Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you
Comments
-
I was a passenger your honour...0
-
monkimark said:
I don't really have a concept of how bulky or expensive they are, how easy it would be to circumvent. Would it fit on a motorbike?
The logistics of getting 40 million of them fitted wouldn't be straightforward either.briantrumpet said:monkimark said:Generally someone will claim that they need to be able to 'accelerate out of trouble' in an emergency.
I can kind of see the point, I have certainly had situations on the motorbike where I've sped up to avoid someone changing lanes into me on the motorway for example but I probably could have used the brake to achieve the same.
In practical terms, i guess it would be reatively easy to achieve on new cars but very difficult on existing cars and someone would need to pay for it.
Black box in every car should be feasible.
A bit bulky if you need a person to hold it like this in your boot.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2928842/By-using-black-box-device-young-drivers-paying-car-insurance.html0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/may/18/primary-school-sats-paper-that-upset-pupils-used-text-from-new-york-times“One of my year 5 teachers said they didn’t even know what a sheep rustler is,” she said.
What?
0 -
My daughters car ‘black box’ is just a phone app.pangolin said:The data is all there just from people having their phones in the car, no need for extra devices.
Google must have incriminating evidence on most of the country at this point.
She gets scored on here driving too which leads to some interesting conversations. She’s a good driver but one friend in particular is a very fast driver who I’m sure my daughter uses as a frame of reference for normal driving.0 -
morstar said:
My daughters car ‘black box’ is just a phone app.pangolin said:The data is all there just from people having their phones in the car, no need for extra devices.
Google must have incriminating evidence on most of the country at this point.
She gets scored on here driving too which leads to some interesting conversations. She’s a good driver but one friend in particular is a very fast driver who I’m sure my daughter uses as a frame of reference for normal driving.
I guess that mobile technology has come on so much that that's possible, though as it's not bolted onto the car and unlike a black box recorder (I assume) can be left at home when you go out for a drive (if you're going to break the speed limit).0 -
Not sure teachers are covering themselves in glory there.briantrumpet said:“One of my year 5 teachers said they didn’t even know what a sheep rustler is,” she said.
What?0 -
TheBigBean said:
Not sure teachers are covering themselves in glory there.briantrumpet said:“One of my year 5 teachers said they didn’t even know what a sheep rustler is,” she said.
What?
That one aside, reading more of the texts and questions in the Telegraph, I think they may have some grounds... the texts are somewhat 'jumbly' (just not well written), and some of the questions poorly worded ("How can you tell that Harriet thinks insects are pests? Write two ways. ") And I'm not sure why they've taken US texts and scenarios.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/18/sats-reading-paper-take-test-year-6-children-tears/
PS - just a reminder that turning off Javascript sometimes produces unexpected bonuses.0 -
A guy I worked with had a black box fitted so they could afford the insurance for his daughter to drive. The conditions were restrictive, driving at unusual times to pick someone up from the airport past midnight had a cost impact as an example.pangolin said:The data is all there just from people having their phones in the car, no need for extra devices.
Google must have incriminating evidence on most of the country at this point.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
My daughter had to find one that let her drive at odd hours as she starts work at 5am. They are available but a lot of them do limit when you can drive as you say.pblakeney said:
A guy I worked with had a black box fitted so they could afford the insurance for his daughter to drive. The conditions were restrictive, driving at unusual times to pick someone up from the airport past midnight had a cost impact as an example.pangolin said:The data is all there just from people having their phones in the car, no need for extra devices.
Google must have incriminating evidence on most of the country at this point.
Seems a bit odd really. The risk at late nights is that statistically there are more drivers being nobs. But if the black box measures if you’re driving like a nob anyway, it’s irrelevant as probability has been replaced by a quantifiable measure.0 -
-
The official speed limit or the unofficial limit?
Seriously, ask a traffic cop. I was told 80.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Ah the old police deciding themselves what the law is and which to enforce?pblakeney said:The official speed limit or the unofficial limit?
Seriously, ask a traffic cop. I was told 80.
Of course.
If the rule is you cannot exceed whatever speed, I can't see why you need a car that goes faster.
If you must have a go-faster car for off-road stuff like tracks etc, it can be software instead of hardware.0 -
The speeding thing is all very inconsistent. It’s like the whole camera issue.
Either slap them literally everywhere, or don’t have them at all.
Knowing there are some about somewhere just creates erratic driving. Slam anchors on, speed up.
I ended up going through Birmingham last year when a motorway was blocked. Speed limit was constantly flip flopping between 30 and 40. I was totally expecting a ticket despite all my best efforts. Luckily didn’t get one but it definitely felt like the whole situation was designed to catch people out.0 -
It would be pretty simple to link modern cars to GPS so that they wouldn't be able to exceed any speed limit. I was at a road safety seminar about 6 or 7 years ago where they said the technology is already there. The problem is finding a Government that is willing to upset motorists. Traffic laws, particularly speeding, must be one of the few areas where the majority are law breakers and doing something to prevent that law being broken / punishing those that do is widely seen as a bad thing.rick_chasey said:I just don't really know why we allow cars to go over the max speed limit.
