Reorte

What on earth happens to a tyre to make it do that?

10 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

I think that all you can do is set them up as seperate journeys.

I suspect the reason it won't do as you wish, is because there are just too many variables. Remember the apps are continuously calculating a single journey between 2 points, including factoring in traffic conditions.

A couple of intermediate points should be doable, but even without the changing conditions it starts getting interesting computationally when the numbers increase (see the Travelling Salesman Problem).

Google tends to roll out changes, so they're not inflicted on everyone at once, so you may get lucky with avoiding them for a while. If you block cookies it can be a bit random wether or not they're forced on you each time you look.

15 minutes ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

We could of course have smaller &/or lighter trucks but that would mean more roadspace required, more drivers & of course the cost of moving our goods around would increase & we are certainly not going to accept that.

I bought some screws from a shop about fifteen minutes' walk away. The address on the box was about thirty minutes' walk away. Couldn't help wondering just what the route they were transported from the latter to the former was...

Well, that's completely spoiled The Wrong Trousers for me, now I know it wasn't an original idea!

42 minutes ago, johnofwessex said:

I live in Frome and we have had two fatal accidents on the bypass, both caused by men over 40, and high on drugs, so don't blame the youngsters for everyone.

 

What we do have though is increasingly powerful vehicles that are not a good fit for the current road system that was built for horses and carts coupled with cheap technology that allows them to be reigned in to some extent.

 

What I do think though is that we need to ask some serious questions about the sort of vehicles we allow on our roads in terms of speed, acceleration & size. 

I'm guessing that the bypass wasn't built for horses and carts!

33 minutes ago, SM42 said:

Dual carriageway ( has a central reservation)  is 70mph unless otherwise signed. 

 

On my route to work tonight I will turn off a 40mph dual carriageway onto a signed  30mph side road. 

 

I will then join another unsigned dual carriageway without passing another speed limit sign. The road has streetlights. 

The opposite carriageway is signed 40mph. 

 

What is the limit on my side? 

 

In theory 30mph, but as you approach a roundabout a 30mph terminal sign appears,indicating that maybe it was more than 30mph before this sign.

There should be small NSL repeaters every now and then if it's streetlit but 70 (or anything other than 30 for that matter), e.g. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.7004713,-2.3325213,3a,42.2y,147.59h,83.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_4jDKWAxCpBi-FRzIH4ppQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?ucbcb=1&entry=ttu

31 minutes ago, Deeps said:

One possible problem with the image, assuming that signs mandated the national speed limit for the main road, is that if there is no crash barrier in the central reservation the limit is 60, not 70. I may well be wrong, and it is some 50 years since my test, but I know that drivers have been caught out when there is a break in the barriers on A roads for junctions etc.

I'm pretty sure that that's not the case - if it's a dual carriageway then it's 70 mph unless signed otherwise (30 if it's streetlit, although that's very rare which is why 70 mph lit dual carriageways carry NSL repeaters). Dual carraigeway isn't defined by the presence or not or a barrier. There can't be all that many around nowadays without a barrier, although that picture demonstrates that there are still some.

There's no mention of barriers here: https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits

1 minute ago, woodenhead said:

And childhood doesn't end arbitarily at 17 years old, pushing the boundaries in a fast moving vehicle is not a good way to learn where that brick wall, lamp post or other solid obstacle is.

Exactly. So hopefully the instincts to avoid that have already been developed to a reasonable extent by then. At 17 we won't necessarily be able to tell just how far we can push when driving, but the idea of messing it up, the fear of the idea of ending up wrapped around a tree should still be there.

What were you like on your first driving lessons? I was slow and nervous. I'd be worried about anyone who wasn't.

1 minute ago, kevinlms said:

Yes, so concentrate on the ones who break the laws, not those that MIGHT.

I'm never happy with approaches that take the "treat everyone like a potential criminal" direction. It's sometimes unavoidable in order to get anything done in practice, but I don't think it makes for a healthy society.

6 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

So on that analogy, let young children out in traffic to get a few glancing blows from passing cars so they understand cars are dangerous and to be treated carefully?

Surely the point is clear, that self-preservation instincts need to be developed by experience, and it should be obvious that that's a general point - they don't only apply in exactly the same situations as ones you've had negative experiences of. There's no need to be facetious.

Quote

We all learn what's good and bad when we are young, we get that from our parents, our peers and educators.  But the teenage brain is a fast developing vessel that unfortunately thinks doing certain risky activities is a great idea regardless of previous experiences and even more so when it is to impress friends and potential companions.

