Article in /The Guardian/ suggests these are already (optionally)
present in EU vehicles and soon to be *mandatory*?
But, it seems that these don't truly *limit* speed; rather, they
signal when the speed limit has been *exceeded*.
And, can be disabled?
Do vehicles "tattle" on drivers that exceed the limit? Or, is it
intended as a reminder (nag!) to help people drive more safely?
Article in /The Guardian/ suggests these are already (optionally)
present in EU vehicles and soon to be *mandatory*?
But, it seems that these don't truly *limit* speed; rather, they
signal when the speed limit has been *exceeded*.
And, can be disabled?
Do vehicles "tattle" on drivers that exceed the limit? Or, is it
intended as a reminder (nag!) to help people drive more safely?
Article in /The Guardian/ suggests these are already (optionally)
present in EU vehicles and soon to be *mandatory*?
But, it seems that these don't truly *limit* speed; rather, they
signal when the speed limit has been *exceeded*.
And, can be disabled?
Do vehicles "tattle" on drivers that exceed the limit? Or, is it
intended as a reminder (nag!) to help people drive more safely?
On 06/07/2024 00:28, Don Y wrote:
Article in /The Guardian/ suggests these are already (optionally)
present in EU vehicles and soon to be *mandatory*?
They have been present as hard limits on HGVs for some time. Most HGVs
are limited at 56mph in the UK. Some commercial delivery vehicles also
have a true speed limiter and a little notice on the back to say what
their maximum speed is.
But, it seems that these don't truly *limit* speed; rather, they
signal when the speed limit has been *exceeded*.
My car signals when I exceed the posted speed limit based on GPS info
and online data. It doesn't always get it right for example when there
is a motorway with a 70mph limit and an old urban road (30mph) running parallel. It flashes the limit sign for a while if you are over it but
then backs off.
In Japan a lot of cars have a little bell that rings incessantly when
you go faster than 100kph. Introduced I think around the late 1980's.
AFAIK that feature is physically present in UK made Japanese vehicles
but is not enabled in the UK.
And, can be disabled?
Probably (anything can with the right after market reprogramming). I
have the haptic feedback on mine disabled from the config menu.
Do vehicles "tattle" on drivers that exceed the limit? Or, is it
intended as a reminder (nag!) to help people drive more safely?
Potentially the airbag black box could reveal if you have been driving
over the speed limit in the event of an airbag triggering collision -
they store the last however many seconds just prior to impact to show
that their decision to detonate was justified.
If you have been driving *very* quickly then the average speed log might
also give the game away too. Record police speeding catch on the fast
section of road near me was 144mph during Covid lockdown.
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/northyorkshire/10979148.camera-data-reveals-a19-speed-blackspot/
A plod was done for 154mph fairly recently (I think on another road).
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 16:28:26 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
Article in /The Guardian/ suggests these are already (optionally)
present in EU vehicles and soon to be *mandatory*?
My 2018 VW Golf does have a limiter as a second mode of the cruise
control system. If I press the cruise control button twice, it will
engage the limiter mode. For both modes, I must set the speed / limit
myself.
But, it seems that these don't truly *limit* speed; rather, they
signal when the speed limit has been *exceeded*.
Mine does not nag. It simply refuses to accelerate beyond the set
limit. If I need an emergency acceleration, I can override the limiter
by applying full accelerator pedal (kick-down). A gonger will sound,
and I get full power acceleration.
And, can be disabled?
Mine is part of the cruise control system, so it must be manually
enabled if I want to use it.
Do vehicles "tattle" on drivers that exceed the limit? Or, is it
intended as a reminder (nag!) to help people drive more safely?
My car does not have a camera, nor a navigation system, so it does not
know the speed limit. I have to choose the speed myself.
Is it useful? I have used it only once or twice, on a narrow country
road that was a mix of long straights and tight corners. The speed
limit was too fast for the tight corners, so the normal cruise control
mode was too scary. I rarely drive on roads like that, so for me, the
limiter system is of limited value.
On 06/07/2024 00:28, Don Y wrote:
Article in /The Guardian/ suggests these are already (optionally)
present in EU vehicles and soon to be *mandatory*?
But, it seems that these don't truly *limit* speed; rather, they
signal when the speed limit has been *exceeded*.
In my old(ish) 2015 Honda Jazz (Fit in USA), it does both. A camera detects the
speed limit and shows it on the dash display. I can then choose to set the "limiter" - better called "speed detector" to that speed (+/- a few mph if I wish). When the car gets to that speed an alarm sounds and the car will not accelerate beyond that speed on the level or going uphill. It will happily continue increasing its speed well beyond the limit if going downhill, with the
alarm beeping away!
It does *not* apply the brake automatically when entering a lower speed limit area when the "limiter" is set. That could be dangerous to anyone following closely behind.
And, can be disabled?
It's disabled by default when I start the car. It has to be turned on when I want it.
Do vehicles "tattle" on drivers that exceed the limit? Or, is it
intended as a reminder (nag!) to help people drive more safely?
Well, supposedly the latter, but I wonder if it's stored in the cars memory somewhere and can be accessed when the car's serviced.
Note that on more modern cars it is often linked to the Satnav/GPS where speed
limits are known by position rather than signage. Of course, if you don't keep
your Satnav's database up-to-date that's another matter entirely. ;-)
[....]
Most US cars won't allow the cruise control to be set below, e.g., 40MPH.
I think the reasoning is that you should be actively controling the
vehicle in those settings where regulators have decided the speed limit should be low.
[...]
My next car will be a 1972 Chevelle.
On 06/07/2024 16:34, Phil Hobbs wrote:
My next car will be a 1972 Chevelle.
How many gallons to the mile does that do?
I saw a very unusual US car at a local show - one of 92 ever made and
still in pristine condition. Auburn 1935 Boattail 851 speedster (spent
most of its life in some pop stars garage). Now doing the rounds on the
UK circuit - unless there is something even more exotic it wins best in
show. It looks like something that Dan Dare ought to drive!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auburn_Speedster
On 7/5/2024 11:49 PM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 06/07/2024 00:28, Don Y wrote:
Article in /The Guardian/ suggests these are already (optionally)
present in EU vehicles and soon to be *mandatory*?
But, it seems that these don't truly *limit* speed; rather, they
signal when the speed limit has been *exceeded*.
In my old(ish) 2015 Honda Jazz (Fit in USA), it does both. A camera detects the
speed limit and shows it on the dash display. I can then choose to set the >> "limiter" - better called "speed detector" to that speed (+/- a few mph if I >> wish). When the car gets to that speed an alarm sounds and the car will not >> accelerate beyond that speed on the level or going uphill. It will happily >> continue increasing its speed well beyond the limit if going downhill, with the
alarm beeping away!
It does *not* apply the brake automatically when entering a lower speed limit
area when the "limiter" is set. That could be dangerous to anyone following >> closely behind.
And, can be disabled?
It's disabled by default when I start the car. It has to be turned on when I >> want it.
I think the new "regulations" reported in the article (to take effect July 7) have it reenabled each time the vehicle is started. So, you would have to "opt out" each time.
Do vehicles "tattle" on drivers that exceed the limit? Or, is it
intended as a reminder (nag!) to help people drive more safely?
Well, supposedly the latter, but I wonder if it's stored in the cars memory >> somewhere and can be accessed when the car's serviced.
With more modern vehicles ("new regulation"), I would wonder if it isn't signaled OTA, in real time.
ISTR an article about a guy who was faced with a big increase in his
auto insurance premium. And, that other vendors quoted him the same increase! Apparently, one of the credit rating companies had noted
details of his driving habits *tattled* by his vehicle (OnStar, IIRC). Without his knowing consent ("Warning: this car will tattle on you")
Many insurers would like to coerce you to install a device on the OBD
port in your vehicle to collect real-time data regarding your driving
habits. I assume this is queried every renewal period (though it could
also be designed to tattle in real time -- certainly if it notices
an accident!)
Some vehicles report hard braking and hard acceleration events. And,
I suspect they also report the number of times Bitchy Betty complained
about your failure to fasten seat belts.
[It would be entertaining to design a "filter" that could hide upstream of the OBD port and allow the user to configure it to report a particular driving style: little old lady, 9-to-5er, casual user, etc.]
There's also talk of using AI to detect driver impairment.
It's hard NOT to imagine these eventually becoming enforced prohibitions
as politicians and insurers argue for the (alleged) increased safety
they could provide to drivers and property owners. E.g., there was a time when cars wouldn't start without seat belts being fastened (and "smart" enough to detect if you had simply buckled them PERMANENTLY, behind your back)
Note that on more modern cars it is often linked to the Satnav/GPS where speed
limits are known by position rather than signage. Of course, if you don't keep
your Satnav's database up-to-date that's another matter entirely. ;-)
Ah, that explains why the article cited cameras. It seemed overly complex given that the navigation system already has that information within (in order
to select shortest/fastest route)
Is signage standardized in europe? Or, would it have to be able to recognize different sign formats in different locales?
On 06/07/2024 00:28, Don Y wrote:
Article in /The Guardian/ suggests these are already (optionally)
present in EU vehicles and soon to be *mandatory*?
They have been present as hard limits on HGVs for some time. Most HGVs are limited at 56mph in the UK. Some commercial delivery vehicles also have a true
speed limiter and a little notice on the back to say what their maximum speed is.
