Slashdot Mirror

Can you back that capacity claim up with some hard facts?

I've done some calculations based on the main London-Bristol line in the UK that runs close to where I live. Based on a 500 seat train passing every 5 minutes during the peak, that's 6000 passengers per hour*. Compare this with cars traveling at 100km/h, each 10m apart carrying 1 passenger, that's 10000 passengers per hour. (*My guess for the train seems to be more or less in line with the offical UK stats at http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/rail-passenger-numbers-and-crowding-on-weekdays-2011/rail-passengers-crowding-2011.pdf that show's approx 5000 passengers per hour at Bristol, of which my main line is only one of 4 routes into the city)

Minimum safe distance for cars traveling at 100 km/h with the 2 second rule is 55 meters, not 10. Driving at lower distances often leads to "breaking waves" and thus to congestion.

Can you back that capacity claim up with some hard facts?

I've done some calculations based on the main London-Bristol line in the UK that runs close to where I live. Based on a 500 seat train passing every 5 minutes during the peak, that's 6000 passengers per hour*. Compare this with cars traveling at 100km/h, each 10m apart carrying 1 passenger, that's 10000 passengers per hour. (*My guess for the train seems to be more or less in line with the offical UK stats at http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/rail-passenger-numbers-and-crowding-on-weekdays-2011/rail-passengers-crowding-2011.pdf that show's approx 5000 passengers per hour at Bristol, of which my main line is only one of 4 routes into the city)

As for the power, suffice to say that if the politicians can sort out the renewables then that won't be an issue.

We had plans to do so ; for a while the documents were publicly available from the Department of Transport website (they may still be there, linked below).

They were dressed up as plans to implement "road pricing" - a scheme whereby you are charged a differential toll rate for driving on certain "congested" roads at peak times, which allegedly would create incentive for you to drive at different times, or via different routes, thus reducing congestion.

The implementation was to be a small black box with a GPS locator and a GPRS modem, which would log and upload your movements to the DoT. The estimated cost was £100 a unit ; even if you accept this optimistic number, a back-of-the-napkin calculation tells you that it would be MUCH cheaper to mandate an active RFID tag in the number plate (on the order of £10, rather than 100), and fit induction loops on these roads that are deemed "congested" for tolling purposes - a sort of universal SpeedPass.

So wielding Occam's Razor, the plan was to install and operate a tracking device in every vehicle in the country (it also mentioned linking up with a European system, so this was presumably a pan-European initiative), and since their stated aim could be achieved via much cheaper means, you have to assume that the real aim was indeed to provide the capacity to track everyone.

Let's have a look at the numbers.

Having heard that road wear is proportional to the fifth power of axle weight, I thought I would see what wear proportion that works out as, given that there are presumably more cars than trucks, and the differing mileages of these types of vehicle. As I write this, I have not done the final calculation. I will use a couple of papers and some government statistics.

Looking at a couple of papers (The economic and environmental benefits of increasing maximum truck weight: the British experience, Alan C. McKinnon, 2005. The cost of relying on the wrong power—road wear and the importance of the fourth power rule (TP446), Richard Johnsson, 2004, Impacts of Increased Goods Vehicle Weight Limits - A European Case Study, Proceedings of Fourth International Symposium on Heavy Vehicle Weights and Dimensions, 1995, the exact proportion of axle weight to road wear varies depending on factors including road surface type, anywhere from 3rd or 4th power of axle weight, all the way up to the 9th power. I chose 4 as a lowish-average.

Taking a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) weight of 15 tons and an average of 4 axles (HGV maximum weights: a brief guide gives a maximum for HGVs of 44 tons over 6 axles, and I don't have a good source, but the minimum to count as a HGV is 7.5 tons, presumably with 2 axles), this gives 3.75 tons/axle. For cars I assumed 1.5 tons and two axles; 0.75 tons per axle. The ratio of these figures is 5. 5^4 = 625 times as much road wear per axle.

Traffic statistics are in vehicle-kilometres, so to use these we need to multiply this back up by the number of axles per vehicle. 4 for trucks and 2 for cars gives 625*(4/2) = 1250 times as much road wear per vehicle per kilometre.

Keeping with the euro theme, I got transport statistics from the UK department for transport. 240 billion miles driven in the UK in 2011 by cars/taxis, heavy goods vehicles 16.4 billion. 240/16.4 = 14.63 times as many miles driven by cars, compared to heavy goods vehicles (I have deliberately left out 'vans', or other vehicles that carry smaller loads than the HGVs that my axle weights are for). So now we have 1250 times as much road wear per vehicle for HGVs, divided by 14.63 as the ratio of cars-HGVs, gives 85.4 times as much road wear by HGVs. Take the reciprocal and subtract from 1 to get that as a proportion, 0.988, or 98.9%.