We get it from our parents and so on but I think we get the most instinctive behaviours from learned experience of what happens when we don't pay attention - the grazed knee encouraging us to learn to stay on our feet, and it doesn't rely on any backlash against being told what to do (it's at a more basic, animal level than that). Teenagers do indeed have a not unfounded reputation of risky behaviour anyway, so reasonably well-developed instincts before people get to that age are pretty important to help get through that period of our lives.

Childhood is a constant battle of pushing boundaries to see what we can get away with. It's how the brain finds out where the boundaries lie, often at a subconscious level.

The best way to develop instincts about dangerous behaviour is to have a few minor mishaps when young (younger than driving age). Trip up and fall when you're small and it hurts but is unlikely to do any damage, but it still hurts, so you start to develop the instincts to avoid tripping up, and a general sense of self-preservation.

I have very vague memories of being at a preserved railway when I was quite small and I found the locos quite intimidating in one place (publically-accessable shed IIRC), seeing them looming above me from ground level instead of the platform, especially walking in front or behind them. If it had totally put me off trains I wouldn't be here, but I do think it created a bit of healthy nervousness about the idea of being in the wrong place relative to them, and since that happened when I was small and the brain very much developing it's stuck.

2 hours ago, Railpassion said:

It seems those travelling on the Jacobite will be enjoying a heat free experience. Will WCRC provide blankets and complementary hot drinks?

It's quite far north in Scotland, no point in going there if you're not prepared to be cold! Surely a nip of whisky to keep the cold out is what's appropriate!

11 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Optimally, 85% - 90% of a school's budget currently goes on staffing. The school at which I am a governor is in an affluent area, so gets minimal additional funding through pupil premium. We have an experienced staff, which means that we get excellent results, but they are relatively high up the pay scale. It's a smallish primary, so the leadership isn't on vast salaries. We're looking at 100% of school budget going on staffing next year, without making any allowances for future pay increases. We are in the good position of being full for next year, unlike other schools in the area which are facing falling rolls. The staffing cost problem is directly the consequence of government action, in not fully funding teacher pay increases, increasing employer NI contributions and pension contributions without providing matching funding, and imposing the apprenticeship levy, funding a scheme from which schools do not benefit.

 

So there's very little headroom for spending money "wisely" or otherwise.

 

I suggest you volunteer as a School Governor! 

Just going with the numbers I've seen. Scroll down on this one: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/63304224 - a big increase between 2000 and 2010, and a fall from there, although not to anywhere near pre-2000 levels. I think it's reasonable to ask what's going on there.

5 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I'm not sure what the backlogs are like now for new drivers trying to get their test, can you imagine how bad it would be if everyone at licence renewal needed a test to renew and who do you prioritise with a risk of people losing a licence because there is no test available even with an allowance period to get the test done.

 

Sounds like a rather good little money earner for HM Government though.

I agree that it's simply impractical considering how things are set up at present, but from various chats and observation there are quite a lot of drivers who aren't maniacs but do simply seem to have fallen in to some bad habits. It's very much a "would be nice in theory" idea.

That said I do wonder how many serious accidents are caused by those people, and how many are caused by the type of lunatic who shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place (far fewer of the latter but they're a much bigger risk, so where it shakes out I don't know). If it's the latter any change of rules isn't going to make a great deal of difference - people who knowingly break existing rules aren't going to start paying attention to new ones.

8 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Mrs W's car does all that for free and no black box, we get a report of our driving at the end of every journey in the name of driving efficiently which also goes back to Toyota and is accessible from other devices.

 

You can imagine over time those black boxes will extend to other age groups especially as the younger ones age and are used to being constantly monitored.   It's a slow creeping surveillance, without going down the conspiracy theory blackholes, ANPR detectors all around the country, growing use of average speed zones and more and more motorway cameras monitoring/enforcing the 70 mph limit.

 

Clearly good at maintaining the law, aids serious incident evidence gathering and lets the police deal with other matters, the genie is out of the bottle.

Something I find very depressing, and a big part of that is because there's no hope whatsoever of that changing (in the direction I want it to). I'd much, much rather live with the (not massively higher in the grand scheme of things) risks, and that's not because I want to drive like a maniac but fear getting caught either.

7 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

The problem with that idea, is that they go unchallenged for years, from the very day they pass their test, then years later you want bad habits picked up and rectified, before they can continue driving?

Simply not going to happen, the only way is to pick up bad habits BEFORE the licence is given to them. Virtually impossible given that a driving test takes less than an hour.

Ideally you try to deal with as many as possible before the test (preferably by stopping them from starting to form in the first place), but without checks most people will drift over time. Equipment needs calibration from time to time, and it's not a bad analogy for people.

9 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

I do wonder if there is a case for introducing a 2nd driving test, based on what I saw the other day.