But, it seems that these don't truly *limit* speed; rather, they
signal when the speed limit has been *exceeded*.
My car signals when I exceed the posted speed limit based on GPS info and online data. It doesn't always get it right for example when there is a motorway with a 70mph limit and an old urban road (30mph) running parallel. It
flashes the limit sign for a while if you are over it but then backs off.
In Japan a lot of cars have a little bell that rings incessantly when you go faster than 100kph. Introduced I think around the late 1980's. AFAIK that feature is physically present in UK made Japanese vehicles but is not enabled in the UK.
And, can be disabled?
Probably (anything can with the right after market reprogramming). I have the haptic feedback on mine disabled from the config menu.
Do vehicles "tattle" on drivers that exceed the limit? Or, is it
intended as a reminder (nag!) to help people drive more safely?
Potentially the airbag black box could reveal if you have been driving over the
speed limit in the event of an airbag triggering collision - they store the last however many seconds just prior to impact to show that their decision to detonate was justified.
If you have been driving *very* quickly then the average speed log might also give the game away too. Record police speeding catch on the fast section of road near me was 144mph during Covid lockdown.
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/northyorkshire/10979148.camera-data-reveals-a19-speed-blackspot/
A plod was done for 154mph fairly recently (I think on another road).
On 7/6/24 18:59, Don Y wrote:
[....]
Most US cars won't allow the cruise control to be set below, e.g., 40MPH.
I think the reasoning is that you should be actively controling the
vehicle in those settings where regulators have decided the speed limit
should be low.
[...]
That's just where cruise control is useful! In cars with automatic
gearboxes, it's not easy to maintain constant speed without keeping
an eye on the speed dial all the time, while you should be watching
the road instead!
With manual gear boxes, it's much easier.
On 06/07/2024 17:51, Don Y wrote:
On 7/5/2024 11:49 PM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 06/07/2024 00:28, Don Y wrote:
Article in /The Guardian/ suggests these are already (optionally)
present in EU vehicles and soon to be *mandatory*?
But, it seems that these don't truly *limit* speed; rather, they
signal when the speed limit has been *exceeded*.
In my old(ish) 2015 Honda Jazz (Fit in USA), it does both. A camera detects the
speed limit and shows it on the dash display. I can then choose to set the >>> "limiter" - better called "speed detector" to that speed (+/- a few mph if I
wish). When the car gets to that speed an alarm sounds and the car will not >>> accelerate beyond that speed on the level or going uphill. It will happily >>> continue increasing its speed well beyond the limit if going downhill, with the
alarm beeping away!
It does *not* apply the brake automatically when entering a lower speed limit
area when the "limiter" is set. That could be dangerous to anyone following >>> closely behind.
And, can be disabled?
It's disabled by default when I start the car. It has to be turned on when I
want it.
I think the new "regulations" reported in the article (to take effect July 7)
have it reenabled each time the vehicle is started. So, you would have to >> "opt out" each time.
I didn't see that in the Guardian article, but it could be done that way.
However, the article confuses EU and UK requirements. I can see the UK refusing
to make it compulsory (although it makes sense to me, and I'm in the UK), and for it to be disabled in cars sold in the UK. But, and it's a big but, I can see that UK cars driving in the EU (which, or course, includes Ireland) would have to turn it on or perhaps face a fine.
Perhaps better info than the Guardian article I read is here<>https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/103530/speed-limiters-now-required-all-new-cars-know-rules-and-how-they-work?
Do vehicles "tattle" on drivers that exceed the limit? Or, is it
intended as a reminder (nag!) to help people drive more safely?
Well, supposedly the latter, but I wonder if it's stored in the cars memory >>> somewhere and can be accessed when the car's serviced.
With more modern vehicles ("new regulation"), I would wonder if it isn't
signaled OTA, in real time.
I don't see that as being real-time data, but downloaded from a cellphone when
it's queried: <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/yourmoney/article-13188015/automakers-insurance-companies-share-data.html>
I'm not sure if the cellphone's app generates the acceleration, braking, and speed data, or whether it's transferred from the car's chip to the cellphone.
ISTR an article about a guy who was faced with a big increase in his
auto insurance premium. And, that other vendors quoted him the same
increase! Apparently, one of the credit rating companies had noted
details of his driving habits *tattled* by his vehicle (OnStar, IIRC).
Without his knowing consent ("Warning:Â this car will tattle on you")
Many insurers would like to coerce you to install a device on the OBD
port in your vehicle to collect real-time data regarding your driving
habits. I assume this is queried every renewal period (though it could
also be designed to tattle in real time -- certainly if it notices
an accident!)
ISTR an article a year or two back about a "dongle" connected between the car's
chip and its connector, whereby what it was recording was read by a third party. Perhaps someone here can confirm or clarify.
Some vehicles report hard braking and hard acceleration events. And,
I suspect they also report the number of times Bitchy Betty complained
about your failure to fasten seat belts.
[It would be entertaining to design a "filter" that could hide upstream of >> the OBD port and allow the user to configure it to report a particular
driving style:Â little old lady, 9-to-5er, casual user, etc.]
See above. Perhaps it was the OBD port!
There's also talk of using AI to detect driver impairment.
It's hard NOT to imagine these eventually becoming enforced prohibitions
as politicians and insurers argue for the (alleged) increased safety
they could provide to drivers and property owners. E.g., there was a time >> when cars wouldn't start without seat belts being fastened (and "smart"
enough to detect if you had simply buckled them PERMANENTLY, behind your back)
Note that on more modern cars it is often linked to the Satnav/GPS where speed
limits are known by position rather than signage. Of course, if you don't keep
your Satnav's database up-to-date that's another matter entirely. ;-)
Ah, that explains why the article cited cameras. It seemed overly complex >> given that the navigation system already has that information within (in order
to select shortest/fastest route)
Although as Martin Brown noted, the camera can be confused by speed signs on other roads.
I think that it's apocryphal, but I have read of the speed limit
sign on the back of trucks (a speed in a circle with the words "This vehicle is
limited to Xmph" underneath) being confused with the real speed limit, and the
car beeping an alarm, even though it can legally do 70mph.
Is signage standardized in europe? Or, would it have to be able to recognize
different sign formats in different locales?
It is standardised throughout the EU, and probably by default when the UK was a
member its signage is the same. That is, other than distances/speeds being in miles, not kilometres (/hour)! Note also that I can change the camera detection
system from mph to kph with my speed limiter.
How many gallons to the mile does that do?
I saw a very unusual US car at a local show - one of 92 ever made and still in
pristine condition. Auburn 1935 Boattail 851 speedster (spent most of its life
in some pop stars garage). Now doing the rounds on the UK circuit - unless there is something even more exotic it wins best in show. It looks like something that Dan Dare ought to drive!
In some ways I miss the old days when you could take a mechanical car apart and
then put it back together again. These days everything is electronic and firmware based. I don't miss the Ford bolt of year award though for the one put
in such a position that without the right custom tool you would inevitably skin
your knuckles getting it undone.
Parking radar on the bumpers make trivial fender benders extortionately expensive now and insurance premiums are rising to take account of that.
The parking light failure sensor on my previous car failed (incorrect warning every time you start the car). Cost to repair required an entire light cluster
assembly swap so no way was I going to do that! The parking light still worked
fine but the sensor thought it didn't.
On 06/07/2024 19:57, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/07/2024 16:34, Phil Hobbs wrote:
My next car will be a 1972 Chevelle.
How many gallons to the mile does that do?
I saw a very unusual US car at a local show - one of 92 ever made and
still in pristine condition. Auburn 1935 Boattail 851 speedster (spent
most of its life in some pop stars garage). Now doing the rounds on the
UK circuit - unless there is something even more exotic it wins best in
show. It looks like something that Dan Dare ought to drive!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auburn_Speedster
That's far too common!
What you really want is a Jonckheere Rolls-Royce Phantom I. See <https://www.coachbuild.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=88556&hilit=jonckheere+phantom#p88556>
Now *that's* a really special car.
In some ways I miss the old days when you could take a mechanical car
apart and then put it back together again. These days everything is electronic and firmware based. I don't miss the Ford bolt of year award though for the one put in such a position that without the right custom
tool you would inevitably skin your knuckles getting it undone.
On 2024-07-06 15:09, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 06/07/2024 19:57, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/07/2024 16:34, Phil Hobbs wrote:
My next car will be a 1972 Chevelle.
How many gallons to the mile does that do?
My current vehicle is a 2012Â Mustang convertible, 6-cylinder, stick
shift, pretty nearly base trim. I bought it in late 2016, brand new
from the dealer, for a song. (It had got caught up in the Takata air
bag recall fiasco--since it was just sitting on the lot, it was a low priority for the limited supply of replacements.)
Since then, I've put 22k miles on it.
Gas mileage isn't a big issue for yours truly--I've used right around
1000 gallons in almost eight years.
The Chevelle, probably with an LS and a smallish turbo, would be a
relatively inexpensive source of entertainment in my declining years. ;)
It also wouldn't have all that surveillance and assorted Big Brother
crap on it.