Wow, I really didn't expect to get so close to the GP's guess. My estimate for axle weight for HGVs I think is low if anything; I could easily have gone for 20 tons over 4 axles, which would have given 99.6%. I have also assumed that HGV weight is evenly spread over the axles; it strikes me that the rear axles will carry more weight, and so since the road wear varies with the 4th power of this, the real figure is probably higher.

Let's have a look at the numbers.

Having heard that road wear is proportional to the fifth power of axle weight, I thought I would see what wear proportion that works out as, given that there are presumably more cars than trucks, and the differing mileages of these types of vehicle. As I write this, I have not done the final calculation. I will use a couple of papers and some government statistics.

Looking at a couple of papers (The economic and environmental benefits of increasing maximum truck weight: the British experience, Alan C. McKinnon, 2005. The cost of relying on the wrong power—road wear and the importance of the fourth power rule (TP446), Richard Johnsson, 2004, Impacts of Increased Goods Vehicle Weight Limits - A European Case Study, Proceedings of Fourth International Symposium on Heavy Vehicle Weights and Dimensions, 1995, the exact proportion of axle weight to road wear varies depending on factors including road surface type, anywhere from 3rd or 4th power of axle weight, all the way up to the 9th power. I chose 4 as a lowish-average.

Taking a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) weight of 15 tons and an average of 4 axles (HGV maximum weights: a brief guide gives a maximum for HGVs of 44 tons over 6 axles, and I don't have a good source, but the minimum to count as a HGV is 7.5 tons, presumably with 2 axles), this gives 3.75 tons/axle. For cars I assumed 1.5 tons and two axles; 0.75 tons per axle. The ratio of these figures is 5. 5^4 = 625 times as much road wear per axle.

Traffic statistics are in vehicle-kilometres, so to use these we need to multiply this back up by the number of axles per vehicle. 4 for trucks and 2 for cars gives 625*(4/2) = 1250 times as much road wear per vehicle per kilometre.

Keeping with the euro theme, I got transport statistics from the UK department for transport. 240 billion miles driven in the UK in 2011 by cars/taxis, heavy goods vehicles 16.4 billion. 240/16.4 = 14.63 times as many miles driven by cars, compared to heavy goods vehicles (I have deliberately left out 'vans', or other vehicles that carry smaller loads than the HGVs that my axle weights are for). So now we have 1250 times as much road wear per vehicle for HGVs, divided by 14.63 as the ratio of cars-HGVs, gives 85.4 times as much road wear by HGVs. Take the reciprocal and subtract from 1 to get that as a proportion, 0.988, or 98.9%.

Wow, I really didn't expect to get so close to the GP's guess. My estimate for axle weight for HGVs I think is low if anything; I could easily have gone for 20 tons over 4 axles, which would have given 99.6%. I have also assumed that HGV weight is evenly spread over the axles; it strikes me that the rear axles will carry more weight, and so since the road wear varies with the 4th power of this, the real figure is probably higher.

It does suck... but it's now firmly ingrained in the UK driver psyche (we've all developed a hard-wired eyeball --> braking foot link!)

I tried to find out why that specific icon was selected (it certainly won't have been at random - there's a whole bunch of careful research and testing that takes place for all UK signage - I once had a work colleague who'd worked in the Dept. of Transport signage labs... she was totally obsessed with sign layout, lettering, etc.), but I can't find the full story.

It does suck... but it's now firmly ingrained in the UK driver psyche (we've all developed a hard-wired eyeball --> braking foot link!)

I tried to find out why that specific icon was selected (it certainly won't have been at random - there's a whole bunch of careful research and testing that takes place for all UK signage - I once had a work colleague who'd worked in the Dept. of Transport signage labs... she was totally obsessed with sign layout, lettering, etc.), but I can't find the full story.

"I've just checked the timetable and the shortest Leeds to London journey today is 2 hours 12 minutes."

It doesn't take much effort to find that there are in fact trains that come in under 2hrs from Leeds to London. (Hint: there's one every single fucking morning at 7am).

Further to this, regarding your comment about your BBC link in your other response, let's ignore the fact the BBC has managed to get their numbers wrong, and go straight to the source shall we? -

http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/press-releases/dft-press-20101220

The official materials clearly state "around" 80 minutes for Leeds - London, that's 1hr 20mins, or 30mins less than the current line is capable of. Feel free to search HS2 news releases for the 80 minutes figure, it's quoted left right and centre in plenty of places.

