Conference terri::cars_uk

It's the Goblins

    The people who used to make the corn circles, fed up with the country ?
    
    
    Shaun
    

    
    Testing new road materials for wear ?
    
    Chris

    This has been discussed in here before, but it may be difficult to
    find!
    
    They're to do with a nationwide survey of all road junctions being
    carried out by the Department of Transport (or whatever they're called
    now). 
    
    Ian.

    
    Re. 0.
    
    The ones on the M4 between junctions 13 and 11 are 1/4 of a mile apart.
    
    I've assumed them to be timing marks so that the powers that be can
    determine whether, or by how much !!, you're over the 70 limit.
    
    Rich
    
    

    The speeding marks used to be put near one of the raised smokey
    sleeping posts. In anycase there used to be 2 markers at something like
    1/4 to 1/2 mile apart (der, start here , stop there, cor 'es goin'
    fast, lets nab 'im). Unless the cops are getting cleaver and can do it
    with 1 mark or they need the 1 mark for the hair dryer, I don't think
    you'll find they are for speeding. Most of then I have seen have been
    nead an intersection.
    
    Garry

	With a VASCAR system the police only need a common start or
	finish point to calculate your average speed. Sometimes the
	use motorway bridges, otherwise they can use marks in the road.

	The best way to get motorway speeders is to use the VASCAR machine
	to measure the distance from a fixed point, i.e. bridge, to a
	raised observation post at the side of the hard shoulder. This
	distance is then fixed in to the VASCAR's memory. If a car is
	thought to be travelling too fast on approach to the bridge the
	officer presses the "time start" botton. When the speeding car
	approaches the observation point it may try to slow down, but
	as it passes the "time stop" button is pressed. A simple distance
	over time calculation results in the cars average speed.

	Sometimes the officer doing the recording is hidden from view
	and can radio the registration number ahead to a number of waiting
	motorcycle patrols.

	The marks on the motorway can have a fixed distance between them
	and provide an easy way to start and stop timers as vehicles pass
	over them, especially from HELICOPTERS.

	Graham

    	Intriguing replies - thanks! I will take more care to observe where
    these mysterious beings occur. I also thought, originally, that they
    were placed near junctions for some reason but this is not so. Also,
    while I can appreciate their use for VASCAR on the M-way, why then are
    they also on smaller roads (and not near junctions)?
    
    	I will be more observant and try and explain where they are located
    ; so far, there is no explanation that I find "plausible" (sound like a
    family tv game....)
    
    Colin

    The marks that the police use for VASCAR are large white circles, not
    small white squares.
    
    Ian.

    I always thought that the small white squares (sometimes small shiny
    steel squares embedded in carriageway) were something to do with
    surveying the distance between known points ie. junctions, in order to
    make maps and distance tables etc.
    
    
    Stevie.

    As mentioned a few back I think their for testing the durability of
    road marking paint. We used to have some  on a dual carriage way near
    me although they were just stripes, but it could be something similar.
    
    Regards Martin

    
    All the ones that I have seen have 2 commonalities, which are
    
    a: they are not that small approx 18 inches X 18 inches
    b: they are always 1/10th of a mile from a vantage point, (ie: bridge,
       police vehicle only points)
    
     This leads me to sugest that they are for speed checking purposes, as
     VASCaR needs a 'minimum distance travelled' of 1/10th mile, it may be
     an idea to double check that 'Pedestrian' on the overhead gantry..
    
      Alan
        

    
    I saw a dead hedghog in the road the other day. Come to think of it I
    have seen quite a few recently. Maybe the police are using the as
    reference points for radar traps.
    
    Chris

    Couldn't help but think if these white squares were for testing the
    durability of roadmarking paint they would be where the tyres
    contacted, not in the middle of the road.
    
    I do however agree with the theory about the police using them for
    speedtraps. I believe them to be for the helicopters, maybe this is a
    bit of forward planning for the summer. When the visibility will be
    better and the traffic will be probably heavier with the movement for
    the summer holidays. The police will be able to spot the odd "maniac",
    they could check the speed from the helicopter and pass the details
    onto a waiting patrol car.
    	I doubt they are for the patrol cars to use as you would get
    "paralex" from the position of police relative to the car & white
    square. This would give an inacurate speed reading and would therefore
    be pointless. Also would the patrol officer be able to to see the other
    white mark.
    
