking.
The only problem I see with them is a "Big Brother" worry of your number
plate being tracked, potentially all over the country. However, given
the prevalence of CCTV in city centres, that battle is already lost.
--
Andrew Mobbs - http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andrewm/
Mark Ayliffe
Philip Colmer <philip...@proquest.co.uk> illuminated us with:
> I hadn't spotted anyone else mentioning this ...
Try cam.transport. Thread entitled "New speed cameras being installed on the
A14"
Yup, most of that got covered in that thread. IIRC.
--
Mark
Please remove nospam | When their numbers dwindled from 50 to 8,
to reply by email. | the other dwarves began to suspect Hungry.
www.ayliffe.org |
DavidD
"Andrew Mobbs" <and...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:0bs*iS...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> DavidD <david_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >Specs speed cameras..
> >
> >http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/SpeedCameraGuide.htm#SPECS%20System
> >
> >Not nice :(
>
> In what way are they not nice? They regulate speed without causing
> dangerous attempts at evading the system through sudden braking.
>
> The only problem I see with them is a "Big Brother" worry of your number
> plate being tracked, potentially all over the country. However, given
> the prevalence of CCTV in city centres, that battle is already lost.
Indeed, most CCTV has not started recognising numberplates yet. I'm sure it
will come along in time.
D.
Philip Colmer
"Mark Ayliffe" <mark.ayl...@pem.nospam.cam.nospam.ac.uk> wrote in
message news:lq5hk-...@news.ntlworld.com...
> On or about Mon, 17 Mar 2003 at 15:10 GMT,
> Philip Colmer <philip...@proquest.co.uk> illuminated us with:
> > I hadn't spotted anyone else mentioning this ...
>
> Try cam.transport. Thread entitled "New speed cameras being installed on
the
> A14"
Ah - sorry - not up on my cam.* hierarchy :-(
--Philip
Paul Oldham
philip...@proquest.co.uk (Philip Colmer) growled:
> I hadn't spotted anyone else mentioning this ...
You're looking in the wrong place. They have been discussed in details in
cam.transport.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ maintainer ---> http://the-hug.org/paul/camfaq.html
"Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else"
Nick Wagg
>
> In what way are they not nice? They regulate speed without causing
> dangerous attempts at evading the system through sudden braking.
Many drivers still brake suddenly, regardless of the type of camera
and regardless of the speed they are doing at the time.
--
Nick Wagg
Maharg Elddir
number-plate recognition.
Still, never mind - a few thousand tickets will amost pay for one
cruise missile, and the insurance companies can't fail to benefit from
loading via your license points.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Ian Cowley
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:10:08 -0000, "Philip Colmer"
> <philip...@proquest.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I hadn't spotted anyone else mentioning this ...
>>
>> It looks as if two new speed cameras have been installed on the A14
>> by the Fen Ditton junction. This aren't the more typical Gatso
>> camera, though. These are high up on blue posts, with the cameras
>> themselves painted "speed camera yellow". They face towards the
>> traffic and it doesn't look as if there is any sort of flash
>> mechanism to tell you that a photo has been taken. Instead, the
>> cameras appear to use infra-red.
>>
>> If you head east bound, there is a sign saying that the camera isn't
>> in use yet, but the installation looks as if it is a permanent one.
>
> number-plate recognition.
Nah, they measure the time between apostrophe abuses.
> Still, never mind - a few thousand tickets will amost pay for one
> cruise missile, and the insurance companies can't fail to benefit from
> loading via your license points.
Still, never mind. Just don't speed.
If you absolutely cannot bear to live below the speed limit, then simply
make sure your average speed is below the speed limit when you see the first
camera?
--
Ian Cowley (Not Reverend), Cambridge, UK
**Perfecting pedantry through practice**
Remove safety net before mailing me
Mark Ayliffe
Philip Colmer <philip...@proquest.co.uk> illuminated us with:
>
> "Mark Ayliffe" <mark.ayl...@pem.nospam.cam.nospam.ac.uk> wrote in
> message news:lq5hk-...@news.ntlworld.com...
