Ease congestion on the M25?
I don't think so. All the routes are jammed, it doesn't matter which way you go or what you do.
Hmm, seems fishy to me.
The Highways Agency is trialling combining GPS tracking with data from its existing sources to provide real-time information to drivers on a 'beta' version of its traffic information map for drivers in England. A spokesman for the agency told Government Computing that by adding GPS data to that from its existing sources - …
I don't think so. All the routes are jammed, it doesn't matter which way you go or what you do.
Hmm, seems fishy to me.
If you know somewhere is congested you tend to avoid it if you have a choice. I think this is the idea.
Therein lies your problem with UK motorways. Not a lot of choice.
If you've ever tried to come off a motorway due to congestion then you'll know it is often futile.
I spent a soul destroying 2.5 hours driving around (through?) Slough as a recent example of that.
Whenever I have to drive to London, I often reminisce about the film "Falling down".
As an example of the sort of traffic rectification exercises they can under take, imagine (it's not hard) that the M4 into London is backed up to Slough. They can use that information to apply a temporary speed limit east bound into London, so as to reduce the number of cars arriving at the end of the M4.
Now imagine that they can see the gridlock before it happens. With some traffic management, they can try to avoid the gridlock ever happening. And if they can't, the numbers may make some compelling argument for the M4(S) and M4(N) to be built, so that there is no J15 on the M25 anymore.
"Now imagine that they can see the gridlock before it happens." -- Are you suggesting that clairvoyance is an exercise that they can undertake?
"They can use that information to apply a temporary speed limit east bound into London, so as to reduce the number of cars arriving at the end of the M4." -- that only causes backlogs elsewhere. As soon as you mess with speed limit you seem to get gridlock.
"As soon as you mess with speed limit you seem to get gridlock"
Can I suggest a little trip up "North" sometime. The M42, since the changes (Hard shoulder usage and temp speed limits), has improved greatly. Prior to it's introduction, it was almost daily to get start stop traffic and huge tail backs, now, yes it still happens, but it's a much less of an issue.
Heck even the M5 / M6 interchange is better.
If you slow people down gradually when there is congestion ahead, they don't slam on the breaks when they see a wall of traffic ahead. That means you get a steady 40-50mph through the congested area rather than stop-start waves that continue for hours after the blockage is cleared. That is why the temporary speed limits work very well.
Completely agree however my wife, who is quite alot younger than me, was always taught to slow down using the brakes and never use gear changes to slow down hence brake lights the whole time.
I was taught (about a decade ago) that however you slow down you should have your foot touching the break to make it clear to traffic behind you that you are slowing; that would also mean break lights from gear changing. The other idea is that by having your foot poises over the break reduces the reaction time a bit as most of time accelerating is not an option to get out of trouble (especially if your under 30 and male as you cannot insure a car that will do 70mph without the backing of a major bank!)
Damn... my car needs these; brake lights are not enough.
"all the data is anonymised by the agency and that no individual, vehicle or device can be identified so that only data about traffic levels on a road is provided."
And how long will it be before Theresa May and her merry cohorts say "Hey, wouldn't it be useful to prevent terrorism/ protect children/ other spurious excuse if that data wasn't anonymised so much"...?
The Home Office and Plod have already got the powers to get this data from the mobile networks whenever they want, added to which there is the static police ANPR network of over 10,500 cameras monitoring key entry and exit points to towns and all along the trunk road network. All built without under ACPO's "you're all guilty of something, and we don't need laws or your permission to track you" schemes.
On the other hand, the Highways Agency have done a good job of improving traffic flows through applied IT (eg variable speed limits, hard should running on the M42), and I'm pleased they are continuing to look for ways of using new technology. As the article notes, participation is voluntary.
"On the other hand, the Highways Agency have done a good job of improving traffic flows through applied IT (eg variable speed limits, hard should running on the M42)" -- Are those the same variable speed limits that are always set to 40 when I travel the M25?
Sounds like the ANPR data could be used for something beneficial and productive but isn't. Perhaps the powers that be have something to hide so don't want to share.
" Are those the same variable speed limits that are always set to 40 when I travel the M25?"
So, you're the cause of it all!
@Graham Marsden - Not so much that, but with the GPS data some suit will simply ask "Why don't we automatically fine people for speeding?", "Why don't we charge for actual road usage"?
These ideas have been kicked around before, and they will come around again. Ignoring the fact that we already pay for road usage (fuel duty) and that there are various questions over just how effective the draconian imposition of speed limits actually is.
Personally this and the new EU stuff should be expanded even further.