On 7/6/2024 2:57 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
In some ways I miss the old days when you could take a mechanical car apart >> and then put it back together again. These days everything is electronic and >> firmware based. I don't miss the Ford bolt of year award though for the one >> put in such a position that without the right custom tool you would
inevitably skin your knuckles getting it undone.
Parts availability will be a problem long before firmware gives you any trouble. There are a zillion more models than there were in the good ol' days,
part interchangeability seems lower than ever, and manufacturers desire to support the operation of discontinued models more than 1 second past their discontinuation is nil.
See e.g.
<https://www.hagerty.com/media/market-trends/hagerty-insider/war-of-attrition-insight/>
and
<https://youtu.be/qkOk7uKDMBQ?si=b3_5bHfu0iTVLpdV>
On 7/6/2024 6:30 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2024-07-06 15:09, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 06/07/2024 19:57, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/07/2024 16:34, Phil Hobbs wrote:
My next car will be a 1972 Chevelle.
How many gallons to the mile does that do?
My current vehicle is a 2012Â Mustang convertible, 6-cylinder, stick
shift, pretty nearly base trim. I bought it in late 2016, brand new
from the dealer, for a song. (It had got caught up in the Takata air
bag recall fiasco--since it was just sitting on the lot, it was a low
priority for the limited supply of replacements.)
Since then, I've put 22k miles on it.
Gas mileage isn't a big issue for yours truly--I've used right around
1000 gallons in almost eight years.
The Chevelle, probably with an LS and a smallish turbo, would be a
relatively inexpensive source of entertainment in my declining years. ;)
More like you will pay stupid money for a "restomod" where they've
ripped out and replaced everything but the Chevelle body, hopefully
vaguely competently.
Mid-trim stock '72 Chevelles are relatively inexpensive if one's OK with
most minivans on the road from the past decade putting up better 0-60 times.
It also wouldn't have all that surveillance and assorted Big Brother
crap on it.
You have no way to verify they didn't put the gay agenda microcode in
ECU when modding it, either. If you want a modern LS why not just get a
C5 Corvette vs. some chimera that only the person who buil….
It also wouldn't have all that surveillance and assorted Big Brother
crap on it.
You have no way to verify they didn't put the gay agenda microcode in
ECU when modding it, either. If you want a modern LS why not just get a
C5 Corvette vs. some chimera that only the person who buil….
You really are a very strange person.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On 7/6/2024 12:51 PM, Don Y wrote:
There's also talk of using AI to detect driver impairment.
It's hard NOT to imagine these eventually becoming enforced prohibitions
as politicians and insurers argue for the (alleged) increased safety
they could provide to drivers and property owners. E.g., there was a time >> when cars wouldn't start without seat belts being fastened (and "smart"
enough to detect if you had simply buckled them PERMANENTLY, behind your back)
Cars that run on public roadways are appliances used for transport.
There are places where cars can exist to express the spirit of freedom and fuck-you attitude and go fast as hell and race, and do whatever with like-minded people, known as drag strips and private tracks.
And there are people known as "sociopaths" who will never be happy unless their
freedom to go fast puts some non-consenting person in danger.
There's also talk of using AI to detect driver impairment.
It's hard NOT to imagine these eventually becoming enforced prohibitions
as politicians and insurers argue for the (alleged) increased safety
they could provide to drivers and property owners. E.g., there was a time when cars wouldn't start without seat belts being fastened (and "smart" enough to detect if you had simply buckled them PERMANENTLY, behind your back)
Should technology be used to enforce ALL laws?
The question seems a bit premature, it hardly enforces any, at least on
its own. We still employee legions of human police to "enforce" laws
i.e. spend half the day harassing brown people and the other half paid overtime for standing around at construction details on their phones.
I'll be more worried about a technological take over if the number of
human cops ever substantially declines, fat chance of that.
On 7/6/2024 9:50 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 7/6/2024 12:51 PM, Don Y wrote:
There's also talk of using AI to detect driver impairment.
It's hard NOT to imagine these eventually becoming enforced prohibitions >>> as politicians and insurers argue for the (alleged) increased safety
they could provide to drivers and property owners. E.g., there was a
time
when cars wouldn't start without seat belts being fastened (and "smart"
enough to detect if you had simply buckled them PERMANENTLY, behind
your back)
Cars that run on public roadways are appliances used for transport.
There are places where cars can exist to express the spirit of freedom
and fuck-you attitude and go fast as hell and race, and do whatever
with like-minded people, known as drag strips and private tracks.
And there are people known as "sociopaths" who will never be happy
unless their freedom to go fast puts some non-consenting person in
danger.
Should technology be used to enforce ALL laws?
On 7/7/2024 12:59 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 7/6/2024 9:50 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 7/6/2024 12:51 PM, Don Y wrote:
There's also talk of using AI to detect driver impairment.
It's hard NOT to imagine these eventually becoming enforced prohibitions >>>> as politicians and insurers argue for the (alleged) increased safety
they could provide to drivers and property owners. E.g., there was a time
when cars wouldn't start without seat belts being fastened (and "smart" >>>> enough to detect if you had simply buckled them PERMANENTLY, behind your back)
Cars that run on public roadways are appliances used for transport.
There are places where cars can exist to express the spirit of freedom and >>> fuck-you attitude and go fast as hell and race, and do whatever with
like-minded people, known as drag strips and private tracks.
And there are people known as "sociopaths" who will never be happy unless >>> their freedom to go fast puts some non-consenting person in danger.
Should technology be used to enforce ALL laws?
The question seems a bit premature, it hardly enforces any, at least on its own. We still employee legions of human police to "enforce" laws i.e. spend half the day harassing brown people and the other half paid overtime for standing around at construction details on their phones.
I'll be more worried about a technological take over if the number of human cops ever substantially declines, fat chance of that.
On 7/6/2024 10:21 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 7/6/24 18:59, Don Y wrote:
[....]
Most US cars won't allow the cruise control to be set below, e.g., 40MPH. >>> I think the reasoning is that you should be actively controling the
vehicle in those settings where regulators have decided the speed limit
should be low.
[...]
That's just where cruise control is useful! In cars with automatic
gearboxes, it's not easy to maintain constant speed without keeping
an eye on the speed dial all the time, while you should be watching
the road instead!
With manual gear boxes, it's much easier.
I suspect cruise control is to avoid becoming "velocitized"; drifting
into a less aware state due to the monotony of highway driving.
(anyone who has drive across Kansas would understand)
On 7/6/2024 5:23 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
There has been talk of using cameras and license plate trackers to infer
the speed vehicles have traveled "across town" (i.e., at XX:XX:XX you
were seen at intersection X and are now at intersection Y at YY:YY:YY;
you could only have made that trip in that time interval if you exceeded
the average speed of...")
Does changing mph/kph affect the *displayed* values -- or the *detected* values? E.g., if a sign indicates 30MPH and you have the setting at KPH, will it interpret that "30" as 30KPH? Or, will it *convert* the 30 MPH to ~48KPH? I.e., does the signage indicate units and is that detected? Or,
is the function of the switch to inform the system of the EXPECTED units encountered?
On 06/07/2024 22:38, Don Y wrote:
On 7/6/2024 10:21 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 7/6/24 18:59, Don Y wrote:
[....]
Most US cars won't allow the cruise control to be set below, e.g., 40MPH. >>>> I think the reasoning is that you should be actively controling the
vehicle in those settings where regulators have decided the speed limit >>>> should be low.
[...]
That's just where cruise control is useful! In cars with automatic
gearboxes, it's not easy to maintain constant speed without keeping
an eye on the speed dial all the time, while you should be watching
the road instead!
With manual gear boxes, it's much easier.
I suspect cruise control is to avoid becoming "velocitized"; drifting
into a less aware state due to the monotony of highway driving.
(anyone who has drive across Kansas would understand)
We don't get much chance to use cruise control in the UK, as the roads aren't long enough and are too busy. I did use it when driving in Canada from Edmonton
to Jasper a few years ago. Now that's a boring drive - endless miles of high trees either side of the road.
It was very tempting to tip the driver's seat
back, put my feet up on the dash, and have a sleep for a couple of hours! I found using the cruise control the opposite of what you suggest; I didn't even
need have to make minor adjustments with the pressure of my foot on the gas pedal.
On 06/07/2024 22:53, Don Y wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:23 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
There has been talk of using cameras and license plate trackers to infer
the speed vehicles have traveled "across town" (i.e., at XX:XX:XX you
were seen at intersection X and are now at intersection Y at YY:YY:YY;
you could only have made that trip in that time interval if you exceeded
the average speed of...")
That has been very common here in the UK for several years, particularly
when there is a lot of construction and repair work for several miles on motorways. There are "averaging" speed cameras at the start and end of
the roadworks, and at intervals too along the way (and always at
sliproads for those entering and leaving the motorway within the
roadworks). The first notice you get if you've been speeding is a letter
of intending prosecution which suddenly arrives several days after
you've driven along that stretch of road!
Here, cruise control (once enabled) maintains the set speed -- accelerating >to overcome added drag/load and using the engine for braking when the terrain >would have the vehicle accelerating of its own accord. The driver can always >coerce the vehicle to higher speeds (and, tapping the brake in any way will >automatically disengage the control -- though leave the setpoint intact).
Does the second mode NOT maintain speed but, rather, just act as a warning >mechanism?
So, you have to call for *hard* acceleration to overcome its setting.