>> On or about Mon, 17 Mar 2003 at 15:10 GMT,
>> Philip Colmer <philip...@proquest.co.uk> illuminated us with:
>> > I hadn't spotted anyone else mentioning this ...
>>
>> Try cam.transport. Thread entitled "New speed cameras being installed on
> the
>> A14"
>
> Ah - sorry - not up on my cam.* hierarchy :-(
In that case, on the off-chance you've not yet discovered the FAQ:
http://www.the-hug.org/paul/camfaq.html
see section 1.2
--
Mark
Please remove nospam | I went to a restaurant that serves "breakfast
to reply by email. | at any time". So I ordered French Toast
www.ayliffe.org | during the Renaissance.
Nick Wagg
I suppose that an apposite description would be a "knee jerk reaction".
--
Nick Wagg
Mark Carroll
Nick Wagg <n.w...@transcendata.com> wrote:
(snip)
>Many drivers still brake suddenly, regardless of the type of camera
>and regardless of the speed they are doing at the time.
That's often amused/annoyed me, actually - even people travelling
under the speed limit often still brake IME - I can't help but wonder
if they really didn't know what speed they were travelling at.
-- Mark
Maharg Elddir
<new...@safetynet.iancowley.co.uk> wrote:
>Nah, they measure the time between apostrophe abuses.
Nah?
>
>> Still, never mind - a few thousand tickets will amost pay for one
>> cruise missile, and the insurance companies can't fail to benefit from
>> loading via your license points.
>
>Still, never mind. Just don't speed.
I don't.
>If you absolutely cannot bear to live below the speed limit, then simply
>make sure your average speed is below the speed limit when you see the first
>camera?
Yes, I think it's much safer if people are examining their speedos
than looking where they are going (or looking out for cameras).
In my experience the tear-arses never seem to get caught, it's always
the cautious drivers who end up paying - because they're not scanning
the sides of the road for cameras, and they are not up to date with
the technology spying on them; rather they're being stupid and looking
where they are going. Ha Ha - the joke's on them!!
Philip
<and...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> said:
> In what way are they not nice? They regulate speed without causing
> dangerous attempts at evading the system through sudden braking.
Actually, they do absolutely the opposite. When people see them, they
don't know if it's the first or second camera of the pair, so will
resort to anything to get their speed down before passing the camera in
case it's the second, including very sudden braking, swerving onto the
hard shoulder/verge, etc.
--
Philip
Mark Ayliffe
Mark Carroll <ma...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> illuminated us with:
There is a surprisingly large number of driviers who think that the national
speed limit on dual carriageways is 60 MPH. :(
--
Mark
Please remove nospam | Raising a child is like baking a cake -
to reply by email. | by the time you find out it's a
www.ayliffe.org | disaster, it's too late.
Paul Oldham
mark.ayl...@pem.nospam.cam.nospam.ac.uk (Mark Ayliffe) growled:
> There is a surprisingly large number of driviers who think that the
> national speed limit on dual carriageways is 60 MPH. :(
Why the :(? They're travelling in a more fuel efficient manner at 60mpg
than 70mph and, since it's a dual carriageway, you can overtake them if you
want to go faster. Where's the problem?
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ maintainer ---> http://the-hug.org/paul/camfaq.html
"I used to have a handle on life, then it broke."
Jules
> Yes, I think it's much safer if people are examining their speedos
> than looking where they are going (or looking out for cameras).
>
> In my experience the tear-arses never seem to get caught, it's always
> the cautious drivers who end up paying - because they're not scanning
> the sides of the road for cameras, and they are not up to date with
> the technology spying on them; rather they're being stupid and looking
> where they are going. Ha Ha - the joke's on them!!
Surely any driver should able to judge their speed without constantly
looking at the speedo - they shouldn't be allowed on the roads if they
aren't capable of doing that! (allowances can obviously be made for
new car owners there :)
In addition, people should be scanning the sides of the roads for
hazards and not purely looking straight ahead. Hence the painting of
the cameras being a good idea as it reduces the time needed to
identify them.
Being cautious is all well and good, but that doesn't necessarily mean
that those drivers are safe.