Being able to tell when someone is messing around on public roads (Speeding, tailgating etc etc) without having to rely on expensive police patrols + speed cameras. Moving the two systems together has two main advantages
1: Costs of enforcement go down
2: Everyone drives safer. (It's kinda funny to see the retarded maniacs all of a sudden learn how to drive whenever a police car comes into view.)
With a little bit of imagination you could make even more cool stuff.
Someone steals your car? Report it stolen and get it back within the hour.
Broken down on a blind corner? Press a button and your location appears on nearby cars GPS maps with a voice warning.
etc etc etc.
Nonsense, there have been many studies to work out the most effective speed limits on a motorway. Above a certain speed, happily around 80 mph, increasing speeds reduces the throughput of the road (the number of cars that can pass a certain point in a single hour).
Also FYI, fuel duty and Road Tax do not cover the spending on roads. You may as well say "Ignoring the fact that we already pay for road usage (tobacco duty)…"
"Are those the same variable speed limits that are always set to 40 when I travel the M25?"
Not as afr as I can see. The M25 implementation pre-dates the M42 setup by many years and doesn't seem to work as effectively as the M42, where for the most part they are used intelligently, and considerably improve traffic flow and journey times. I used the M42 for a decade before the variable speed limits and hard shoulder running were introduced, and I was totally opposed to the idea when first floated, but I'm pleased to say it has been a huge improvement to the stop start and regular accidents that previously bedvilled that stretch. Obviously you can still get to the point where traffic overwhelms the capacity of the tarmac sometimes, but in terms of making the most of what you've got, it is a thumbs up from me.
I suspect that the M42 package was designed with far better monitoring and telematics than the M25 setup, added to which the M25 is always only a few cars off total saturation, making the benefits more marginal.
"Also FYI, fuel duty and Road Tax do not cover the spending on roads"
Quite correct, they don't cover it, they cover it three times over, with spare change for a mission to Mars.
Fuel duty and road tax = c£33bn a year
Roads spending = c£10bn a year
1) Cost of enforcement goes up you mean. Now each vehicle carries its own nanny-brain which will need servicing, will take energy to run and then you have all the infrastructure required for the massive surge in fines. Plus you still require Old Skool enforcement for older vehicles and those who by-pass your Orwellian wet-dream. Oh, and you have to pay for continual updates as the system gets hacked. Oh my yes, it sounds like a step-forward so far.
2) Indeed. So why don't we simply have more traffic police then? They are well known to catch more than just speeders (tail-gaters, lane hoggers, weavers, drunks, unsafe vehicles etc). Seriously, more traffic plod please!
And with a little imagination you wouldn't have to put use under the heel of the technocratic overlords.
We have these. They are called "trackers" (there's a variety of them). You know what they do? They track a vehicle when the owner wants it tracked. They are not spies.
People should already be driving to that they can stop in the distance they can see. You think a blip on the GPS will help? They'll just turn the stereo up. Increasing gadgetry does not increase intelligence. Also, we already have warning triangles etc and the brains to exit the vehicle and move to a safe location.
You know how much Speed cameras cost? How much Police officers (who could be, you know, solving other crime rather then making sure people follow the rules of the road) cost? A lot. Each device would cost less then the price of a low end smart phone (Unless the thing in my £100 android isn't a GPS system that gets my data? I guess that's just magic).
Heck if you're that worried about. Security, make it open source. That magically makes it awesome around these parts.
And older vehicles are rather simple: Make not having one of these devices a MOT fail.within 3 years all cars will have one.
Having more police don't work, as it is physically impossible to have without having a literal police state with a officer on every street corner. And 99% of all driving issues can be detected with the simple GPS.
And your last arguments are just the ramblings of a retard. Just because SOME people might 'They'll just turn the stereo up' doesn't mean everyone, or even most people will. Sure that might be what you do while driving, but most of us take at least some care and attention.
The fact is simple. What additional powers would such a system give the government. Considering that they can already trace 99% of shit/Ask witnesses.
@Bainshie. You still don't get it. A camera or device can only do one thing. It'll do it well, but it will do it stupidly. Like cameras enforcing a 40mph on wide straight road at the dead of night when 30mph is more appropriate during rush hour. A policeman however can do many many different things. Because he's human and not a robot. So if you really want to compare costs you have to add up all the electronic devices that will catch every single type of crime and compare it to the cost of a human. Don't forget that the devices will still need a human to maintain them. And you do not need a policeman on every corner. You just need them hovering around in random places, or places where problems occur. It's the visible presence of police that makes them effective, not the catching of the criminal after they've committed the act.