0 -
The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I'd say the laws changed driving habits regarding wearing seatbelts and not drink driving.pinno said:
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.0 -
I would have thought that the issues are firstly the speed limit data that is being enforced, including temporary and variable speed limits, and secondly the unintended consequences of making older cars far more valuable. Or alternatively imposing a large retrofit bill on car owners. Also, from a regulatory perspective, GPS isn't sufficient to assess speed. Its out of date, but the law usually is.
The EU are trying to bring this in in some form, however, albeit with a way to override it.
However, pragmatically, the UK has some of the world's safest roads, so if one were doing a cost benefit analysis of public health measures in the UK, I think it highly likely that money could be better spent elsewhere.0 -
There are also cheaper tech solutions to preventing speeding. Average speed cameras are remarkably effective, ime.0
-
First.Aspect said:
There are also cheaper tech solutions to preventing speeding. Average speed cameras are remarkably effective, ime.
Indeed. You can always see the people who drive on the GPS speed and those who go by the speedometer: my Google Maps means I can go to about 54mph on the speedometer in a 50 zone, and about 76mph on the speedometer in the 70 zone. Then add in the slight leeway the traffic cops give, and you're up to 80mph on the speedo.0 -
You wouldn't need every car to have the kit, if you made it a requirement for all cars built after 'x' date then within a few years there'd be enough of those around that they would effectively be acting as traffic calming to other vehicles. There'd be no point buying an older vehicle to get around it when most of the vehicles on the road are blocking the road for them.First.Aspect said:I would have thought that the issues are firstly the speed limit data that is being enforced, including temporary and variable speed limits, and secondly the unintended consequences of making older cars far more valuable. Or alternatively imposing a large retrofit bill on car owners. Also, from a regulatory perspective, GPS isn't sufficient to assess speed. Its out of date, but the law usually is.
The EU are trying to bring this in in some form, however, albeit with a way to override it.
However, pragmatically, the UK has some of the world's safest roads, so if one were doing a cost benefit analysis of public health measures in the UK, I think it highly likely that money could be better spent elsewhere.0 -
I'd worry where taxes would be increased by this looney government to offset the loss of all those speeding fines, if modern tech was used to zone limit vehcile speed.================
2020 Voodoo Marasa
2017 Cube Attain GTC Pro Disc 2016
2016 Voodoo Wazoo0 -
Feel like it would make new cars extremely undesirable.Pross said:
You wouldn't need every car to have the kit, if you made it a requirement for all cars built after 'x' date then within a few years there'd be enough of those around that they would effectively be acting as traffic calming to other vehicles. There'd be no point buying an older vehicle to get around it when most of the vehicles on the road are blocking the road for them.First.Aspect said:I would have thought that the issues are firstly the speed limit data that is being enforced, including temporary and variable speed limits, and secondly the unintended consequences of making older cars far more valuable. Or alternatively imposing a large retrofit bill on car owners. Also, from a regulatory perspective, GPS isn't sufficient to assess speed. Its out of date, but the law usually is.
The EU are trying to bring this in in some form, however, albeit with a way to override it.
However, pragmatically, the UK has some of the world's safest roads, so if one were doing a cost benefit analysis of public health measures in the UK, I think it highly likely that money could be better spent elsewhere.0 -
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?0 -
So add in that in year ‘x’ + 5 cars without a system built in have to have one retrofittedJezyboy said:
Feel like it would make new cars extremely undesirable.Pross said:
You wouldn't need every car to have the kit, if you made it a requirement for all cars built after 'x' date then within a few years there'd be enough of those around that they would effectively be acting as traffic calming to other vehicles. There'd be no point buying an older vehicle to get around it when most of the vehicles on the road are blocking the road for them.First.Aspect said:I would have thought that the issues are firstly the speed limit data that is being enforced, including temporary and variable speed limits, and secondly the unintended consequences of making older cars far more valuable. Or alternatively imposing a large retrofit bill on car owners. Also, from a regulatory perspective, GPS isn't sufficient to assess speed. Its out of date, but the law usually is.
The EU are trying to bring this in in some form, however, albeit with a way to override it.
However, pragmatically, the UK has some of the world's safest roads, so if one were doing a cost benefit analysis of public health measures in the UK, I think it highly likely that money could be better spent elsewhere.0 -
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.1 -
I thought that was where everyone had seen the light and given up their cars.First.Aspect said:
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.0 -
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.0 -
It's also quite a blunt tool.
Doing a ton down the motorway in good weather when it's not busy may well be safer than driving at 60 down the same road in torrential rain in heavy traffic.
Likewise trying to drive at the national speed limit down many country roads.
Also, whilst the tech all exists to do it any number of ways, lots would have their drawbacks. For example it would be great fun if when driving along a motorway your gps signal was lost and your car thought it was on the 30mph residential road next to it.0 -
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.1 -
Not sure what it's like for you but I rarely see any police to enforce any rules.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
This could be a bad sign as they should be there, or a good thing that they are not required.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