In case you haven't heard, the DVLA is currently considering
introducing number plates with embedded chips containing the car
details - intended to become law by 2007. Primarily intended to target
theft, the side effect is of course that speed camera equipment will
become much smaller, most likely cheaper, and easily hidden by the
roadside. Not sure where I stand on that one. All well and good if
speed limits are allocated sensibly and something is done to combat
the root of the problem (better driver training and education), but
somehow I doubt that'll happen...
cheers
Jules
Paul
news:memo.20030318...@paul.the-hug.org...
> Why the :(? They're travelling in a more fuel efficient manner at 60mph
> than 70mph and, since it's a dual carriageway, you can overtake them if
> you want to go faster. Where's the problem?
Seconded. The cruise control has more than one setting and IME it's more
useful at 60 than 70mph because it is possible to fit within the average
speed range of larger vehicles and stay in one lane whereas at a constant 70
it is necessary to frequently overtake larger vehicles and yet still be in
the way of the majority of cars doing 80-85mph while so doing.
Paul
Duncan Wood
hug.org> wrote:
> In article <egtik-...@news.ntlworld.com>,
> mark.ayl...@pem.nospam.cam.nospam.ac.uk (Mark Ayliffe) growled:
>
>> There is a surprisingly large number of driviers who think that the
>> national speed limit on dual carriageways is 60 MPH. :(
>
> Why the :(? They're travelling in a more fuel efficient manner at 60mpg
> than 70mph and, since it's a dual carriageway, you can overtake them if
> you want to go faster. Where's the problem?
>
Assming they're not actually doing 54 & being overtaken slowly by trucks
doing 56.
splodge
> On or about Mon, 17 Mar 2003 at 19:11 GMT,
> Mark Carroll <ma...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> illuminated us with:
> > In article <3E75F7AC...@transcendata.com>,
> > Nick Wagg <n.w...@transcendata.com> wrote:
> > (snip)
> >>Many drivers still brake suddenly, regardless of the type of camera
> >>and regardless of the speed they are doing at the time.
> >
> > That's often amused/annoyed me, actually - even people travelling
> > under the speed limit often still brake IME - I can't help but wonder
> > if they really didn't know what speed they were travelling at.
>
the national
> speed limit on dual carriageways is 60 MPH. :(
>
Annoying, aren't they!
Have you noticed that they never use their mirrors?
Mind you, there are even more that DGAF about the 70 limit, either.
I was driving back from Newmarket on Sunday afternoon (at a steady 70) and
was overtaken by nearly everything, including a black Porche that was doing
well over the ton.
I caught them all up at the roadworks of course! :-)
--
姣 Splodge 姣
Alan Braggins
> In article <egtik-...@news.ntlworld.com>,
> mark.ayl...@pem.nospam.cam.nospam.ac.uk (Mark Ayliffe) growled:
>
> > There is a surprisingly large number of driviers who think that the
> > national speed limit on dual carriageways is 60 MPH. :(
>
> Why the :(? They're travelling in a more fuel efficient manner at 60mpg
> than 70mph and, since it's a dual carriageway, you can overtake them if you
> want to go faster. Where's the problem?
Them travelling at 70+ mph and jamming on their brakes to slow all the
way to 60mph when they spot a camera or police car? Not being able to
overtake them because they are doing 60mph in the outside lane
overtaking someone else doing 59mph (or just sitting in the outside lane
with nothing inside)?
Vicky Larmour
Oldham wrote:
> In article <egtik-...@news.ntlworld.com>,
> mark.ayl...@pem.nospam.cam.nospam.ac.uk (Mark Ayliffe)
> growled:
>> There is a surprisingly large number of driviers who think that
>> the national speed limit on dual carriageways is 60 MPH. :(
>
> Why the :(? They're travelling in a more fuel efficient manner
> at 60mpg than 70mph and, since it's a dual carriageway, you can
> overtake them if you want to go faster. Where's the problem?
It is :( if they're pootling along happily at 75 mph and suddenly
brake to 60 mph when they see a speed camera.
Vicky
--
"Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock
phasers on the Heffalump. Piglet, meet me in transporter room
three. Christopher Robin, you have the bridge."