So taking these facts into account - my previous comment was clearly correct in pointing out that at best this new line is going to offer about 30mins saving on what is currently possible with existing lines.

Try checking the facts a bit better before flying off the handle and launching personal attacks next time, it'll make you look like much less of a 'tard.

See the UK Department for Transport publications on Road Pricing

A quick search through documents, e.g. "Issue 4, dealing with potential fraud ... " reveals the "European Electronic Toll Service".

General reading through the documents will reveal this is a scheme for taxing road use via the use of a "black box" with a positioning system and a GSM cellular modem. I've seen other DfT documents which I can no longer locate which are clearer on the matter of integration with a European system.

Of course, any such system also provides the capability of snooping where any vehicle in the target area travels.

Some back-of-napkin costings also reveal that a system like this is an order of magnitude more expensive to both install and run than mandatory active RFID tags in license plates and pickup loops at the ends of target roads (the original justification is that this will reduce congestion at peak times on these roads). On the other hand, RFID systems do not have the advantage of tracking your every movement.

I might be mis-remembering it, but I recall that Galileo specifically mentioned for it's improved performance in urban areas as compared to GPS.

Mmm.... http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ tells an even more unbelievable story, but that's because it measures total road usage in "passenger km's" which is a bit unwieldy. But there's plenty of source data there - especially under http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/travel-transport/index.html.

The document here: http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/217792/4212241/transportstatisticgreatbrit.pdf is very enlightening, for example, especially table 8.1. - 45 casualties per 100m km (62m miles). That's one reported casualty per 1.3 million travelled miles (if I did the maths right). Know I want to know why those statistics are a third of your stated figures, from one extreme to the other!

You totally missed the point.

In 2007, 460 people were killed in accidents involving drivers who were intoxicated No murder, no drug related deaths, no falling from buildings, suicides, running with scissors, or any other cause of death. Driving while drunk killed just under 9 times as many people in 2007 than a carefully planned and coordinated terrorist attack on the London public transport network in 2005.

In fact, show me any statistic which justifies the costs incurred by our border agencies when compared to other causes of unlawful death in the UK. You can't pull out "We've not been attacked by any terrorists, so the measures work!" either. By the same justification, I've not gone and hacked apart several passers by in the street because Policing works. That's not the case; I've just not tried to attack anyone.

The UK government has done some great things which can allow third party apps, such as create the TransXChange schema for exchanging information about public transport (which is used other places too).

On my iPhone I have TripView which is a third party app that (I assume) uses such data and provides a far better interface than any web page (or paper based time table) could.

Traffic cameras have actually increased accident rates.

"That's not relevant."

Why isn't it?

It's not relevant, in the sense that I don't really care about someone causing minor vehicle damage rear-ending a car that stops a bit too quickly at the lights. I care about the people suffering serious injury when someone runs the lights.

But according to reports from the UK (who have had them longer than we), and those U.S. cities which have had them for a couple of years, pretty consistently indicate that they have the opposite effect

The only reports like that I've seen have been from very biased motoring organisations.
The government statistics show the number of "KSI" (people killed or seriously injured) is reduced.

they were put there to generate revenue for the police department through the issuance of traffic tickets

Which doesn't happen in the UK (at least, not at a local level). The revenue goes to central government. Local authorities (local government) get grants for road safety, which they might use on cameras, or they might use on education, training, or redesigning roads.

In the USA there seem to be places that have installed cameras and decreased the yellow-light time. Here, the yellow light time is standard (for a given speed of road).

That is a lot of cost. And even if you figure the initial cost is gone after the first year, you still have the cost of paying 1,000 people to watch cameras in order to solve 10 crimes. That is still a lot of cost. 1000 x annual wages or salary, to solve 10 crimes.

You've just made up a load of numbers.

People monitoring cameras don't solve crimes, although they might witness them. Police looking through what was recorded may get evidence which they can use to solve crimes and convict criminals.

Monitored cameras are either a deterrent -- they move the problem elsewhere, although obviously not as well as a policeman standing in the street would -- or they are used for directing the police.

Or, much simpler, just write your debit card on the form. This is already very common, but not especially secure.

Or, more likely, fill in the form online and pay by card.

DVLA online forms

Some places want a more flexible system. For instance, a study taking place in England right now is looking at technologies that would allow fees to be charged based not only on how many kilometres one drives, but also in what district, on what road, at what time of day, and what type of vehicle.