I can increase the vehicle's speed beyond the setpoint with any
pressure on the accelerator; letting up on it will bring the car back to
the setpoint (using engine braking).
The article referenced "new regulations" that will require the feature to
be reenabled, by default, with each start of the vehicle.
Most US cars won't allow the cruise control to be set below, e.g., 40MPH.
I think the reasoning is that you should be actively controling the
vehicle in those settings where regulators have decided the speed limit >should be low.
If I press the cruise control button twice, it will
engage the limiter mode.
On 07/07/2024 10:03, Jeff Layman wrote:
Guilty or not depended on how rich you were and the quality of the get
you off a speeding charge lawyer you could employ. Footballers and celebrities usually got off. But for a while everybody did!
Investment in "smart motorways" which allows them to use all 4 lanes as
live running lanes (3 properly designed to be running lanes and one hard shoulder intended as a refuge for broken down vehicles).
It didn't take account of dumb drivers or of the need to properly
maintain the camera systems used to monitor the road situation. As a
result they are having to add a lot of extra refuges to the "smart"
motorways to make them safer after several very high profile nasty high
speed collisions between motorway traffic and broken down vehicles.
The smart motorways I drive regularly I have such totally misleading and misguided signs that I no longer trust them to tell the truth. Worst
example I saw was alternate gantries showing 40mph speed limit(as low as
it actually goes on a motorway) and 60mph. I think the control room were messing about to see what traffic chaos they could cause.
Every other trip there is a claim of "animals on the road" but I have
yet to see one.
Nothing for the cruise control touches the brakes. It relies on the
engine to
slow the vehicle.
There are newer "collision avoidance" systems that will actively brake
if they sense you're approaching an object with which you may collide.
Newer cruise controls will adaptively adjust speed to prevent you from creeping up the backside of the vehicle in front of you.
Does the second mode NOT maintain speed but, rather, just act as a warning >> mechanism?
Yes, that's correct. It allows me to let off the gas, or even brake,
when approaching a tight corner.
So, you have to call for *hard* acceleration to overcome its setting.
Yes, as an alternative to pressing the button to turn it off, of
course. I assume it is intended as a safety or emergency feature.
Imagine you are starting to overtake and forgot that you have the
limiter engaged. Maybe you will slightly panic and not think to press
the button or maybe not be able to find the button quickly enough. You
can just "floor it" and off it goes instantly.
I can increase the vehicle's speed beyond the setpoint with any
pressure on the accelerator; letting up on it will bring the car back to
the setpoint (using engine braking).
Yes, in normal cruise control mode, that's how mine also works. Mine
will even engage the friction brakes if the speed is much over the set
speed.
The article referenced "new regulations" that will require the feature to
be reenabled, by default, with each start of the vehicle.
I don't doubt that it will happen in the future. Laws are governed
mostly by politics and bureaucracy, and only very little by science.
Most US cars won't allow the cruise control to be set below, e.g., 40MPH.
I think the reasoning is that you should be actively controling the
vehicle in those settings where regulators have decided the speed limit
should be low.
Sounds like a terrible idea to me. Keeping a very low speed is
actually quite difficult, and requires some attention. I'd rather
spend that attention on the traffic situation around me.
I'll be more worried about a technological take over if the number of
human cops ever substantially declines, fat chance of that.
You're assuming that the number of laws -- and the extent to which they
are enforced -- remains constant. With the same police force, one can
still technologically enforce MORE laws -- just by defining a new set of offenses (or, practical ways to enforce existing ones).
E.g., we had photo enforcement of stop lights -- trivial to implement. Likewise, photo enforcement of speed limits -- also trivial.
There was nothing TECHNICALLY wrong with either system -- they enforced
the LETTER of the law and very accurately/dispassionately. These systems were scheduled for wider distribution (why not protect EVERY intersection
and every stretch of roadway?). Would this have reduced the number of police on the force? Or, just shifted their attention to other crimes?
But, personal experiences with them led *people* (via binding referendum)
to add a law that prohibited them.
The kit vendors have tried to work around this with silly devices (to
ensure
they have access to a "market"). But, those devices require the
presence of
a human officer to actually enforce the action and issue the citation.
(E.g., certain intersections now have "blue lights" that are used to
inform an "observing" officer of a red light that has been run.
Technically,
this is within the provisions of the revised law. But, this just provides opportunities to sell more "blue lights" to the city -- it does nothing
to increase the revenues from traffic violations *or* the safety of the
roads
cuz you still have to tie up an officer to enforce that).
Surely one can imagine automatically detecting run traffic signals (already done), speeding (also done), jaywalking, illegal parking/expired meters, illegal turns, etc. How many of these are currently enforced (i.e., how many actually consume police officers' time?)
On 06/07/2024 22:29, Don Y wrote:
Does changing mph/kph affect the *displayed* values -- or the *detected*
values? E.g., if a sign indicates 30MPH and you have the setting at KPH, >> will it interpret that "30" as 30KPH? Or, will it *convert* the 30 MPH to >> ~48KPH? I.e., does the signage indicate units and is that detected? Or, >> is the function of the switch to inform the system of the EXPECTED units
encountered?
All speed signage here is just a number. There are no "MPH" letters. I guess a
GPS system could indicate correctly as it knows what country you'd be driving in. So although it might be using mph in the UK, as soon as I moved across the
channel to France it could change to kph.
By the way, my speed detection system is smart enough to tell the difference between recommended speeds on motorway signs (an illuminated white number in an
illuminated white circle) and an absolute limit (illuminated white number in an
illuminated red circle). It will not beep if I'm exceeding the recommended speed, but will do so with the absolute limit.
On 7/7/24 9:00 AM, Don Y wrote:
<....>
Nothing for the cruise control touches the brakes. It relies on the engine to
slow the vehicle.
There are newer "collision avoidance" systems that will actively brake
if they sense you're approaching an object with which you may collide.
Newer cruise controls will adaptively adjust speed to prevent you from
creeping up the backside of the vehicle in front of you.
<...>
Many adaptive cruise control systems (but not all!) have full authority down to
zero-speed; they control the brakes as well as the throttle.
This is separate from any collision avoidance functions.
Some adaptive cruise control systems (on for example older Audi and Nissan vehicles) disengage at speeds around 10-15mph and just leave the car rolling without any control. If you did not takeover they could collide with anything in front.
On 06/07/2024 22:53, Don Y wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:23 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
There has been talk of using cameras and license plate trackers to infer
the speed vehicles have traveled "across town" (i.e., at XX:XX:XX you
were seen at intersection X and are now at intersection Y at YY:YY:YY;
you could only have made that trip in that time interval if you exceeded
the average speed of...")
That has been very common here in the UK for several years, particularly when there is a lot of construction and repair work for several miles on motorways.
There are "averaging" speed cameras at the start and end of the roadworks, and
at intervals too along the way (and always at sliproads for those entering and
leaving the motorway within the roadworks). The first notice you get if you've
been speeding is a letter of intending prosecution which suddenly arrives several days after you've driven along that stretch of road!
Investment in "smart motorways" which allows them to use all 4 lanes as live running lanes (3 properly designed to be running lanes and one hard shoulder intended as a refuge for broken down vehicles).
It didn't take account of dumb drivers or of the need to properly maintain the
camera systems used to monitor the road situation. As a result they are having
to add a lot of extra refuges to the "smart" motorways to make them safer after
several very high profile nasty high speed collisions between motorway traffic
and broken down vehicles.
The smart motorways I drive regularly I have such totally misleading and misguided signs that I no longer trust them to tell the truth. Worst example I
saw was alternate gantries showing 40mph speed limit(as low as it actually goes
on a motorway) and 60mph. I think the control room were messing about to see what traffic chaos they could cause.
Every other trip there is a claim of "animals on the road" but I have yet to see one.
On 7/7/2024 1:47 AM, Don Y wrote:
I'll be more worried about a technological take over if the number of human >>> cops ever substantially declines, fat chance of that.
You're assuming that the number of laws -- and the extent to which they
are enforced -- remains constant. With the same police force, one can
still technologically enforce MORE laws -- just by defining a new set of
offenses (or, practical ways to enforce existing ones).
E.g., we had photo enforcement of stop lights -- trivial to implement.
Likewise, photo enforcement of speed limits -- also trivial.
There was nothing TECHNICALLY wrong with either system -- they enforced
the LETTER of the law and very accurately/dispassionately. These systems >> were scheduled for wider distribution (why not protect EVERY intersection
and every stretch of roadway?). Would this have reduced the number of
police on the force? Or, just shifted their attention to other crimes?
The main reason I'm against them _as currently implemented_ in e.g. Rhode Island is because a large fraction of the proceeds goes to some private corporation and the rest is used to make landlords happy:
"“If we generate half a million, 1million,whatever it is that we generate,that′s 1 million I don’t have to raise on the backs of property owners," DaSilva said."
Just bilking the poor to feed the well-to-do's pockets.
If there were some sliding scale that automatically dinged a millionaire $17,000 every time they did 55 through a school zone then no I'm not opposed to
that, "they were successful because they were smart" so learn to drive, idiot.
But, personal experiences with them led *people* (via binding referendum)
to add a law that prohibited them.
The kit vendors have tried to work around this with silly devices (to ensure >> they have access to a "market"). But, those devices require the presence of
a human officer to actually enforce the action and issue the citation.