Paul Oldham
ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) growled:
> pa...@the-hug.org (Paul Oldham) writes:
> > In article <egtik-...@news.ntlworld.com>,
> > mark.ayl...@pem.nospam.cam.nospam.ac.uk (Mark Ayliffe) growled:
> >
> > > There is a surprisingly large number of driviers who think that the
> > > national speed limit on dual carriageways is 60 MPH. :(
> >
> > Why the :(? They're travelling in a more fuel efficient manner at 60mpg
> > than 70mph and, since it's a dual carriageway, you can overtake them if
> > you want to go faster. Where's the problem?
>
> Them travelling at 70+ mph and jamming on their brakes to slow all the
> way to 60mph when they spot a camera or police car?
Goalposts moved error at line 1.
> Not being able to
> overtake them because they are doing 60mph in the outside lane
> overtaking someone else doing 59mph (or just sitting in the outside lane
> with nothing inside)?
However that would be fair comment if that's what they were doing. Although
again that's not what Mark was complaining about.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ maintainer ---> http://the-hug.org/paul/camfaq.html
"Sorry, I don't date outside my species"
Paul Oldham
(Paul Oldham) growled:
> In article <4uvfyh2...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) growled:
>
> > pa...@the-hug.org (Paul Oldham) writes:
> > > In article <egtik-...@news.ntlworld.com>,
> > > mark.ayl...@pem.nospam.cam.nospam.ac.uk (Mark Ayliffe) growled:
> > >
> > > > There is a surprisingly large number of driviers who think that the
> > > > national speed limit on dual carriageways is 60 MPH. :(
> > >
> > > Why the :(? They're travelling in a more fuel efficient manner at
> > > 60mpg than 70mph and, since it's a dual carriageway, you can overtake
> > > them if you want to go faster. Where's the problem?
> >
> > Them travelling at 70+ mph and jamming on their brakes to slow all the
> > way to 60mph when they spot a camera or police car?
>
> Goalposts moved error at line 1.
Ah sorry. I'm with you now. My mistake.
Sigh. I'm slow this morning. I think I need a GCC and a pint of Eagle. Aha,
look, there's The Wrestlers over there ------>
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ maintainer ---> http://the-hug.org/paul/camfaq.html
"Perl - The only language that looks the same before & after RSA encryption"
Mark Ayliffe
Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> illuminated us with:
What he said. On a busy road (like the A14) people doing this can cause
compression waves (or whatever they are called) so several minutes after the
event dozens ov vehicles are slowed to a crawl. Granted this is probably
_really_ caused by people driving too closeley to each other in the first
place, but on a busy road like the A14, if you leave a large enough gap then
some £$%£^%&* will occupy it. Contd. on p 54...
--
Mark
Please remove nospam | Sometimes it's easier to beg for forgiveness
to reply by email. | than ask for permission.
www.ayliffe.org |
Mark Carroll
splodge <spl...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Mark Ayliffe" <mark.ayl...@pem.nospam.cam.nospam.ac.uk> wrote in
>message news:egtik-...@news.ntlworld.com...
>> There is (*are*) a surprisingly large number of driviers who think that
>the national
>> speed limit on dual carriageways is 60 MPH. :(
Heh. I remember a conversation (near Cambridge) about what the speed
limit was on the road outside (60mph). There was a good few people who
thought it might be 40mph or 50mph.
(snip)
>Mind you, there are even more that DGAF about the 70 limit, either.
>I was driving back from Newmarket on Sunday afternoon (at a steady 70) and
>was overtaken by nearly everything, including a black Porche that was doing
>well over the ton.
(snip)
One thing that annoys me about some areas of the US is roads where, if
you kept to the speed limit, you'd be hazardously obstructing traffic.
-- Mark
Duncan Wood
> «» Splodge «»
>
>
>
>
>
>
Steady 70 or steady 63 indicated 70 :-)
splodge
"Duncan Wood" <free...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oprl8yq2...@news.demon.co.uk...
Snip>>>>>
>
> Steady 70 or steady 63 indicated 70 :-)
>
Good point!
You have me curious now...