For example: a motorcycle driving in a non-metropolitan district in off-peak hours will be charged less per kilometre than if they travelled in a metropolitan district. A car travelling in the same metropolitan district would be charged still more, and when they began travelling on a motorway in the same district, they would be charged at a higher rate for the portion of the trip on the motorway. If it were rush hour, they would be charged higher still.

The government has stated recently that they have no plans to implement this in actual practice once the study is done, mostly due to the negative "feedback" from many parties. However, given that the government is always hungry for more money, it is hard to convince one's self that this will be a permanent death. :)

Not really
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme3/monitoringtheeffectiveness.pdf

Look to section 5 (Page 34)

In the UK, the segway is only legal on private land. You are not allowed to use a motorized vehicle on the pavement, but the segway hasn't met the requirements to drive on the road, namely the safety standards (Source) In other words, it is totally useless.

If you want to get around a major city a folding bike is far better. You can take it on any means of transport and then ride when you get close to your destination. I guarentee that a folding bike and the tube will allow you to get round London far faster than a segway.

From page 43 (table 4b) of government Road casualties Great Britain 2007" report:

• 4 deaths "Driving too slow for conditions or slow vehicle (eg tractor)".
• 610 deaths : "Aggressive driving" plus "Careless, reckless or in a hurry".

Read into that what you will, but two orders of magnitude requires some good explanations.

Posted speed is either a revenue generation scheme, or an indicator of hazardous conditions (urban area, sharp bends, downhill slope etc). Either way, that's all part of "the conditions"

State maximum is revenue generation. Pure and simple. On a UK motorway in my car, I can hit 110mph very easily. I don't do it, because I can't control the car at that speed. I don't have enough time to react. It's nothing to do with the speed limit imposed by the gov.

Large vehicles should drive slower as they have longer stopping distances. They need to look further ahead than smaller vehicle drivers to pre-empt hazards, and that distance is finite. At 140kph, stopping distance for a car (1.5t) is 158m a 6-axle articulated lorry can be up to 40 times that mass. You think that can stop in 158 metres too? Driving too fast for conditions.

Kind of road is road condition. Narrow streets, lined with houses, near a school. You drive slowly so you don't kill a dumb child who runs into the street, because children are dumb enough to do that. It's not rocket surgery. Everything you've stated is covered by "too fast for the conditions."

The amount of damage done to a road has no direct relation to gross vehicle weight, but is instead proportional to the 4th power of axle weight. http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/1997/lw/lorryweightsaconsultationdoc1696

Well, here's a document about it. All new railways will be built to larger structure gauges.

The numbers actually suggest there are quite significant savings of lives and serious injury.

From DFT websites 2004 survey...
Overall 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured. At camera sites, there was also a reduction of over 100 fatalities per annum (32% fewer). There were 1,745 fewer people killed or seriously injured and 4,230 fewer personal injury collisions per annum in 2004. There was an association between reductions in speed and reductions in PICs.

Also, the cameras have to be placed where there have been at least 4 fatalities in a stretch of road due to accidents caused by speeding in a rolling period of three years, as well as a total number speed-induced (ie including non-fatal ) accidents. So for all the speed cameras you see put in place in the past 10 years there have been at least three times as many deaths at that site that have occured.

...but honestly, if the 80 MPH crash was going to kill me, the 55 MPH crash probably would too...

No difference between 55 and 80? Don't you do any investigations into accidents in the US?

An ongoing road safety campaign in the UK hi lights the difference in the chances of survival if you hit a child. At 40mph there's an 80% chance of fatality. At 30mph (the speed limit in most urban areas) there's an 80% chance of survival.

I also agree with many people that the difference in speed is an important factor, but ONLY when talking about hitting a moving object (and one moving in the same direction as you!). If you hit a pedestrian, car pulling out or even a car coming in to opposite direction, quite frankly it doesn't take a genius to work out that driving slower will help everyone's chances of survival.

Just to get the message across to others, and correct the "prollyfuelexhaustion" tag, fuel exhaustion was immediately ruled out. A significant quantity of fuel leaked from the crashed plane.

The AAIB initial report is here:
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/latest_news/accident__heathrow_17_january_2008___initial_report.cfm

A software glitch of this type (if that's what it was) has never happened in aviation history. Certainly not in the 10 year history of the 777, with more than 500 of them flying around the world, but not to any other type either.

IAAAE (I Am An Aeronautical Engineer) and to take serious issue with that statement.

According to the Times today, there have been at least 2 reported computer 'glitches' on 777s in the last 3 years. One lowered the airspeed from 270 to 158 knots along with putting the a/c in a 3000'/min climb causing it to stall. The other caused an uncommanded lurch to the right.