(E.g., certain intersections now have "blue lights" that are used to
inform an "observing" officer of a red light that has been run. Technically, >> this is within the provisions of the revised law. But, this just provides >> opportunities to sell more "blue lights" to the city -- it does nothing
to increase the revenues from traffic violations *or* the safety of the roads
cuz you still have to tie up an officer to enforce that).
Surely one can imagine automatically detecting run traffic signals (already >> done), speeding (also done), jaywalking, illegal parking/expired meters,
illegal turns, etc. How many of these are currently enforced (i.e., how
many actually consume police officers' time?)
Don't worry. If it spread too far eventually automatic law enforcement would start making life difficult for "real people" vs. the impoverished and itinerant so I don't really see it happening, in concept at least it's too fair.
On 7/7/2024 2:56 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
Investment in "smart motorways" which allows them to use all 4 lanes
as live running lanes (3 properly designed to be running lanes and one
hard shoulder intended as a refuge for broken down vehicles).
How does "smart" make that possible but "not-smart" doesn't?
Do your roadways "change directions" based on time of day?
(we have center lanes that do so to expedite traffic into
or out of busy areas based on traffic patterns -- but, they
are time driven)
[IIRC, DC? had similar roads that would change direction
based on time of day]
Most roads have predefined lanes in each direction. Some roadways
are further (physically) "divided" to isolate traffic from each
direction.
It didn't take account of dumb drivers or of the need to properly
maintain the camera systems used to monitor the road situation. As a
result they are having to add a lot of extra refuges to the "smart"
motorways to make them safer after several very high profile nasty
high speed collisions between motorway traffic and broken down vehicles.
Stopping *on* the roadway is often forbidden. Your vehicle must be
pulled off, onto a shoulder (outside the outside lane -- far right in
our case).
A patrolman encountering such a vehicle will likely park his vehicle
upstream of it to further alert oncoming traffic to the hazard.
Work on the roadways (overhead signage, pavement, etc.) usually results in overly long stretches being cordoned off ("dunce cones") to ensure traffic
is clear of the work area BEFORE encountering it.
And, most roadways enter and exit on the outside (right) lane so you
can predict where the "varying" traffic will originate.
The smart motorways I drive regularly I have such totally misleading
and misguided signs that I no longer trust them to tell the truth.
Worst example I saw was alternate gantries showing 40mph speed
limit(as low as it actually goes on a motorway) and 60mph. I think the
control room were messing about to see what traffic chaos they could
cause.
The closest thing to "smart" here is signage that may dynamically
reflect some condition of interest (amber/silver alert, construction
ahead, etc.). We have some automated technology that warns of haboobs
in areas prone to them as they instantiate in time frames too short to
erect manual signage (radar). I'd wager there are parts of the midwest where similar systems warn of tornados.
On 07/07/2024 18:51, Don Y wrote:
On 7/7/2024 2:56 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
Investment in "smart motorways" which allows them to use all 4 lanes as live
running lanes (3 properly designed to be running lanes and one hard shoulder
intended as a refuge for broken down vehicles).
How does "smart" make that possible but "not-smart" doesn't?
Do your roadways "change directions" based on time of day?
(we have center lanes that do so to expedite traffic into
or out of busy areas based on traffic patterns -- but, they
are time driven)
In theory the smart motorways are monitored along their length by cameras and control rooms. Each lane has a tick or a red cross above it to indicate if it is in use or not available. At peak times all lanes are run live which leaves no room for error whatsoever.
Emergency vehicles have to fight their way through traffic if something happens
(as opposed to going down the non-running lane hard shoulder).
[IIRC, DC? had similar roads that would change direction
based on time of day]
There were a few of those in the UK. One in Manchester London Road 4 lanes under flow control depending on the time of day. 3 in for morning rush hour and
3 out in the evening they were notorious for head on crashes. Picture from the
late 1970's:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gmts/33623521145
An even worse configuration in the 1970's was the three lane trunk road with the centre lane for "overtaking only". They resulted in the most spectacular head on crashes (think 150+mph closing speeds) and caused collateral damage in
the adjacent lanes. Not survivable.
Most roads have predefined lanes in each direction. Some roadways
are further (physically) "divided" to isolate traffic from each
direction.
UK motorways have strict central reservation barriers which are being reinforced to heavy weight solid cast concrete with tensile steel inside to stop the larger HGVs going straight through them.
It didn't take account of dumb drivers or of the need to properly maintain >>> the camera systems used to monitor the road situation. As a result they are >>> having to add a lot of extra refuges to the "smart" motorways to make them >>> safer after several very high profile nasty high speed collisions between >>> motorway traffic and broken down vehicles.
Stopping *on* the roadway is often forbidden. Your vehicle must be
pulled off, onto a shoulder (outside the outside lane -- far right in
our case).
That is the point of "smart" motorways. There is no hard shoulder to pull off onto - it is a live lane just like all the others. You can't always control where you breakdown either. There are refuges from time to time but far too far
apart to be any use.
In my student days we got stuck immediately behind a vehicle in the outside lane (long before mobile phones). What happened next was very interesting. A pair of heavies saw what had happened from a distance behind us and created a rolling road block. When they had stopped all the traffic we got out and pushed
the dead car onto the hard shoulder and then got back in our car and continued
our journey. It was touch and go whether someone would pile into us when we had
to stop like that.
A patrolman encountering such a vehicle will likely park his vehicle
upstream of it to further alert oncoming traffic to the hazard.
Same in the UK. Highways agency vehicles have damn big flashing please don't hit me signs with an arrow that can be erected behind them.
Work on the roadways (overhead signage, pavement, etc.) usually results in >> overly long stretches being cordoned off ("dunce cones") to ensure traffic >> is clear of the work area BEFORE encountering it.
There is a lot more of that work at the moment because of the crisis with smart/dumb motorways. They are dumb as hell when the smarts that are supposed to keep them safe are not working!
And, most roadways enter and exit on the outside (right) lane so you
can predict where the "varying" traffic will originate.
Opposite sense in the UK, but we do have a few free for all junctions on urban
motorways where traffic is injected and must leave from the outside (fastest) lane. A recipe for high speed collisions.
The smart motorways I drive regularly I have such totally misleading and >>> misguided signs that I no longer trust them to tell the truth. Worst example
I saw was alternate gantries showing 40mph speed limit(as low as it actually
goes on a motorway) and 60mph. I think the control room were messing about >>> to see what traffic chaos they could cause.
The closest thing to "smart" here is signage that may dynamically
reflect some condition of interest (amber/silver alert, construction
ahead, etc.). We have some automated technology that warns of haboobs
in areas prone to them as they instantiate in time frames too short to
erect manual signage (radar). I'd wager there are parts of the midwest
where similar systems warn of tornados.
They could be a useful if they were properly maintained and drivers understood
them. Unfortunately neither condition is met in the UK.
There are also variable speed limit motorways and roads equipped with the latest average speed camera technology. That is also part of smart.
So, it really only shares the user interface with the cruise control;
the function is different.
There are newer "collision avoidance" systems that will actively brake
if they sense you're approaching an object with which you may collide.
Newer cruise controls will adaptively adjust speed to prevent you from >creeping up the backside of the vehicle in front of you.
Opposite sense in the UK, but we do have a few free for all junctions on urban motorways where traffic is injected and must leave from the
outside (fastest) lane. A recipe for high speed collisions.
On 7/7/2024 9:08 AM, KevinJ93 wrote:
On 7/7/24 9:00 AM, Don Y wrote:
<....>
Nothing for the cruise control touches the brakes. It relies on the
engine to
slow the vehicle.
There are newer "collision avoidance" systems that will actively brake
if they sense you're approaching an object with which you may collide.
Newer cruise controls will adaptively adjust speed to prevent you from
creeping up the backside of the vehicle in front of you.
<...>
Many adaptive cruise control systems (but not all!) have full
authority down to zero-speed; they control the brakes as well as the
throttle.
This ---------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the difference between them and legacy
"cruise control" systems. It can only control the vehicle's speed to
the same
degree that a human can /with just the throttle/.
In The West, it is not uncommon to find yourself driving through varying elevations (mountains). Relying solely on the engine for braking often won't allow you to comply with the posted speed limits *or* "safe driving conditions".
[OTOH, being overly reliant on the brake can lead to brake overheating and failure]
This is separate from any collision avoidance functions.
Some adaptive cruise control systems (on for example older Audi and
Nissan vehicles) disengage at speeds around 10-15mph and just leave
the car rolling without any control. If you did not takeover they
could collide with anything in front.
I've not seen the limits for adaptive controls; whether they refuse to
engage
at lower speeds AT ALL. But, this would be consistent with legacy systems.
From what I remember from many years ago, in Toronto there were "Expressway"(?) lanes as the extreme two outside lanes of the highway through Toronto. There was was limited entry and access to those lanes, as they were intended for keeping up the speed of through traffic. In effect you had a central barrier and another almost continuous barrier on the nearside.
Newer cruise controls will adaptively adjust speed to prevent you from
creeping up the backside of the vehicle in front of you.
Mine does that too. It is very useful. My previous car had cruise
control, but not adaptive. Those are essentially useful only when you
are alone on the road.