I'll check it sometime, when I have a passenger who is bored enough to count
the kilometer markers with stopwatch in hand :-)
--
姣 Splodge 姣
Duncan Wood
> «» Splodge «»
>
>
>
>
Sitting behind a modern truck gives you a pretty good idea they do a steady
56 on the flat. If it's a VAG it reads 10% over, they all do.
Tim Ward
news:usLda.2360$ug....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
>
> Good point!
> You have me curious now...
>
> I'll check it sometime, when I have a passenger who is bored enough to
count
> the kilometer markers with stopwatch in hand :-)
Just check it with a GPS receiver. Unless the US have b*****d up the signals
this week, of course.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Ltd - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
splodge
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:37:47 -0000, splodge <spl...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Duncan Wood" <free...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:oprl8yq2...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > Snip>>>>>
> >>
> >> Steady 70 or steady 63 indicated 70 :-)
> >>
> >
> > Good point!
> > You have me curious now...
> >
> >
> > I'll check it sometime, when I have a passenger who is bored enough to
> > count
> > the kilometer markers with stopwatch in hand :-)
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Sitting behind a modern truck gives you a pretty good idea they do a
steady
> 56 on the flat. If it's a VAG it reads 10% over, they all do.
>
It's usually two trucks you're sitting behind on the A14...
VAG???
--
姣 Splodge 姣
splodge
"Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b5815i$25pbjh$1...@ID-154437.news.dfncis.de...
> "splodge" <spl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:usLda.2360$ug....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Duncan Wood" <free...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:oprl8yq2...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > > Steady 70 or steady 63 indicated 70 :-)
> >
> > Good point!
> > You have me curious now...
> >
> > I'll check it sometime, when I have a passenger who is bored enough to
> count
> > the kilometer markers with stopwatch in hand :-)
>
> Just check it with a GPS receiver. Unless the US have b*****d up the
signals
> this week, of course.
>
I would if I had one!
--
姣 Splodge 姣
Mark Ayliffe
Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> illuminated us with:
> "splodge" <spl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:usLda.2360$ug....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Duncan Wood" <free...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:oprl8yq2...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> > Steady 70 or steady 63 indicated 70 :-)
>>
>> Good point!
>> You have me curious now...
>>
>> I'll check it sometime, when I have a passenger who is bored enough to
> count
>> the kilometer markers with stopwatch in hand :-)
>
> Just check it with a GPS receiver. Unless the US have b*****d up the signals
> this week, of course.
Have they got enough military quality receivers for all their tanks this
time then?
--
Mark
Please remove nospam |
to reply by email. | OK, so what's the speed of dark?
www.ayliffe.org |
Tim Ward
>
> Have they got enough military quality receivers for all their tanks this
> time then?
Well, of course, you don't really need them these days, do you? - won't a
commercial DGPS receiver and a few ground stations do? - they're supposed to
get an aircraft to within a few inches of the runway no matter what the US
do to the signal, short of turning it off altogether.
(Now there's a thought. Let's hope the command and control uplink to these
satellites is more secure than the command and control uplink to yer average
commercial satellite, which supposedly can be taken over by anyone with a
modest sized dish in their garden (hi J^2).)
Duncan Wood
>
> "Duncan Wood" <free...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:oprl8zs1...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:37:47 -0000, splodge <spl...@ntlworld.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Duncan Wood" <free...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:oprl8yq2...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> >
>> > Snip>>>>>
>> >>
>> >> Steady 70 or steady 63 indicated 70 :-)
>> >>
>> >
>> > Good point!
>> > You have me curious now...
>> >
>> >
>> > I'll check it sometime, when I have a passenger who is bored enough to
>> > count
>> > the kilometer markers with stopwatch in hand :-)
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > «» Splodge «»
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Sitting behind a modern truck gives you a pretty good idea they do a
> steady
>> 56 on the flat. If it's a VAG it reads 10% over, they all do.
>>
>
> It's usually two trucks you're sitting behind on the A14...
>
> VAG???
>
> --
>
> «» Splodge «»
>
>
>
Volkswagen Audi group.
Paul Rudin
>
> Have they got enough military quality receivers for all their tanks this
> time then?