If I could interject... The concept that magically its safe to drive at high speed, just because its late at night and "empty" is complete garbage. I live in a 30mph zone, one of those "magic" country roads that are straight except for a S bend which is the 30mph zone. Every few months some moron flies off the road, they always claim to be doing 30mph and the police never prosecute, despite the damage. The drivers are always white middle aged males and tend to drive Citron Picasso type cars, no passengers, ie. large engine, heavy with poor cornering ability.
Speeding fine on the motorway, but especially on B roads I would welcome a device that enforced the limit. End of the day, if you are paying attention and driving expecting horses/animals/tractors etc to be in your path, you will find that you are within 5mph of the "advertised" speed limit anyway.
You know few things in life piss me off as much as those matrix signs on the M25, you crawl for miles at an average speed of 5 mph and then come up to one of those signs and the fuggin thing either says 'que ahead' or takes the piss by showing maximum speed limit 40.
I am sure there is some jobsworth barsteward sat in a control room sniggering.
I know, poor rant, should have used more swear words blah blah blah.
Excellent idea, means I can drive how I want too and only have to remove the sensor power lead/tin foil aerial overcoat once a year for the mot.
Although the calls from that Nigerian bloke offering to take care of all my infringements for a small fee could get tiresome.
Oh sh*t - that'll be me then next week !!! (except I will remember to spell CitroEn correctly in my accident write-up).
Having driven Citron's (were you trying to be funny and hint at the *nature of the car make*?) for a number of years along with other [more sporty] front wheel drives - the only observation I have is that front wheel drive tend to go spectacularly off-course (er - straight ahead-ish) if pushed too much - without much warning - if you don't know your vehicle well AND have had a few G&T's beforehand....
I learned to drive on rear wheel drive cars (yes, BMW if you want know) and lengthy re-acquaintance with a 28yr old mid-range 3-series indicates cornering I remember - much more grip than a modern front drive wheel MPV - but your nerve will fail before the car does (same bend+weather+road surface).
In short - know your car - know it's limits and know your own limits (that'll be driving skill and the alcohol and time of day)
PS - make fun of Citroen if you will - I've had 1 BMW and 3 Citroen taken to >195,000miles. the Citroens (OK all Xantia's/C5) required no more trips to repair than the BMW and cost far less to run/insure/fuel. Current 'wheelbarrow' is on 145,000 and going well (X-Picasso). Old Beemer on 72.5K (not fully run in..)
That's piss easy to fix. In between MOT's, check the mileage, then the amount of data sent. If they don't match up, BANG! 20 years in jail for possession of a dangerous weapon (Lets face it a car in the hands of a idiot is basically that).
And you seriously underestimate what computers can do. Excessive speed, lane hogging, tail gating. All easily spotable and enforceable with simple positional data.
You could then enforce nationwide variable speedlimits. It the middle of the night on a motorway? Increase the speedlimit by 10MPH. Pouring it down with rain. Decrease the speed limit. Accident just happened up ahead. Decrease the speed limit for a while.
No more hit and runs. Increase safety, insurance claims made a LOT easier.
Ofc, the real reason you lot don't want it. Because you're those 'Speed limits are just a guide, I know how to drive' wankers. I can imagine you now, fat white balding idiot in a van, a mobile phone in one hand, a sandwich in the other and steering the vehicle with your ballsack going 50MPH outside of a school honking your horn at anyone going at the speed limit.
And yes, technically cars nowadays have the ability to safely travel far higher then the average speed limit, if the driver has enough skill. How do you know if you have that skill? Rather simple. Do you drive for the F1/other racing competition? Same answer.
Also I never get this 'Late at night' argument. Last time I checked hitting a kid at 50MPH, the physics involved doesn't give a damn whether it's light outside or not. Neither do the laws of physics when you end up losing control and smashing through the front of a innocent families house. If anything you're more likely to have a incident due to the reduced traffic inducing a level of false security, and the reduced vision (40% of all fatal and serious injuries happen during this time, even though there is a 60% reduction in traffic).
So in conclusion. You're a arse. Stop being a arse before you kill someone. You are the reason this kind of system needs to be put in place.
No- because there is the ability to add the hard shoulder as a lane which currently happen on the M25. Shortly on the M4/5 junction area though.
"I can imagine you now, fat white balding idiot in a van"
And I can imagine you now: A spittle flecked, opinionated twerp, spouting self righteous rubbish out of your @rse.
@Bainshie: You really seem to love the idea of Big Brother looking over your shoulder at everything you (and we) do, don't you? I bet you also think that "if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide" too.
Remember that the last Government wanted to put ANPR cameras at intersections on all major roads and then issue automatic speeding tickets to anyone who got from A to B quicker than they were supposed to. Of course this would also have allowed them to track exactly who goes where and when, but, hey, if these people have got nothing to hide, why should they worry?