    Andy  

    
    Andy the next time your coming back from chilton check the carriageway
    there are only 2 whit squares and they are next to each other, albeit
    in different lanes, and they (by my trip meter) are 1/10th mile from
    a bridge.
    
      Alan.
    

    	I reckon that between them Alan and Andy have got it right - thanks
    fellas!! There are several on the M4 between junctions 11 and 12 which
    are in the outside lane only ; on other occasions they are in all three
    lanes. There are several on the A34 going North (towards Oxford) from
    junction 13 M4. One of these pairs (one in each carriageway) is nowhere
    near a bridge that I can see so I believe the helicoptor bit.
    
    	Thanks for all your suggestions....
    
    Colin

I have also notices white lines, dots etc, on various roads, and they are
almost always in the 3rd or 2nd and 3rd lanes.

Maybe the Police just don't think people speed in the 1st lane!!!

mb

    I fail to see how catching speeding motorists justifies the cost of
    keeping a helicopter in the air.
    
    Laurie.

re .18;

They justify the chopper along the lines of "rapid deployment, tracking
villians, seige situations, air ambulance, etc, etc - and while on
routine patrols it can stop the dangerous high speed motorists."

In fact, I wonder what proportion of it's time it spends doing the
"proper" stuff, and how much it ends up chasing speeders.

Peter.

    
    .18  It probably eliminates some of the hospital bills which occur
         after accidents (which are usually caused by people who break the
         speed limuit).
    

Re: .20

Funny, i thought that most accidents happended below 56mph, thus you are
actually safer going fast!!!!!!

... don't you just _love_ statistics.

mb

    RE: .20
    
    Crap.
    
    Laurie.

    	Let's keep this "clean", gents - they are white squares, after all!
    I am pleased to see the police taking a more active interest in
    dangerous or stupid (often amounts to the same thing) driving rather
    than out and out speeding. In my opinion, someone doing 65-70
    constantly in the centre lane (particularly flat out Transit vans which
    do 80 downhill and 50 uphill) is a far greater safety risk than someone
    in a car capable of 100+ mph doing 90 but practicing "advanced driving"
    techniques.
    
    	Accidents on motorways are largely caused by driving too close to
    the car in front for the speed and bad overtaking practices (witness
    the case of the car which rejoined the Mway after a beakdown and got
    hit by a truck - his kid got killed because he pulled onto the Mway
    without adjusting his speed and merging into the traffic stream. Idiots
    like this need banning for life as they are obviously incompetent to
    drive safely.....
    
    Colin

    
    
    Somewhere else in this conference there are a number of notes giving
    details of the 'new' offences etc. etc. These details are being sent
    out with car tax reminders.
    
    Perhpas the introduction of these white squares etc. are to co-incide
    with the introduction of these offences so people can/will be more
    easily caught ??
    
    Rich
    

The police in the West Midlands and surrounding areas are assigning over 300
officers to crack down on what they have determined to be the two biggest
causes of accidents on motorways - following too close and exceeding the
speed limit.

As to Mr Brown and the idiots who think that the speed limit is determined
by vehicle performance; it may be true that most accidents involve vehicles
travelling at less than 50 mph, but most accidents involving vehicles that
break the speed limit are fatal.

jb

   <<< Note 1666.23 by VOGON::DAWSON "Turn ignition on - Turn brain off!" >>>
                -< It's not just speeding that is the problem >-

    [ ... ]
        
    	Accidents on motorways are largely caused by driving too close to
    the car in front for the speed and bad overtaking practices (witness
    the case of the car which rejoined the Mway after a beakdown and got
    hit by a truck - his kid got killed because he pulled onto the Mway
    without adjusting his speed and merging into the traffic stream. Idiots
    like this need banning for life as they are obviously incompetent to
    drive safely.....

Well, this particular idiot has just lost his son. Perhaps a lifetime ban
won't be the main thing on his mind at the moment. 
  
    Colin

Dougie

    

    	But it could have been the lorry driver or some other poor innocent
    who got involved in somebody else's accident. How many times have you
    seen someone do something really stupid and drive off leaving havoc in
    their wake?? I have many times. I am sorry he lost his son but that
    does not make him any less of an idiot nor, in my humble opinion, should
    he not be banned for life for putting several lives at risk, including
    his own. 
    