ISTR that in the last gulf war they turned off the error on the signal
because many of the US troops on the ground had their own commercial
gps kit, that sort of worked, unlike the "miltary quality" kit they'd
been issued with...
Jennifer Liddle
> (Now there's a thought. Let's hope the command and control uplink to these
> satellites is more secure than the command and control uplink to yer
> average commercial satellite, which supposedly can be taken over by anyone
> with a modest sized dish in their garden (hi J^2).)
Really?
[FX: hack hack hack ...]
--
Jennifer Liddle J-Squared Ltd http://www.jsquared.co.uk
It's all the fault of the City Council. Everything. Everywhere.
Mark Ayliffe
Jennifer Liddle <jenn...@jsquared.co.uk> illuminated us with:
> Tim Ward wrote:
>
>> (Now there's a thought. Let's hope the command and control uplink to these
>> satellites is more secure than the command and control uplink to yer
>> average commercial satellite, which supposedly can be taken over by anyone
>> with a modest sized dish in their garden (hi J^2).)
>
> Really?
> [FX: hack hack hack ...]
I hear Sky are now broadcasting back-to-back Lib-Dem party political
broadcasts... :-) And in other news a division of Abrams tanks is about to
kick seven sorts of wotnots out of Alberquerque ;-)
--
Mark
Please remove nospam | "I am MS-DOS of Borg.
to reply by email. | Prepare... oops, out of memory!"
www.ayliffe.org |
Mark Ayliffe
Ross Younger <new...@crazyscot.com> illuminated us with:
> * Paul Rudin <paul....@ntlworld.com>:
>>ISTR that in the last gulf war they turned off the error on the signal
>>because many of the US troops on the ground had their own commercial
>>gps kit, that sort of worked, unlike the "miltary quality" kit they'd
>>been issued with...
>
> PPS (military GPS band) receivers to go around, but plenty civilian
> (COTS) receivers...
That was the version I was alluding to. But it's prolly UM anyway. I'll ask
my friendly Tank Commander next time I see him.
--
Mark
Please remove nospam | Ah, part of Unix's charm. It's quite user-friendly
to reply by email. | ...it's just very picky about who it's friends with.
www.ayliffe.org |
Paul Oldham
(Tim Ward) growled:
> which supposedly can be taken over by anyone with a
> modest sized dish in their garden (hi J^2).)
*Modest*?!?! You have *seen* their dish I assume? ;-)
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ maintainer ---> http://the-hug.org/paul/camfaq.html
"Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing."
Mark Ayliffe
Paul Oldham <pa...@the-hug.org> illuminated us with:
> In article <b582jc$26p048$1...@ID-154437.news.dfncis.de>, t...@brettward.co.uk
> (Tim Ward) growled:
>
>> which supposedly can be taken over by anyone with a
>> modest sized dish in their garden (hi J^2).)
>
> *Modest*?!?! You have *seen* their dish I assume? ;-)
Would that be the one on this page? http://www.jsquared.co.uk/seti/
--
Mark
Please remove nospam | I went to a restaurant that serves "breakfast
to reply by email. | at any time". So I ordered French Toast
www.ayliffe.org | during the Renaissance.
Ian Cowley
> "splodge" <spl...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:usLda.2360$ug....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Duncan Wood" <free...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:oprl8yq2...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>> Steady 70 or steady 63 indicated 70 :-)
>>
>> Good point!
>> You have me curious now...
>>
>> I'll check it sometime, when I have a passenger who is bored enough
>> to count the kilometer markers with stopwatch in hand :-)
>
> Just check it with a GPS receiver. Unless the US have b*****d up the
> signals this week, of course.
I don't think they'd be allowed to add SA back into the signal, given how
many commercial systems use GPS these days.
Yes, the GPS system is designed, owned, operated, paid for etc by the US
military, and they've always said they can do whatever they like to it, but
the sheer number of planes, trains, automobiles and others that rely on it
for safety these days is staggering. It'd be a very bad PA move to switch
SA back on.
Although I think that with the new WAAS systems coming in, they can switch
SA on in particular areas...the Gulf, say. ICBW on the details of that
though.