At the moment, you get your full license after passing the theory and practical tests (with certain age-related restrictions for age, of younger drivers, which don't relate to me so I haven't followed with interest). You then have to show a P plate from

12 months I believe.

I followed a youngish girl this week, who was showing a P plate. To me she had developed some bad habits. She was driving at around 35mph in the 30 limit, and she turned off to the right into a side road. There was no flasher used until a second after she started turning, no use of brakes either so the brake ights gave no warning. Her speed didn't reduce much, and her right turn  cut off the corner. All relatively small points, but showing bad habits deveoped. Maybe a 2nd practical test before the P plate is removed? Everyone is a novice when they first pass their test, they haven't driven solo before and have to learn more skills pretty quick.

It doesn't sound like a bad idea, and I think a retest maybe once every ten years wouldn't be either. There may well be practical problems - we keep hearing stories (although admittedly not as many as a year or two ago) of test centres struggling to handle the demand for tests under the current rules.

5 minutes ago, Coldgunner said:

Thinking of the weight of vehicles, do many think that changing the licensing would perhaps make a significant change. For example, my mum can drive a 7.5t lorry on her license due to when she took her test. I'm limited to 3.5t on my license (same license, harder test, go figure lol). Should we change the licensing to maybe limit weight of a standard license to something like 1600kg, and anyone wanting a heavier vehicle has to have an enhanced license?

1600 sounds a bit on the low side these days, a quick Google suggests that the heaviest version of the Ford Focus for example is only just under that, so it would go over with a couple of people in it (or one if they're my size).

I don't have a problem with changing what categories you get with a standard licence (in principle, there'll always be devil in the detail of course), but as you point out it can raise the type of odd situation you mention. But I suppose that's the lesser evil than suddenly removing entitlements from people, e.g. it wouldn't have made much sense to expect everyone already with a licence to take a re-test when the written part was introduced (if nothing else it wouldn't have been practical).

17 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

it's not really a question of prioritisation* as of legal obligation.

 

*Not that any of us would prioritise road maintenance over social care, schools, libraries, etc.

It's not so simple though in reality (putting aside the legal aspect), since it shouldn't ever be a case of keep taking from one to avoid taking anything from another. Roads are absolutely necessary for society to function, just as much as anything else, it's just that leaving them to fall apart doesn't have as many immediate problems. Children still need to get to school, ambulances need to be able to get people to hospital (preferably without jolting them over potholes).

But kicking the can down the road means a bigger headache later on (no different from the railways there and the appalling state of many structures, with forests growing out of them), so in the long run you'll spend less if you don't cut now. So taking some money away from those other things can be the lesser evil. You also need to look at what money is being spent on elsewhere. A while back I looked at school spending - the amount spent per pupil is much higher, even after adjusting for inflation, than it was when I was at school. Is that money well spent?

23 minutes ago, admiles said:

 

Ok, remove the HGVs from the roads.....bit of a problem there.  There's no getting away from the fact that EVs are heavier currently (better battery technology one day should change this) than the equivalent ICE powered car. More weight does more damage to the roads. 

True enough,  but when the damage is largely caused by much heavier vehicles the difference between ICE and electric is a drop in the ocean.

13 hours ago, Northmoor said:

When Dame Vera Lynn was withdrawn in Greece, it was oil-fired.  It had to be converted back to coal-firing after repatriation to and during restoration in the UK.

Conversion to oil of something that was once oil-fired in service doesn't really bother me - that's part of it's in-service history after all, so doesn't represent a fundamental change from what it was.

1 hour ago, GrumpyPenguin said:

When complaining about the traffic remember - YOU are the traffic !

Depends really. If you've been travelling the same route for years and it was once reasonably quiet it's not you that's changed anything that's made it bad.

I don't like being stuck in traffic any more than the next person but I usually find the "solutions" (i.e. building more roads) even more unpleasant.

6 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

It is not just the road surfaces that make the UK road system unfit for purpose. Traffic density is a major factor and shows that the road capacity either needs increasing and'or motorists need to be deterred from using them.

The road surfaces feel like another case of dropping proper routine maintenance, something that's plagued all areas of the UK in recent years.

I'd argue that that aside the road network isn't unfit for purpose, it's the amount of traffic that's unfit for anything. No point in increasing road capacity unless there's also some plan (and not of the control freak variety) that results in a stop of the growth of traffic, otherwise you're just caught in an endless vicious circle that leads to an ever worse country to live in, with ever more and larger *?@£ being built over it in an endless game of catch-up.

11 hours ago, Blandford1969 said:

 Investment in fire accross Europe fell last year by 66%. 

Well yes, I suppose the bandwidth from communicating with smoke signals is low.