On 7/7/24 9:57 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 7/7/2024 9:08 AM, KevinJ93 wrote:
On 7/7/24 9:00 AM, Don Y wrote:
<....>
Nothing for the cruise control touches the brakes. It relies on the engine to
slow the vehicle.
There are newer "collision avoidance" systems that will actively brake >>>> if they sense you're approaching an object with which you may collide. >>>>
Newer cruise controls will adaptively adjust speed to prevent you from >>>> creeping up the backside of the vehicle in front of you.
<...>
Many adaptive cruise control systems (but not all!) have full authority down
to zero-speed; they control the brakes as well as the throttle.
This ---------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the difference between them and legacy
"cruise control" systems. It can only control the vehicle's speed to the same
degree that a human can /with just the throttle/.
In The West, it is not uncommon to find yourself driving through varying
elevations (mountains). Relying solely on the engine for braking often
won't allow you to comply with the posted speed limits *or* "safe driving
conditions".
[OTOH, being overly reliant on the brake can lead to brake overheating and >> failure]
My recent cars automatically increase engine RPM by changing gear to maximize engine braking, in addition to using brakes if necessary.
Some people find that disturbing to have the engine spinning at 4000-5000RPM down steep hills.
On 7/7/24 9:57 AM, Don Y wrote:
In The West, it is not uncommon to find yourself driving through varying
elevations (mountains). Relying solely on the engine for braking often
won't allow you to comply with the posted speed limits *or* "safe driving
conditions".
[OTOH, being overly reliant on the brake can lead to brake overheating and >> failure]
My recent cars automatically increase engine RPM by changing gear to
maximize engine braking, in addition to using brakes if necessary.
Some people find that disturbing to have the engine spinning at
4000-5000RPM down steep hills.
On 07/07/2024 23:51, KevinJ93 wrote:
On 7/7/24 9:57 AM, Don Y wrote:
In The West, it is not uncommon to find yourself driving through varying >>> elevations (mountains). Relying solely on the engine for braking often >>> won't allow you to comply with the posted speed limits *or* "safe driving >>> conditions".
[OTOH, being overly reliant on the brake can lead to brake overheating and >>> failure]
My recent cars automatically increase engine RPM by changing gear to
maximize engine braking, in addition to using brakes if necessary.
Some people find that disturbing to have the engine spinning at
4000-5000RPM down steep hills.
A few years after I learned to drive (in 1972!) I was in England's Lake District which has some long and pretty steep hills. Coming down one in
my manually-geared car I decided I could save petrol by turning the
engine off and leaving the car in second gear, using the aid of engine braking to save heavy use of the brakes. What I'd forgotten is that the
fuel pump wasn't electric, but was driven off the engine shaft. So as
the engine braking was rotating the shaft all the way down, at the end
of the run not only hadn't I saved any fuel but I'd flooded the
cylinders as well and the engine wouldn't restart until all the excess
fuel had been expelled!
On 07/07/2024 20:09, Martin Brown wrote:
Opposite sense in the UK, but we do have a few free for all junctions on
urban motorways where traffic is injected and must leave from the
outside (fastest) lane. A recipe for high speed collisions.
AFAIAA there aren't any down here, not even the M25. Are there some up
north or in the Midlands?
On 07/07/2024 22:27, Jeff Layman wrote:3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D275.35706290945456%26pitch%3D24.554584174643978%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu>
On 07/07/2024 20:09, Martin Brown wrote:
Opposite sense in the UK, but we do have a few free for all junctions on >>> urban motorways where traffic is injected and must leave from the
outside (fastest) lane. A recipe for high speed collisions.
AFAIAA there aren't any down here, not even the M25. Are there some up
north or in the Midlands?
Central motorway A167(M) in Newcastle is one of the worst. The two road
decks are stacked one on top of the other and the run ins and outs are
placed wherever they could fit them. The odd one requires near suicidal driving to get from the far right lane injection to the left lane exit
for the city centre. I pity any non-local drivers encountering it.
This Google maps image shows the top deck you can see exits to left and
right (and there is a lane injection from the right two). It is inclined
to jump onto the bottom deck when you try to move the viewpoint.
<https://www.google.com/maps/@54.9825042,-1.6108378,3a,75y,275.36h,65.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxtyb_rGOduqvTSBfXoXR8Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dxtyb_rGOduqvTSBfXoXR8Q%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%
The underdeck is even more scary you get a fast lane injection shortly
after going under the roadway which on a sunny day is already very dark.
Google "Central Motorway" "Newcastle" if the link I doesn't work...
Most of the junctions on the underdeck are normal handedness, but the majority of the junctions on the top deck are fast lane entry/exit.
On 08/07/2024 12:12, Martin Brown wrote:26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D275.35706290945456%26pitch%3D24.554584174643978%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu>
On 07/07/2024 22:27, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 07/07/2024 20:09, Martin Brown wrote:
Opposite sense in the UK, but we do have a few free for all
junctions on
urban motorways where traffic is injected and must leave from the
outside (fastest) lane. A recipe for high speed collisions.
AFAIAA there aren't any down here, not even the M25. Are there some up
north or in the Midlands?
Central motorway A167(M) in Newcastle is one of the worst. The two road
decks are stacked one on top of the other and the run ins and outs are
placed wherever they could fit them. The odd one requires near suicidal
driving to get from the far right lane injection to the left lane exit
for the city centre. I pity any non-local drivers encountering it.
This Google maps image shows the top deck you can see exits to left and
right (and there is a lane injection from the right two). It is inclined
to jump onto the bottom deck when you try to move the viewpoint.
<https://www.google.com/maps/@54.9825042,-1.6108378,3a,75y,275.36h,65.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxtyb_rGOduqvTSBfXoXR8Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dxtyb_rGOduqvTSBfXoXR8Q%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%
That is crazily weird! I wouldn't like to attempt it without being shown
it as a passenger first.
Streetview can't seem to handle moving forward from the start. The first
few steps are ok, then it jumps to the underdeck.
The underdeck is even more scary you get a fast lane injection shortly
after going under the roadway which on a sunny day is already very dark.
Google "Central Motorway" "Newcastle" if the link I doesn't work...
Most of the junctions on the underdeck are normal handedness, but the
majority of the junctions on the top deck are fast lane entry/exit.
I wonder if it was all designed by a non-driver!
On 07/07/2024 23:51, KevinJ93 wrote:
On 7/7/24 9:57 AM, Don Y wrote:
In The West, it is not uncommon to find yourself driving through varying >>> elevations (mountains). Relying solely on the engine for braking often >>> won't allow you to comply with the posted speed limits *or* "safe
driving
conditions".
[OTOH, being overly reliant on the brake can lead to brake
overheating and
failure]
My recent cars automatically increase engine RPM by changing gear to
maximize engine braking, in addition to using brakes if necessary.
Some people find that disturbing to have the engine spinning at
4000-5000RPM down steep hills.
A few years after I learned to drive (in 1972!) I was in England's Lake District which has some long and pretty steep hills. Coming down one in
my manually-geared car I decided I could save petrol by turning the
engine off and leaving the car in second gear, using the aid of engine braking to save heavy use of the brakes. What I'd forgotten is that the
fuel pump wasn't electric, but was driven off the engine shaft. So as
the engine braking was rotating the shaft all the way down, at the end
of the run not only hadn't I saved any fuel but I'd flooded the
cylinders as well and the engine wouldn't restart until all the excess
fuel had been expelled!
I wonder if it was all designed by a non-driver!
On 7/8/24 14:46, Jeff Layman wrote:
[...]
I wonder if it was all designed by a non-driver!
In France, there are quite a few intersections that
seem to have been designed under the influence of some
potent drugs. I call them 'nouilles'.
On 07/07/2024 23:51, KevinJ93 wrote:
On 7/7/24 9:57 AM, Don Y wrote:
In The West, it is not uncommon to find yourself driving through varying >>> elevations (mountains). Relying solely on the engine for braking often >>> won't allow you to comply with the posted speed limits *or* "safe
driving
conditions".
[OTOH, being overly reliant on the brake can lead to brake
overheating and
failure]
My recent cars automatically increase engine RPM by changing gear to
maximize engine braking, in addition to using brakes if necessary.
Some people find that disturbing to have the engine spinning at
4000-5000RPM down steep hills.
A few years after I learned to drive (in 1972!) I was in England's Lake District which has some long and pretty steep hills. Coming down one in
my manually-geared car I decided I could save petrol by turning the
engine off and leaving the car in second gear, using the aid of engine braking to save heavy use of the brakes. What I'd forgotten is that the
fuel pump wasn't electric, but was driven off the engine shaft. So as
the engine braking was rotating the shaft all the way down, at the end
of the run not only hadn't I saved any fuel but I'd flooded the
cylinders as well and the engine wouldn't restart until all the excess
fuel had been expelled!
On 7/7/2024 12:09 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 07/07/2024 18:51, Don Y wrote:
On 7/7/2024 2:56 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
Investment in "smart motorways" which allows them to use all 4 lanes
as live running lanes (3 properly designed to be running lanes and
one hard shoulder intended as a refuge for broken down vehicles).
How does "smart" make that possible but "not-smart" doesn't?
Do your roadways "change directions" based on time of day?