--
Ian Cowley (Not Reverend), Cambridge, UK
**Perfecting pedantry through practice**
Remove safety net before mailing me
Random sig 1
Paul Rudin
RY> * Paul Rudin <paul....@ntlworld.com>:
>> ISTR that in the last gulf war they turned off the error on the
>> signal because many of the US troops on the ground had their own
>> commercial gps kit, that sort of worked, unlike the "miltary
>> quality" kit they'd been issued with...
RY> As I heard it (from an academic at ORL, as-was), there weren't
RY> enough PPS (military GPS band) receivers to go around, but plenty
RY> civilian (COTS) receivers...
Well, whatever the reasons, the commercial stuff was at least as
accurate as the military stuff during the war. Which rather deafeats
the purpose of having the deliberate error, does it not?
--
Are BOTH T.V.S on??
Alan Braggins
> RY> As I heard it (from an academic at ORL, as-was), there weren't
> RY> enough PPS (military GPS band) receivers to go around, but plenty
> RY> civilian (COTS) receivers...
>
> Well, whatever the reasons, the commercial stuff was at least as
> accurate as the military stuff during the war. Which rather deafeats
> the purpose of having the deliberate error, does it not?
The purpose of the deliberate error was to let the US have better
positioning available than the enemy. They could do that either by
using a limited number receivers that remove the error and leaving the
error in place, or by picking an enemy who didn't even have many
civilian receivers and turning the error off. I assume that civilian
GPS receivers are covered by sanctions and Iraq is still relatively
short of them.
Elizabeth Clarke
> >> modest sized dish in their garden (hi J^2).)
> > *Modest*?!?! You have *seen* their dish I assume? ;-)
> Would that be the one on this page? http://www.jsquared.co.uk/seti/
Yeah, that be the one. I'd call it modest, compared to some others she's played with.
:)
Beth
Paul Rudin
AB> Paul Rudin <Paul_...@scientia.com> writes:
RY> As I heard it (from an academic at ORL, as-was), there weren't
RY> enough PPS (military GPS band) receivers to go around, but plenty
RY> civilian (COTS) receivers...
>> Well, whatever the reasons, the commercial stuff was at least as
>> accurate as the military stuff during the war. Which rather
>> deafeats the purpose of having the deliberate error, does it not?
AB> The purpose of the deliberate error was to let the US have better
AB> positioning available than the enemy. They could do that either
AB> by using a limited number receivers that remove the error and
AB> leaving the error in place, or by picking an enemy who didn't
AB> even have many civilian receivers and turning the error off.
Hmm... who shall we attack today... better have a look at the list of
countries who don't have many gps gizmos and pick one of those. ;-)
AB> I assume that civilian GPS receivers are covered by sanctions and
AB> Iraq is still relatively short of them.
Sanctions or not it's surely rather naive to assume that Iraq military
can't get hold of a few thousand gps receivers if they want to.
--
Life is selling REVOLUTIONARY HAIR PRODUCTS!
Tim Ward
news:memo.20030319...@paul.the-hug.org...
> In article <b582jc$26p048$1...@ID-154437.news.dfncis.de>, t...@brettward.co.uk
> (Tim Ward) growled:
>
> > which supposedly can be taken over by anyone with a
> > modest sized dish in their garden (hi J^2).)
>
> *Modest*?!?! You have *seen* their dish I assume? ;-)
Yes of course. I post links to it on slashdot at every available plausible
opportunity.
Steve Hunt
> Just check it with a GPS receiver. Unless the US have b*****d up the
> signals this week, of course.
There haven't been any NANUs. Though whether they'd advertise
any degradation of service is open to question.
-- Steve
Brian Morrison
says...
My GPS was just fine this morning, with an indicated EPE of about 14ft
most of the way to work. If SA were on this would be much greater, and
the indicated position would wander wildly when stationary, which it
doesn't.
SA is clearly a thing of the past.
--
Brian
splodge
"Brian Morrison" <sc...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.18e3f24cb...@reading.news.pipex.net...
So is understanding what I am reading!
NANU???
EPE???
SA???
--
姣 Splodge 姣
Brian Morrison
spl...@ntlworld.com says...