As for your imagining of your putative interlocutors, I am a member of the IAM, I have passed my Advanced Motorcycle Test, I am neither fat, nor balding, nor drive a van, nor eat sandwiches, nor use mobile phones when moving, nor engage in any of the other ridiculous behaviours you wish to ascribe to me. In fact the only bit you did get right is that I'm white.
Not very successful imaginings, then and when you add in your belief that the system you support would eliminate hit-and-runs, tailgating and all the other nonsense, well, I can do you a good deal on Tower Bridge...
And telling people that don't agree with you that "you're an arse" doesn't add anything to the validity or credibility of your arguments either.
Aha, you're one of those are you? Spending on roads != building and repairing roads.
@Bainshie - "Excessive speed, lane hogging, tail gating. All easily spotable and enforceable with simple positional data."
Umm...no. Not unless the computer has full vision of the road, knows the conditions and has an AI. Staying in one lane (even the 'wrong' one) can sometimes be the right thing to do. But I don't think you understand that.
"It the middle of the night on a motorway? Increase the [speed limit] by 10MPH."
So at night (reduced vision) you want to increase the speed? You are assuming that the road ahead is clear, yet people have a reduced distance they can see ahead and thus less time to react; or does your wonder device also have active radar? You are clueless.
"No more hit and runs. Increase safety, insurance claims made a LOT easier."
Bollocks. Cloning/Hacking and you seem to forget that older vehicles won't have them. Oh wait, you want mandatory fitment don't you? Won't work you pillock. Never mind the sheer cost involved, some vehicles cannot have speed control etc. How are you going to manage that on a carb'd m'bike; hmm? And you do understand that m'bikes make active use of engine speed when cornering don't you? A sudden change in power could be catastrophic.
"Do you drive for the F1/other racing competition? Same answer."
Have you ever actually watched any motor-racing of any kind? Racers do not necessarily make safe drivers.
"Also I never get this 'Late at night' argument. Last time I checked hitting a kid at 50MPH, the physics involved doesn't give a damn whether it's light outside or not....If anything you're more likely to have a incident due to the reduced traffic inducing a level of false security, and the reduced vision (40% of all fatal and serious injuries happen during this time, even though there is a 60% reduction in traffic)."
Yet you advocate raising the limit at night. Make your bloody mind up!
"Stop being a arse before you kill someone. You are the reason this kind of system needs to be put in place."
Just because you are incapable of following the rule of the road does not mean the rest of us are. Yes there are idiots, but there will always be idiots and I'd like to retain at least some semblance of freedom and dignity if you don't mind.
If you are so obsessively concerned about safety, then sell your personal transport and use PT. Statistically it is much safer. Otherwise....do hush-up and go back to taking the meds.
"You really seem to love the idea of Big Brother looking over your shoulder at everything you (and we) do, don't you? I bet you also think that "if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide" too.
Remember that the last Government wanted to put ANPR cameras at intersections on all major roads and then issue automatic speeding tickets to anyone who got from A to B quicker than they were supposed to. Of course this would also have allowed them to track exactly who goes where and when, but, hey, if these people have got nothing to hide, why should they worry?"
Actually that's a good question. Why are you so against the storing of things done in public? You see, I can understand privacy in your own home. Inside your home you may want to do things that although are legal, are also socially disliked. Such privacy allows law abiding people to avoid prosecution from the public and government alike.
However, once you step outside of your door, those rights disappear. Everything you do becomes public knowledge. I can legally photograph you and your surroundings all the time you are on public property. I can tweet to the world where you're driving. I can store that information and do whatever I like with it.
And that right and freedom to public information is a lynchpin to modern freedom. If the government introduced a law to protect public information from being shared, these comments would be filled with people claiming it's a big brother plot to hide the wrong doings of government. Yet when the government attempts to use those rights to public information, it's a big brother plot as well? You can't have both. Ether all actions in public are protected, or none are. Anything else is Hypocritical and being less about freedom and more about just being anti-government for the sake of being anti-government.
“As for your imagining of your putative interlocutors, I am a member of the IAM, I have passed my Advanced Motorcycle Test, I am neither fat, nor balding, nor drive a van, nor eat sandwiches, nor use mobile phones when moving, nor engage in any of the other ridiculous behaviours you wish to ascribe to me. In fact the only bit you did get right is that I'm white.”
So you're one of those 600cc+ idiots weaving in an out of traffic like a idiot? I say this as a motorbike rider myself.