There have been numerous other computer (software AND hardware) glitches and failures in many aircraft, some leading to accidents (remember the A320 landing in the woods?) but most detected and corrected by the pilots. A brief search of the AAIB database should show that.

and yes, the aircraft did stall, despite what the article summary says

Of course it stalled. It hit the ground short of the runway - the pilots were doing everything possible to get over the fence. After flaring the aircraft, it is usually lowered to the ground. By holding off till stall (at a few metres above the ground), they probably got an extra 20 or 30m of flight. This was probably enough to get the aircraft onto the tarmac where it stopped, easing the evacuation and recovery. It did not, however, stall during flight when the error began.

1. The autothrottle system commanded an increase in thrust from the engines which did not respond
2. The autothrottle demanded further increases in thrust again with no results
3. The PIC commanded an increase in thrust via movement of the throttles, with no result
4. The aircraft slowed and subsequently lost height

Or possibly both.

This appears to be a product of the thinking that the "market can regulate anything". Everywhere there is congestion, plans seeking to regulate it through differential charging are springing up all over the place. The revenues typically more than cover the cost of implementation in their first year. My opinion is that these schemes just take yet more money from the average Joe who works, because he typically doesn't have any choice as to where and when he drives when commuting to work - traffic pressure on its own is more than sufficient incentive to stop driving in rush hour if it's at all possible.

Of course, you do get the highly desirable (for the intelligence community) side-effect of being able to track all vehicles present in such a schema.

Those worried for the privacy of New Yorkers should spare a thought for those of us in Europe, as our governments are presently colluding on a system that will mandate the fitting of a GPS tracker with a cellular modem to each and every motor vehicle that will log all movement. We already have number plate cameras on most major motorways (ostensibly to check to see if untaxed vehicles are moving), and a congestion charging scheme in London that has been so successful in terms of revenue that other metropolitan areas are queuing up to see who can be next.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/roadpricing/

Manchester will be getting a similar system.

Think it's a coincidence that they have chosen an area that has come under terrorist attack in the past? An area that has a high ratio of muslims in the population? The people round here would probably be more amenable to the same sort of frog-boiling.

Not to mention the even-more-creepy plans to implement "Road Pricing" by embedding a mandatory GPS tracker in every vehicle in Europe. Perhaps this is just another example of government buying two when they could have one, or maybe it's just turning up the gas under the frog for the GPS-based system.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/roadpricing/feasib ilitystudy/studyreport/feasibilitystudyofroadprici n4002?page=5#a1020

Check sections 4.17 (they reveal they want the GPS trackers) and 4.46 (they reveal that it is to be compatible with a Europe-wide tracking system).

The cellular modem should provide an adequate backchannel. They even go so far as to budget 100 GBP for each unit.

But the key here is still the "GPS" part. Rather than the present efforts which involve number-plate recognising cameras, or my own personal design which utilises RFID enabled number plates and existing pickup loops in the roads (installed for traffic light sensors), this proposed system can (and does) track a road vehicle anywhere it goes. This is somewhat overboard for their stated aim of reducing congestion on key roads during rush hour.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/roadpricing/feasib ilitystudy/studyreport/feasibilitystudyofroadprici n4002?page=5#a1020

Note in particular section 4.18 which mentions Galileo in this context. If you browse around for the financials, their projected revenues should pay for Galileo in very short order.

>> Is the ticketting reducing the number of accidents?

if you are referring to the tailgate-detector tickets, nobody knows yet as there hasn't been enough time to find out.

if you are talking about speeding tickets and red light camera tickets. the answer is absolutely. many studies have shown that with higher enforcment of speed limits and red lights people DO change their driving habits, slow down, and obey signals. Further it has been proven that whith the slower speed of traffic not only are there fewer collisions*, but they are also less likely to involve injuries and death. I know the public perception is that it's a tax, but this is a really simple tax to avoid, don't break the law, and you will NEVER be caught doing so.

reference:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety /documents/page/dft_rdsafety_029193.hcsp
http://ip.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/4/302
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05048/index.htm
http://www.esafety-effects-database.org/applicatio n_15.html
and others... (google is your friend)

*I won't use the word accident in this context because the majority of the time it is no accident and any intelligent person can see exactly why it happened

Otherwise known as "Track Every Vehicle in Europe with the thin excuse of taxation".

Since the last time I looked at this, the UK Department for Transport documentation on the matter has become far more structured and comprehensive.

I've yet to find the mention that cropped up in the original, that the system had to be compatible with the proposed European system, but the number of documents has expanded considerably and I'm still looking. As has their estimate of costs, which has risen by an order of magnitude. And we all know how underpriced goverment IT project figures tend to be.