> So is understanding what I am reading!
>
> NANU???
Notice Advisory to Navstar Users
> EPE???
Estimated Position Error
> SA???
Selective Availability (deliberate errors on SV (space vehicle)
signals)
Clear now?
I forgot this was cam.misc, I was thinking sci.geo.satellite-nav when I
posted before.
--
Brian
Nick Wagg
>
> So is understanding what I am reading!
>
> EPE???
> SA???
--
Nick Wagg
splodge
Thank you...
--
姣 Splodge 姣
Mark Ayliffe
splodge <spl...@ntlworld.com> illuminated us with:
>
> So is understanding what I am reading!
>
> NANU???
Taht's the easy one, it's actually "nanu nanu" and you have to be quite old,
or at least into old comedy shows to recognise the reference.
> EPE???
Something fencers use.
> SA???
The country at the bottom of Africa.
--
Mark
Please remove nospam | If it doesn't work, force it.
to reply by email. | If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
www.ayliffe.org |
Mark Ayliffe
Mark Ayliffe <mark.ayl...@pem.nospam.cam.nospam.ac.uk> illuminated us
with:
> On or about Tue, 18 Mar 2003 at 22:06 GMT,
> Ross Younger <new...@crazyscot.com> illuminated us with:
>> * Paul Rudin <paul....@ntlworld.com>:
>>>ISTR that in the last gulf war they turned off the error on the signal
>>>because many of the US troops on the ground had their own commercial
>>>gps kit, that sort of worked, unlike the "miltary quality" kit they'd
>>>been issued with...
>>
>> As I heard it (from an academic at ORL, as-was), there weren't enough
>> PPS (military GPS band) receivers to go around, but plenty civilian
>> (COTS) receivers...
>
> That was the version I was alluding to. But it's prolly UM anyway. I'll ask
> my friendly Tank Commander next time I see him.
More or less true, except it was the British army which was using the
commercial GPS's in 1991. They hadn't got around to fitting the military
receivers the the Challengers so they used Globemaster yacht GPS's instead.
I suspect the main problem was that they couldn't use them when they were
"buttoned up" as they didn't have external ariels^wairiels^wantennae.
--
Mark
Please remove nospam | It is better to sleep on what you intend doing
to reply by email. | than to stay awake over what you've done.
www.ayliffe.org |
Brian Morrison
@pem.nospam.cam.nospam.ac.uk said...
> On or about Wed, 19 Mar 2003 at 07:14 GMT,
> Mark Ayliffe <mark.ayl...@pem.nospam.cam.nospam.ac.uk> illuminated us
> with:
> > On or about Tue, 18 Mar 2003 at 22:06 GMT,
> > Ross Younger <new...@crazyscot.com> illuminated us with:
> >> * Paul Rudin <paul....@ntlworld.com>:
> >>>ISTR that in the last gulf war they turned off the error on the signal
> >>>because many of the US troops on the ground had their own commercial
> >>>gps kit, that sort of worked, unlike the "miltary quality" kit they'd
> >>>been issued with...
> >>
> >> As I heard it (from an academic at ORL, as-was), there weren't enough
> >> PPS (military GPS band) receivers to go around, but plenty civilian
> >> (COTS) receivers...
> >
> > That was the version I was alluding to. But it's prolly UM anyway. I'll ask
> > my friendly Tank Commander next time I see him.
>
> More or less true, except it was the British army which was using the
> commercial GPS's in 1991. They hadn't got around to fitting the military
> receivers the the Challengers so they used Globemaster yacht GPS's instead.
> I suspect the main problem was that they couldn't use them when they were
> "buttoned up" as they didn't have external ariels^wairiels^wantennae.
>
>
And just to correct the assertion earlier that the error was turned off
in 1991, they didn't have a sufficient constellation of SA capable
GPSIIR space vehicles until about 1991, SA was turned on in July 1991 I
think, so before that there was no SA error applied anyway. Hence all
the receivers in the Gulf at that time would have received accurate
signals except that they didn't have all 24 SVs up there so there were
periods with poor geometry that made the position errors larger.
--
Brian