(we have center lanes that do so to expedite traffic into
or out of busy areas based on traffic patterns -- but, they
are time driven)
In theory the smart motorways are monitored along their length by
cameras and control rooms. Each lane has a tick or a red cross above
it to indicate if it is in use or not available. At peak times all
lanes are run live which leaves no room for error whatsoever.
I don't understand -- they are taking capacity OUT of service?
Emergency vehicles have to fight their way through traffic if
something happens (as opposed to going down the non-running lane hard
shoulder).
That seems to be a bigger problem "in town", here. Largely because
traffic is naturally stopped at frequent intervals along any travel
route. Convincing three lanes of "parked" (at traffic signal)
traffic to get the hell out of the way for an emergency vehicle
approaching from behind is a bit of a chore.
Such vehicles are equipped with a strobe light that visually signals
a sensor mounted high in the intersection. It ties in to the local
signal controls and overrides the timing to allow traffic along
the "approach axis" to move, even if it would normally be halted.
In theory, that traffic starts moving (making the blockage more
fluid) and they can then get out of the way of the approaching (from
front or rear) emergency vehicle.
Too often, drivers "freeze" thinking that the emergency vehicle can
sort out its dilemma. For undivided roadways, the emergency vehicle
will often cross the centerline to use the lanes in the opposite
direction to get around idiot drivers "ahead" of it.
Most roads have predefined lanes in each direction. Some roadways
are further (physically) "divided" to isolate traffic from each
direction.
UK motorways have strict central reservation barriers which are being
reinforced to heavy weight solid cast concrete with tensile steel
inside to stop the larger HGVs going straight through them.
Our "interstate" highways tend to have a large median between divided lanes. So, crossing over the "center line" ends up with a vehicle
in grass/ditch.
Of course, this is only possible in places with ample real estate.
Such roads traveling through metropolitan areas can be hazardous as
the concrete "prisms" placed end to end are really only massive enough
to *deflect* traffic, not *stop* it.
That is the point of "smart" motorways. There is no hard shoulder to
pull off onto - it is a live lane just like all the others. You can't
always control where you breakdown either. There are refuges from time
to time but far too far apart to be any use.
Ah. Most roads, here, have a shoulder -- though sometimes "soft".
It is not uncommon to see someone trying to change a flat tire on the driver's side ("in-side" of the roadway) of their vehicle. A patrolman
will "run interference" for you *if* he comes upon you. Otherwise,
you work with one eye always watching oncoming traffic.
Police officers are often at risk in roadside stops as the *vehicle*
may be on the shoulder but the officer standing beside the driver's door/window will have his ass out in traffic.
["distracted drivers" care little about what they may hit!]
A patrolman encountering such a vehicle will likely park his vehicle
upstream of it to further alert oncoming traffic to the hazard.
Same in the UK. Highways agency vehicles have damn big flashing please
don't hit me signs with an arrow that can be erected behind them.
Police will usually walk back upstream and deploy flares to warn of their stationary presence, "ahead".
On 08/07/2024 09:52, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 07/07/2024 23:51, KevinJ93 wrote:
On 7/7/24 9:57 AM, Don Y wrote:
In The West, it is not uncommon to find yourself driving through varying >>>> elevations (mountains). Relying solely on the engine for braking often >>>> won't allow you to comply with the posted speed limits *or* "safe
driving
conditions".
[OTOH, being overly reliant on the brake can lead to brake
overheating and
failure]
My recent cars automatically increase engine RPM by changing gear to
maximize engine braking, in addition to using brakes if necessary.
Some people find that disturbing to have the engine spinning at
4000-5000RPM down steep hills.
A few years after I learned to drive (in 1972!) I was in England's Lake
District which has some long and pretty steep hills. Coming down one in
my manually-geared car I decided I could save petrol by turning the
engine off and leaving the car in second gear, using the aid of engine
braking to save heavy use of the brakes. What I'd forgotten is that the
fuel pump wasn't electric, but was driven off the engine shaft. So as
the engine braking was rotating the shaft all the way down, at the end
of the run not only hadn't I saved any fuel but I'd flooded the
cylinders as well and the engine wouldn't restart until all the excess
fuel had been expelled!
You are quite lucky that the steering lock didn't engage.
In later cars with servo assisted brakes you also lose their
effectiveness if the engine isn't running to produce the vacuum.
On 09/07/2024 09:46, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/07/2024 09:52, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 07/07/2024 23:51, KevinJ93 wrote:
On 7/7/24 9:57 AM, Don Y wrote:
In The West, it is not uncommon to find yourself driving through varying >>>>> elevations (mountains).ÿ Relying solely on the engine for braking often >>>>> won't allow you to comply with the posted speed limits *or* "safe
driving
conditions".
[OTOH, being overly reliant on the brake can lead to brake
overheating and
failure]
My recent cars automatically increase engine RPM by changing gear to
maximize engine braking, in addition to using brakes if necessary.
Some people find that disturbing to have the engine spinning at
4000-5000RPM down steep hills.
A few years after I learned to drive (in 1972!) I was in England's Lake
District which has some long and pretty steep hills. Coming down one in
my manually-geared car I decided I could save petrol by turning the
engine off and leaving the car in second gear, using the aid of engine
braking to save heavy use of the brakes. What I'd forgotten is that the
fuel pump wasn't electric, but was driven off the engine shaft. So as
the engine braking was rotating the shaft all the way down, at the end
of the run not only hadn't I saved any fuel but I'd flooded the
cylinders as well and the engine wouldn't restart until all the excess
fuel had been expelled!
You are quite lucky that the steering lock didn't engage.
From what I remember - and that's not much - the Vauxhall Viva HB
steering lock only engaged when the key was removed from the ignition.
Wasn't this true of most if not all cars at the time? I just turned the
key so the ignition was off and left it in place.
In later cars with servo assisted brakes you also lose their
effectiveness if the engine isn't running to produce the vacuum.
To all intents and purposes the engine was running. It was going round
and round, but just not using power from exploding fuel to do it.
Gravity and the rolling rear wheels provided the power. Braking at the
end of the downhill run was no problem, or I might not have been here to
make this post!
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 07/07/2024 23:51, KevinJ93 wrote:You were lucky—if you’d bump started it successfully, you’d have blown the
On 7/7/24 9:57 AM, Don Y wrote:
In The West, it is not uncommon to find yourself driving through varying >>>> elevations (mountains). Relying solely on the engine for braking often >>>> won't allow you to comply with the posted speed limits *or* "safe driving >>>> conditions".
[OTOH, being overly reliant on the brake can lead to brake overheating and >>>> failure]
My recent cars automatically increase engine RPM by changing gear to
maximize engine braking, in addition to using brakes if necessary.
Some people find that disturbing to have the engine spinning at
4000-5000RPM down steep hills.
A few years after I learned to drive (in 1972!) I was in England's Lake
District which has some long and pretty steep hills. Coming down one in
my manually-geared car I decided I could save petrol by turning the
engine off and leaving the car in second gear, using the aid of engine
braking to save heavy use of the brakes. What I'd forgotten is that the
fuel pump wasn't electric, but was driven off the engine shaft. So as
the engine braking was rotating the shaft all the way down, at the end
of the run not only hadn't I saved any fuel but I'd flooded the
cylinders as well and the engine wouldn't restart until all the excess
fuel had been expelled!
exhaust right off the car.
On 08/07/2024 11:30, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 07/07/2024 23:51, KevinJ93 wrote:You were lucky—if you’d bump started it successfully, you’d have blown >> the
On 7/7/24 9:57 AM, Don Y wrote:
In The West, it is not uncommon to find yourself driving through
varying
elevations (mountains). Relying solely on the engine for braking
often
won't allow you to comply with the posted speed limits *or* "safe
driving
conditions".
[OTOH, being overly reliant on the brake can lead to brake
overheating and
failure]
My recent cars automatically increase engine RPM by changing gear to
maximize engine braking, in addition to using brakes if necessary.
Some people find that disturbing to have the engine spinning at
4000-5000RPM down steep hills.
A few years after I learned to drive (in 1972!) I was in England's Lake
District which has some long and pretty steep hills. Coming down one in
my manually-geared car I decided I could save petrol by turning the
engine off and leaving the car in second gear, using the aid of engine
braking to save heavy use of the brakes. What I'd forgotten is that the
fuel pump wasn't electric, but was driven off the engine shaft. So as
the engine braking was rotating the shaft all the way down, at the end
of the run not only hadn't I saved any fuel but I'd flooded the
cylinders as well and the engine wouldn't restart until all the excess
fuel had been expelled!
exhaust right off the car.
With the cylinders flooded, it meant that the spark plugs were soaking
wet with fuel. Sparks were simply not possible until the gap had dried,
and that only took place when there was little fuel left in the
cylinder. I don't understand why you'd expect an explosion in the
exhaust as the exhaust valve would be closed at the time of the spark.
Or are you saying that the exploded fuel-air mix in the cylinder when
forced out of the cylinder by the piston would still be hot enough to
ignite any unburnt fuel-air mix in the exhaust system ?
How does "smart" make that possible but "not-smart" doesn't?
Do your roadways "change directions" based on time of day?
(we have center lanes that do so to expedite traffic into
or out of busy areas based on traffic patterns -- but, they
are time driven)
In theory the smart motorways are monitored along their length by cameras >>> and control rooms. Each lane has a tick or a red cross above it to indicate >>> if it is in use or not available. At peak times all lanes are run live which
leaves no room for error whatsoever.