The justification that the DfT has always put forward for the scheme is the reduction of congestion in key areas. This does not stand up to examination.

The DfT themselves prices the "OBU" on board unit with GPS and cellular comms at between £100 and £525. In contrast, a simple active RFID in the front number plate would cost around £10. I suspect the road side infrastructure to read either solution is going to work out roughly equivalent in cost.

It's just not credible that the end goal of the scheme is congestion reduction. Congestion reduction only requires you to track vehicles entering the congested stretches of road. It does not require you to be able to track a vehicle parked in the middle of a field. When you can achieve your aims with an order of magnitude less in terms of capital cost, the only possible conclusions are that this is either pork-barrel spending on a massive scale, or that the government wants to track your vehicle wherever it goes, anywhere in Europe. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide WHY.

All cabin baggage must be processed as hold baggage and carried in the hold of passenger aircraft departing UK airports.

Passengers may take through the airport security search point, in a single (ideally transparent) plastic carrier bag, only the following items. Nothing may be carried in pockets:

[...snip...]
for those travelling with an infant: baby food, milk (the contents of each bottle must be tasted by the accompanying passenger) and sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight (nappies, wipes, creams and nappy disposal bags).

female sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight, if unboxed (eg tampons, pads, towels and wipes).

To be fair the target aircraft (apparently up to 10 flights were being targeted for timed explosions) where all bound for the US.

Now we have a situation where the only hand luggage allowed is medicines, wallets, baby food (must be eaten/tasted by parent in front of security staff), sanitary products (unboxed), etc. Shoes must be removed and X-rayed.

Anything electronic must go in the hold (laptops, cameras, gameboys, etc)

No liquids are allowed on US bound flights, due to tip off that liquid explosives would have been involved.

Full info on restrictions

Makes you wonder where they'll be trying to hide explosives next. Full body cavity search for all passengers? It's only a matter of time...

The documents for the GPS system all claim that it's about reducing road congestion, but I do not find this justification to be credible.

Firstly, there are ways for charging tolls on congested roads that are far cheaper and easier to implement than putting a "Little Brother" in everyones car. A mandatory RFID unit in the number plate and a pickup loop in the road come to mine. And secondly, it's not credible that road pricing is any more effective at reducing congestion on roads that are the only viable option for a particular commute, in the light that the far more obvious negative motivator of the unpleasantness of driving in a traffic jam does not have a similar effect.

The disadvantage of this method is that it can only track you in areas with the infrastructure. Of course, this is not a disadvantage of your only goal (as stated) is to reduce congestion. On the other hand, it's a real downer if your real aim is to track the whereabouts of every vehicle in Britain, whether they be on the motorway or the moors. Since the alternative is so much cheaper to implement (by their own estimates, a GPS onboard unit would cost £100, without the labour to fit it, some £3 billion pounds to fit to the UK fleet of 30 million vehicles), one has to conclude that this is their aim.

Once you note the EU directives quoted in these documents that refer to an EU-wide standard for GPS road-tolling, it's not difficult to see that this is something that has had widespread approval for some time.

And you have to start wondering about the real reasons for Galileo. They can claim they want independance from the US, and the way the US has been acting, this is more credible now. But one of the features of Galileo is that it has been designed to operate far better than GPS in urban areas, which would seem ideal for the purpose of vehicular tracking. I can't help but make the association.

> I don't see that as likely to happen.

Might want to take a quick gander on how the EU is considering handling Galileo funding...

12.The Commission considers that levies on receivers and operating licence fees are further possibilities for revenue. These would need to be introduced throughout the European Community.

27.The Government believes that users will pay for a service only if it meets their requirements and if no cheaper alternative is available. The Government understands that the maritime community sees little need for a new satellite navigation system at present and that a need will continue to exist for conventional aids to navigation such as lighthouses, buoys and beacons. Therefore the possibility that certain uses of Galileo may be made mandatory to generate revenue and to make savings through the withdrawal of conventional aids is of concern. Aviation and other users may have similar concerns. Hence, the Government considers that users' requirements and benefits need greater investigation and cost-benefit analysis.

I wonder how EU-DNS will look like to EU-citizens when all the dust has settled...

Forget about foreign policies and Galileo, it's likely just all about the money. Here's a interesting quote...

The Commission considers that failure by Europe to act would strengthen the present US market dominance and leave Europe entirely dependent on the US for many security-related matters. Additionally, the Commission believes that there is a need to ensure that European users are not at risk from changes in service or excessive future charges or fees (the US and Russia provide a free service at present). Faced with US dominance and near monopoly (particularly if the Russian system fails because of the country's economic/political situation), the Commission considers that it would be difficult for Europe to resist such charges and perhaps impossible to develop alternatives quickly.