    Colin

    I called the Reading traffic police. The white squares are used by the
    police to measure distances for the VASCAR jobby. They are not used by
    helicopters. He advised me to drive carefully ..... ;-)
    
    
    Lisa.
    

Re. 26

	The guy lost his son. Alright, it's indeed sad and pathetic. Yet 
	he took the risk of losing his son, and also other people's sons.
	He deserves to be banned for life. In no way and in no circumstances
	should anybody be allowed to risk other people's life. I thoroughly
	agree with you Colin. 

	Speeding is not the real problem, though (it's only my opinion).
	If you're alone at 6 am on the motorway, and you've got a ferrari,
	just please yourself, go for it, as long as there is nobody in
	front of you. Real danger is driving to close. If the guy in front of
	you is overtaking in the fast lane at 80 mph, and you swoop down at
	him doing 130 mph and then keep just 5 feet behind him, 
	what do you think this means? It just means that you are perfectly
	conscious that if the guy in front, for any reason in the world, has
	to do an emergency stop, you will most probably kill him, 100% chance
	kill yourself, and surely every other person in the car with you. 
	You know it, but still you want to take the risk. Fine with you. But
	again, I see no reason why you shouldn't be banned for life, even 
	if you lose your wife and your kids. 

	There was a huge accident last week near Paris: a 38t lorry fell from a 
	road overlooking the fast lane of the motorway. When I drove by, a few
	minutes later, I saw about a dozen cars smashed to pieces on the fast
	lane, mainly GTIs and BMWs. I don't know how many people were killed
	or injured, I don't care. But I guess those guys were driving too close.

	BTW, the same little white squares recently appeared in some large 
	avenues in Paris, about 50 yards before they get to crossroads. I 
	just don't know what they're there for.

		Pierre

    Re: .27 .29

    I wonder if there is any connection between what these replies suggest I
    said, and what I actually said.
                                                    
    Tootling merrily down the rathole. 13 Deaths on the road yesterday. 6
    in Northern Ireland. Are the percentage of road deaths normally higher
    in Northern Ireland? And if so, why?

    Dougie
     

    
    Thanks Lisa for researching the reason of the Squares appearance. That
    has closed half of this rat hole. To open up the other half alittle....
    Is following too close really the cause of accidents ?? or is it mearly
    a scapegoat ?? IMHO the real cause of 'accidents' (fatal or not) should
    be passed back to the manufacturers, because if they could produce
    breaking/suspention systems and tyres that could bring a vehicle fron
    95 to 0 mph in little under 0.0012 inches then rear end
    shunts/collisions would be a thing of the past. Following too close may
    result in an accident but poor breaking performance is surely the
    cause.Alan
    
    
    

    re .31
    
    No matter how good the brakes are, if you are going too close you wont
    stop in time. You will hit the vehicle in front before you can reach
    the brake pedal.
    
    Andrew

	Then it must be God's fault: let's imagine that manufacturers 
	produce the ultimate breaking system that "could bring a vehicle 
	from 95 to 0 mph in little under 0.0012 inches", then your body 
	wouldn't resist the absorption of the kinetic energy. You'd get
	killed all the same. But I don't want to accuse our Creator. Then
	it must be the doctor's fault, for not being able to perfect our
	body and make it resist thousands of Gs. 

		Pierre

	In "advanced driving" lessons in France, you have a interesting demo:
	you drive with six other cars on a seven lane track, each car on a 
	different lane, but with a distance of 30 feet between the cars. Thus
	the 7 cars make a diagonal line, and you can only see the boot of the 
	car in front of you. All cars drive at the same speed: 40 mph. The idea
	is this: the car in front is going to do an emergency stop. As soon as 
	the car behind sees the brake light lit up, it must do an emergency 
	stop. Same thing for the 5 other cars behind. The result: the seven 
	cars end up on one horizontal line. You can imagine what would have
	happened if all cars were driving on the same lane. And that was only
	40 mph at a 30 feet distance.

	Other exercize: you're driving at 40 mph, with an instructor on the
	passenger seat. There are two guns fixed on the side of the car, 
	loaded with chalk pads and directed towards the track. One of the gun 
	is connected to the brake pedal: it is fired on the slightest pressure
	on the pedal. The other gun is fired by the instructor. As soon as he 
	fires it, you must do an emergency stop (and automatically fire
	the second gun). The result: there are 30 feet between the two chalk
	marks on the track. Once again, that was only 40 mph, and you are 
	alert, since you know the instructor is going to fire the gun. So
	what happens on the road when you're driving at 120 mph, 10 feet 
	behind another car?