I don't understand -- they are taking capacity OUT of service?
No. In normal conditions it is standard motorway 70mph limit and 3 running lanes one hard shoulder. When it gets busy the speed limit drops to 60 (then 50) and the hard shoulder becomes a running lane.
In that latter mode a cross in a lane indicates an obstruction in that live lane so you have better slow down and/or get out of it.
Emergency vehicles have to fight their way through traffic if something
happens (as opposed to going down the non-running lane hard shoulder).
That seems to be a bigger problem "in town", here. Largely because
traffic is naturally stopped at frequent intervals along any travel
route. Convincing three lanes of "parked" (at traffic signal)
traffic to get the hell out of the way for an emergency vehicle
approaching from behind is a bit of a chore.
UK drivers are mostly quite good about opening a path for emergency vehicles. What they don't do well is zip merging.
Such vehicles are equipped with a strobe light that visually signals
a sensor mounted high in the intersection. It ties in to the local
signal controls and overrides the timing to allow traffic along
the "approach axis" to move, even if it would normally be halted.
Nothing like that here or if there is then it is cryptographic. Where I live the PM (previous) moves about quite a lot and it is done by 16x police motorcycle outriders going ahead and escort vehicles followed by a bunch of heavies.
In theory, that traffic starts moving (making the blockage more
fluid) and they can then get out of the way of the approaching (from
front or rear) emergency vehicle.
Too often, drivers "freeze" thinking that the emergency vehicle can
sort out its dilemma. For undivided roadways, the emergency vehicle
will often cross the centerline to use the lanes in the opposite
direction to get around idiot drivers "ahead" of it.
The drivers freezing is silly places problem is common in the UK too.
Most roads have predefined lanes in each direction. Some roadways
are further (physically) "divided" to isolate traffic from each
direction.
UK motorways have strict central reservation barriers which are being
reinforced to heavy weight solid cast concrete with tensile steel inside to >>> stop the larger HGVs going straight through them.
Our "interstate" highways tend to have a large median between divided
lanes. So, crossing over the "center line" ends up with a vehicle
in grass/ditch.
We don't have enough real estate for that. Motorways where the opposing lanes are more than 10' apart can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Police officers are often at risk in roadside stops as the *vehicle*
may be on the shoulder but the officer standing beside the driver's
door/window will have his ass out in traffic.
["distracted drivers" care little about what they may hit!]
UK the advice is to get out of the car and stay behind the crash barrier. Cars
on the hard shoulder get hit with monotonous regularity.
A patrolman encountering such a vehicle will likely park his vehicle
upstream of it to further alert oncoming traffic to the hazard.
Same in the UK. Highways agency vehicles have damn big flashing please don't
hit me signs with an arrow that can be erected behind them.
Police will usually walk back upstream and deploy flares to warn of their
stationary presence, "ahead".
Similar but no flares. HGV's will protect a serious crash site though I've only
been in one major incident as the first car to stop without hitting anything and was then protected by the HGV behind me.
It was reported as 3 HGVs and a car. But it was actually a single car that clipped the central reservation 2 or 3 times and then swept across the live lanes totalling a couple of cars as it went. The HGV driver behind me had a QD
dashcam with higher viewpoint which was used in evidence.
It is reckoned that for every hour of stationary traffic queue on a UK motorway
there will be one serious rear end shunt (in addition to the original incident
that caused the queue). Sometimes rubberneckers on the other carriageway cause
a separate incident.
On 2024-07-09 16:38, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 08/07/2024 11:30, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 07/07/2024 23:51, KevinJ93 wrote:You were lucky—if you’d bump started it successfully, you’d have blown
On 7/7/24 9:57 AM, Don Y wrote:
In The West, it is not uncommon to find yourself driving through
varying
elevations (mountains). Relying solely on the engine for braking >>>>>> often
won't allow you to comply with the posted speed limits *or* "safe
driving
conditions".
[OTOH, being overly reliant on the brake can lead to brake
overheating and
failure]
My recent cars automatically increase engine RPM by changing gear to >>>>> maximize engine braking, in addition to using brakes if necessary.
Some people find that disturbing to have the engine spinning at
4000-5000RPM down steep hills.
A few years after I learned to drive (in 1972!) I was in England's Lake >>>> District which has some long and pretty steep hills. Coming down one in >>>> my manually-geared car I decided I could save petrol by turning the
engine off and leaving the car in second gear, using the aid of engine >>>> braking to save heavy use of the brakes. What I'd forgotten is that the >>>> fuel pump wasn't electric, but was driven off the engine shaft. So as
the engine braking was rotating the shaft all the way down, at the end >>>> of the run not only hadn't I saved any fuel but I'd flooded the
cylinders as well and the engine wouldn't restart until all the excess >>>> fuel had been expelled!
the
exhaust right off the car.
With the cylinders flooded, it meant that the spark plugs were soaking
wet with fuel. Sparks were simply not possible until the gap had dried,
and that only took place when there was little fuel left in the
cylinder. I don't understand why you'd expect an explosion in the
exhaust as the exhaust valve would be closed at the time of the spark.
Or are you saying that the exploded fuel-air mix in the cylinder when
forced out of the cylinder by the piston would still be hot enough to
ignite any unburnt fuel-air mix in the exhaust system ?
Your carb must have been badly misadjusted, or the needle valve leaking badly. That fuel wasn't sprayed into the cylinders, it was supposed to
be pulled in by the venturi effect in the carb throat.
The whole point of a carburetor is to keep the mixture correct over a
very wide range of throttle openings.
On 08/07/2024 11:30, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 07/07/2024 23:51, KevinJ93 wrote:You were lucky—if you’d bump started it successfully, you’d have blown the
On 7/7/24 9:57 AM, Don Y wrote:
In The West, it is not uncommon to find yourself driving through varying >>>>> elevations (mountains). Relying solely on the engine for braking often >>>>> won't allow you to comply with the posted speed limits *or* "safe driving >>>>> conditions".
[OTOH, being overly reliant on the brake can lead to brake overheating and
failure]
My recent cars automatically increase engine RPM by changing gear to
maximize engine braking, in addition to using brakes if necessary.
Some people find that disturbing to have the engine spinning at
4000-5000RPM down steep hills.
A few years after I learned to drive (in 1972!) I was in England's Lake
District which has some long and pretty steep hills. Coming down one in
my manually-geared car I decided I could save petrol by turning the
engine off and leaving the car in second gear, using the aid of engine
braking to save heavy use of the brakes. What I'd forgotten is that the
fuel pump wasn't electric, but was driven off the engine shaft. So as
the engine braking was rotating the shaft all the way down, at the end
of the run not only hadn't I saved any fuel but I'd flooded the
cylinders as well and the engine wouldn't restart until all the excess
fuel had been expelled!
exhaust right off the car.
With the cylinders flooded, it meant that the spark plugs were soaking
wet with fuel. Sparks were simply not possible until the gap had dried,
and that only took place when there was little fuel left in the
cylinder. I don't understand why you'd expect an explosion in the
exhaust as the exhaust valve would be closed at the time of the spark.
Or are you saying that the exploded fuel-air mix in the cylinder when
forced out of the cylinder by the piston would still be hot enough to
ignite any unburnt fuel-air mix in the exhaust system ?
On 09/07/2024 09:46, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/07/2024 09:52, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 07/07/2024 23:51, KevinJ93 wrote:
On 7/7/24 9:57 AM, Don Y wrote:
In The West, it is not uncommon to find yourself driving through
varying
elevations (mountains). Relying solely on the engine for braking
often
won't allow you to comply with the posted speed limits *or* "safe
driving
conditions".
[OTOH, being overly reliant on the brake can lead to brake
overheating and
failure]
My recent cars automatically increase engine RPM by changing gear to
maximize engine braking, in addition to using brakes if necessary.
Some people find that disturbing to have the engine spinning at
4000-5000RPM down steep hills.
A few years after I learned to drive (in 1972!) I was in England's Lake
District which has some long and pretty steep hills. Coming down one in
my manually-geared car I decided I could save petrol by turning the
engine off and leaving the car in second gear, using the aid of engine
braking to save heavy use of the brakes. What I'd forgotten is that the
fuel pump wasn't electric, but was driven off the engine shaft. So as
the engine braking was rotating the shaft all the way down, at the end
of the run not only hadn't I saved any fuel but I'd flooded the
cylinders as well and the engine wouldn't restart until all the excess
fuel had been expelled!
You are quite lucky that the steering lock didn't engage.
From what I remember - and that's not much - the Vauxhall Viva HB
steering lock only engaged when the key was removed from the ignition.
Wasn't this true of most if not all cars at the time? I just turned the
key so the ignition was off and left it in place.
In later cars with servo assisted brakes you also lose their
effectiveness if the engine isn't running to produce the vacuum.
To all intents and purposes the engine was running. It was going round
and round, but just not using power from exploding fuel to do it.
Gravity and the rolling rear wheels provided the power. Braking at the
end of the downhill run was no problem, or I might not have been here to
make this post!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 418 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 03:11:28 |
| Calls: | 8,787 |
| Calls today: | 14 |
| Files: | 13,296 |
| Messages: | 5,965,640 |