Of course it isn't just money, it's about jobs as well...

The Communication states that proceeding with Galileo will help to secure and augment employment in this high and expanding technological area. It estimates that the development of Galileo would support 20,000 jobs, its operation 2,000 permanent jobs, and create considerable new employment opportunities in applications so that, by 2008, there would be in the region of 100,000 jobs in direct, indirect and induced employment.

Yes, they did, in 2003. I wasn't aware of the report you cited- which came out about 3-4 days ago (June 30th, 2005 to be exact).

The 2003 stats happened to fall during (I believe) a skyrocketing increase in the number of speed cameras, speeding tickets, and increased fines/penalties.

Oh- and the UK points system was recently overhauled so that it costs you more per offense, and takes more points before you loose your license. So basically, the UK government gets to collect more money off speeders before yanking their license. Cute, eh? Yeah, traffic safety is -their- #1 priority.

Err, no they didn't

According to the UK Department for Transport there were 392,321 kilometers (that's about 250,000 miles) of road in Great Britain in 2003.

Theres 24 985 000 cars driven 393 billion km, so that equals 9776 miles per car per year.

>It has tonnes of cars, tonnes of bad drivers (not as many as the US though, our driving test is a bit more advanced) and lots of accidents.

That's true. A BBC World News reporter took a test in Montana and reported how laughably easy the test was. He passed with flying colours.

Funny, though, that he later took an Ontario, Canada driving test and failed miserably. I'm not certain which test he was given, as there are two separate driving tests in Ontario that need to be passed to have a full license.

Some interesting stats:

7.3 per 100,000 Ontarians die in accidents (2002).
14.93 per 100,000 Americans die in accidents (2002).
5.78 per 100,000 Britons die in accidents (2002).

Compiled by combining info from this and this. I'd just get the per 100,000 population count from the UK website but it's particularly pathetically designed, requiring over 6 links just to get to a single stat that's pointlessly in PDF.

It's just interesting that the increasing the difficulty level of a test not only follows the laws of diminishing returns, but also, apparently, can cause an increase in accidents as the difficulty level increases past a certain point.

I read a report about a lightning strike that found earth via a glider - IIRC, it travelled from one wingtip to the other via the aileron control linkages. Blew the glider to bits, but both occupants parachuted to safety.

Most worrying part for me (as a pilot or passenger): The test rigs couldn't crank out enough power to replicate the kind of damage seen. And Recommendation No 99-49 It is recommended that the CAA should request serious consideration, during its participation in the current international review of aircraft lightning certification standards, of the fact that energy levels from positive polarity discharges have been shown to greatly exceed those specified in Advisory Circular AC 20-53A, with the associated implications for the certificated lightning protection assurance of existing and future aircraft designs, particularly those which utilise significant amounts of composite material in their primary and control structures. That's worrying!

Read the official AAIB report here. Lots of interesting background info on aircraft certification against lightning strikes.

Weight and Balance is an extremely critical factor for flight safety. Even the largest airliners must have carefully controlled weight-distribution to avoid the CofG going 'out of bounds' during various stages of flight (including different trim and fuel states).

Some examples from the British AAIB archives:

12 Jan 1999: Fokker F27-600 crash nr Guernsey.(load moved)

18 Sep 1996 Boeing 737-4Q8, G-BSNW (Uncommanded roll due to incorrect fuel balance).

18 June 1972 Trident G-ARPI crash after takeoff at Heathrow (Weight and Balance as a contributory factor).

Weight and Balance is an extremely critical factor for flight safety. Even the largest airliners must have carefully controlled weight-distribution to avoid the CofG going 'out of bounds' during various stages of flight (including different trim and fuel states).

Some examples from the British AAIB archives:

12 Jan 1999: Fokker F27-600 crash nr Guernsey.(load moved)

18 Sep 1996 Boeing 737-4Q8, G-BSNW (Uncommanded roll due to incorrect fuel balance).

18 June 1972 Trident G-ARPI crash after takeoff at Heathrow (Weight and Balance as a contributory factor).

Weight and Balance is an extremely critical factor for flight safety. Even the largest airliners must have carefully controlled weight-distribution to avoid the CofG going 'out of bounds' during various stages of flight (including different trim and fuel states).