		Pierre

    
    re: .31
    
    > Is following too close really the cause of accidents ?? or is it mearly
    > a scapegoat ??
    
    In my (not very humble) opinion, though driving too close is not THE
    cause of accidents, it is a cause of very many accidents.
    
    I habitually drive much further behind other cars than most drivers, a
    gap of two seconds is an ABOSULTE MINIMUM. It is a pain when idiots
    slip into the gap, but as I want to stay alive, I just drop back
    further.  If some fool drive very close behind me, then I simply
    increase he gap in front to give him (behind) more time to stop - ie.
    I don't have to brake as hard.
    
    About 10 days ago on the (3 lane) motorway between Brussels and Gent
    during the rush hour, I was in a line in the fast lane doing about 80
    MPH, all very close (but me). Someone in front braked hard, result 5 or
    6 cars in front with broken radiators, boots etc. (also several behind
    but I don't know how many). I had several yards to spare and the guy.
    fairly close, behind also had a spare yard or two.
     
    And that's not the first time I've avoided a colision by leaving enough
    room.
    
    Driving too close is, mile for mile, FAR more dangerous than speeding.
    
    Mike H.
    

    
    I think that .-2 meant he would'nt have to brake too hard to avoid
    an accident and could brake much more gentley than you would have to in
    an immergancy, the person behind him would therefore have a longer
    period to register what was happening and brake accordingly, however
    if he was very close and you braked he would hit you anyway, what
    happens a lot over here in germany is that when people brake harshly
    they also switch thier hazard lights on this gives people a few cars
    back the possibility to register somethings wrong before they see the
    car in front brake, not unlike the use of he high brake lights now
    required by the law in the US.
    

>>       <<< Note 1666.34 by JARRY::HULLIN "Ibant obsuri sola sub nocte" >>>

    Before I begin, I'll state I advocate good spacing AND good observation.
    
    Now re the note, First example is good, it's a fair test of reaction.
    
    Second test is not, reacting to the signal of someone beside you is
    NOT the same as reacting to something happening on the road ahead.
    
    You'd generally get more signs of impending doom than just the lights
    immidiately in front of you.

    Richard

Assuming you meant VASCAR...

As you pass a landmark, the police car will start the timer.
As The police car passes the same landmark it starts the distance measurer.
As you pass a second landmark, the police car stops the timer and has the time
you took to travel from one landmark to the next
As the police car passes the second landmark the police stops the distance
measurer and has the distance between the landmarks.

With distance and time, they obviously are able to compute your speed.

From their point of view - they don't have to maintain a steady distance between
			   you and them.
			 - no radar for you to detect
			 - no police car for you to notice

Also...

The police car can store the distance between 2 landmarks and then sit somewhere
out of direct line of sight and time cars between them - I beleive that this
is what the white squares are used for as the police car can then sit on the
bridge and radio registration numbers to another police car somewhere up ahead.

John.

    The little white square are on roads which drivers are more likely to
    speed. In parts of Central London the Met. Police uses these squares
    and a hidden (except a night when they flash) camera to record speeding
    drivers. I have been sent a letter warning that I was doing 42mph in a
    30mph speed limit at 03:30 on Sunday morning in December. It states as
    from September all drivers WILL be fined and points added to there
    license. They have installed a camera at Calcot, Reading on the A4 this
    week. For every one camera installed 9 will be "dummies".
    
    	A friend of mine works at the Road Research Lab in Crowthorne and
    he said they are just not a white painted square. More than that I
    couldn't get out of him.
    
    John
    

... but if the squared are used for TIMING over a known distance, how does the
camera know when to take a picture - i thought that they used RADAR?

If you mate knows a little more then i am sure we can all club together to buy
him a pint. I understand that embedded wires in the road can be used to
determine your speed, but why paint them?

Sigh, what is the world coming to.

mb

    The camera in Calcot is at the bottum of Langley Hill. Its not for
    catching speeding motorist thought, just motorists over a certain
    weight limit...  The idea is to stop lorries etc short cutting over the
    hill to the other side of Tilehurst, they have installed a weight
    bridge into the road, you'll see it if you look. They have also
    installed one in Langle Hill as well.
    
    So cut out the pudding..... or you might be fined....
    
    Neil