“Not very successful imaginings, then and when you add in your belief that the system you support would eliminate hit-and-runs, tailgating and all the other nonsense, well, I can do you a good deal on Tower Bridge...”
See my previous post about more detailed explanation on how a simple system could detect those. And although it wouldn't eliminate them, it would reduce them dramatically. If you seriously couldn't see how having a GPS system in every car would help find and convict hit and run drivers.... then you seriously need a better imagination.
If anything you're more likely to have a incident due to the reduced traffic inducing a level of false security, and the reduced vision (40% of all fatal and serious injuries happen during this time, even though there is a 60% reduction in traffic).
So in conclusion. You're a arse. Stop being a arse before you kill someone. You are the reason this kind of system needs to be put in place.
Did you inadvertently call All 4x4 drivers Arse's??
"Why are you so against the storing of things done in public?"
You're asking the wrong question. You should be thinking "Why should everything done in public be subject to monitoring and storage?"
I have the right to "Go about my lawful business without let or hindrance". I do not have to prove that I have done nothing wrong, nor does the state have the right to monitor my every movement and action *just in case* I might do something wrong, this is a fundamental freedom that I enjoy in this country (well, more or less, since successive governments have already started whittling away at these rights!)
You seem to want a system like in the old East Germany where half the country was spying on the other half. I don't.
By the way, please understand that there is a difference between Public Information about what the Government is doing (since they are actually supposed to work for us) and information about what a private individual is doing and when you say "I can store that information and do whatever I like with it.", I suggest you look at the stipulations of the Data Protection Act (not to mention the laws against Stalking) and you may just find that actually you cannot necessarily legally do this.
"So you're one of those 600cc+ idiots weaving in an out of traffic like a idiot? I say this as a motorbike rider myself."
No, I am the one of the ones who is Making Progress legally and safely. And if you haven't taken Advanced Training, I'd strongly recommend it as I would to any other biker so they can do the same and *not* "weave in and out of traffic like an idiot".
Finally, how would your Big Brother system for "convicting hit and run drivers" work with stolen cars? Hmm...
Sounds exactly what TomTom is doing (with relative success) for years, using Vodafone mobile as it's main data source. Works very well when the servers are up and running...
Why duplicate efforts and more importantly split the data as the higher the samples the better the stats are...
And for once I nearly believe that data handling by a private company might be safer than by a big brother obsessed state.
Don't know why you've posted Anon.
TomTom, Navteq (Traffic.com, etc...) both have been doing it. Its being done on a voluntary basis.
Now those w Google Androids... I believe they may be doing it too, but less voluntary in nature.
TrafficMaster were afaik the first to gather and resell this kind of data in the UK, with their standalone pager-technology YQ devices.
These days you do it in software with something like TrafficTV on your smartphone (including Symbian S60).
UK traffic info on Google Maps is utterly utterly useless in comparison with TrafficTV. But it's Google, and it's free, so it must be good. Well, unless you want to know where the congestion is.
In defence of GMaps, I find it's quite accurate actually. Only yesterday it told me about a hold up after a junction on the M42 and thanks to Maps I was safe in the knowledge it was only a few hundred meters long
There were the proposals from a few years ago which would fix a number of these issue with one fell swoop.
The first plan was to change the M25 junctions so you could only join from a Motorway or A1(M)/A3(M) type road whilst leaving at any of the current junctions thus removing a lot of the junction hoppers.
The second idea was to remove all trains from the current overground setup, cover it in tarmac and move all HGVs and long distance coaches onto it. They would be required to use it until within a set distance of their destination (some weird formula was put together).
Between the two measures they reckoned to clear 30-40% of current traffic off the roads including the bulk of the traffic which can least cope with rapid changes of average speed.
"The second idea was to remove all trains from the current overground setup, cover it in tarmac and move all HGVs and long distance coaches onto it."
Surely that would be self defeating because it would displace thousands of train passengers into their cars? Or do you imagine they would happily take coaches instead? I don't see it myself - it's not the same experience at all.
Or have a roll-on-roll-off rail network for HGVs. The only traffic would be from a city hub to local distribution.
"Or do you imagine they would happily take coaches instead? I don't see it myself - it's not the same experience at all."
Hmm, sMegabus and 'electronic ciggies'.
or Divine Comedy's 'National Express'?
The loading gauge of the UK's rail network isn't big enough for a truck on a train carriage.
Perhaps someone should invent some sort of standard storage module which can be transferred between rail and road as appropriate. If you were really ambitious you could even consider using them on ships.
Great idea. You should patent it.
How about calling these things 'Shipping Containers'?
I can't see that name catching on.
I was going to call them Portable All Routes Identical Storage.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017