Some examples from the British AAIB archives:

12 Jan 1999: Fokker F27-600 crash nr Guernsey.(load moved)

18 Sep 1996 Boeing 737-4Q8, G-BSNW (Uncommanded roll due to incorrect fuel balance).

18 June 1972 Trident G-ARPI crash after takeoff at Heathrow (Weight and Balance as a contributory factor).

Even better are the ones with a sensor to see if a pedestrian is waiting. So not only do they pander to any approaching car, but they require the pedestrian to be standing in a particular place otherwise they don't operate at all. Very useful.

If the pedestrian has crossed when there is a gap in the Traffic the demand from the Push Button is cancelled. If demands are being cancelled incorrectly the detector is badly configured.

Solution

Post the location of the signal crossing and I drop a line to Bedford.

Also ask Bedford to configure the crossing as 'Pre-timed Max'

So they wait until there's no traffic around and only then activate the pedestrian sequence.

Also further reading on Push Buttons and computerised traffic control.

Even better are the ones with a sensor to see if a pedestrian is waiting. So not only do they pander to any approaching car, but they require the pedestrian to be standing in a particular place otherwise they don't operate at all. Very useful.

If the pedestrian has crossed when there is a gap in the Traffic the demand from the Push Button is cancelled. If demands are being cancelled incorrectly the detector is badly configured.

Solution

Post the location of the signal crossing and I drop a line to Bedford.

Also ask Bedford to configure the crossing as 'Pre-timed Max'

So they wait until there's no traffic around and only then activate the pedestrian sequence.

Also further reading on Push Buttons and computerised traffic control.

Even better are the ones with a sensor to see if a pedestrian is waiting. So not only do they pander to any approaching car, but they require the pedestrian to be standing in a particular place otherwise they don't operate at all. Very useful.

If the pedestrian has crossed when there is a gap in the Traffic the demand from the Push Button is cancelled. If demands are being cancelled incorrectly the detector is badly configured.

Solution

Post the location of the signal crossing and I drop a line to Bedford.

Also ask Bedford to configure the crossing as 'Pre-timed Max'

So they wait until there's no traffic around and only then activate the pedestrian sequence.

Also further reading on Push Buttons and computerised traffic control.

It can lower the accident rate where the cameras are, but not on all the roads. I find this the most stupid thing in the UK - the speed cameras are painted flourescant yellow, there's a huge sigh saying "Speed Cameras, 40mph" or whatever, and often the road is painted too. Why?!?! I thought the idea was to dissuade speeding motorists from getting a ticket by making them slow down *everywhere* to reduce accidents *everywhere* - not to merely make people think "Oh, there's a speed camera sign, I'll slow down" and 2 minutes later "it's OK to speed up now ". What's the fine for speeding in the US? A cousin in Michigan got $400 IIRC, though I don't know what speed he was doing. *That's* a deterrent. Having been on holiday in the US and driven over 10,000 miles there, I noticed that the speed limit is closely observed, especially on the freeways. When the speed limit is 70, almost everyone goes at 72-73 or so. Round small towns people stick to the 35 or so limit. In the UK on the motorways, you'll have some old woman doing 60, someone who missed a speed camera sign and got ticketed doing 71, and the rest doing around 80. If I was do travel to London on the M1 (motorway) at 80mph (10 over the limit) I'd probably be overtaken what... 20, 30 times? At least. The police aren't doing their job properly, there needs to be a good deterrent, and most importantly they (in cars) should stop people doing 80 in a 70 limit, not just the madmen doing 100. The other thing I don't get about UK roads is those damn humps in them ('traffic calming' designed to irritate the drivers by making a bump in the road). I think it's this bloody (just to prove I'm english;-) government interfering with every detail of our lives *again*. First change I get, I'm emmigrating. Matt http://www.dft.gov.uk/ = Department for Transport, UK

Firstly, you started your previous reply with the one word statement "Bull", and you wonder why I got defensive?

Secondly, population density, land mass, etc are only part of the equation. Yes, a country with a low population density will tend to have a high miles of road per capita figure as will one with a large land area but other factors will play a part.

For example, cities within the UK tend to have far more miles of road within a given area than their counterparts on the continent, in the US and elsewhere. And whilst the highways figure that you quote may count just the UK's motorways, the UK's road network is criss-crossed with A roads and B roads that far outnumber those designated as motorways. If you want to see what I mean have a look at multimap.com/ and zoom in a few levels.

And, by the way, I do find it funny that you manage to start and end your posts with insults then accuse me of "just rambling" and "being annoyed".

As I pointed out elsewhere, the evidence that the UK has more miles of road per capita than anywhere else can be found in a Department of Transport consultation paper. Unfortunately, they've moved things around on their website so the link that I did have to the relevant paper no longer works but feel free to search their site if you feel the need to argue over a "miniscule detail" any further.