Sat Nav in Cars (Photo comment)

Jon O'Brien

In article <yqv+Z26zqaTHFwbG@nospam.demon.co.uk>,
{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk (Dominic Sexton) wrote:

> But in reality the problem is with HGVs driving down those roads
> not why they drive there so really the sign should be no HGVs or a
> width, height, length or weight restriction.

Fairynuff.

Jon.

Gordon H

Dominic Sexton <{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <memo.20071128154927.1696F@blue.compulink.co.uk>, Jon
>O'Brien <Jon@N0onlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com> writes
>>In article <6FxzgyE+bUTHFwYk@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid>,
>>Gordon@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid (Gordon H) wrote:
>>
>>> I have had to do that for huge artics before SatNav was available.
>>> They are now used for deliveries in some ridiculous areas; one
>>> wrong turn and they are in a jam...
>>
>>Sadly, just another example of people becoming too reliant on technology.
>>Very similar to people making stupid mistakes because they believe what a
>>calculator tells them, having cocked up the data entry.
>
>When an HGV driver with no knowledge of an area turns into a road which
>appears to be perfectly passable at the junction how are they supposed
>to know it will be impassable or a tight squeeze further down the road?
>
>Once they have committed to the road it can be a major issue to try and
>turn round or reverse a considerable way to a spot where they can turn
>round. It isn't like reversing a car to the nearest entrance and easily
>turning round so I very much doubt that there are many HGV drivers out
>there who will turn down a road that look decidedly dodgy from the outset.
>
When a new Sainsbury supermarket (Denton) was started some years ago I
noted that it was immediately alongside a railway line, and thought what
a brilliant idea it was.

No chance! Everything comes by road.
--
Gordon H
(Remove "Invalid" to reply)

Gordon H

Dominic Sexton <{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <memo.20071128172947.1696M@blue.compulink.co.uk>, Jon
>O'Brien <Jon@N0onlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com> writes
>>It's the blind trust of technology that's the problem, not the technology
>>itself. As is attested to by the fact that SAT NAV is specifically cited
>>on the road sign.
>
>But in reality the problem is with HGVs driving down those roads not
>why they drive there so really the sign should be no HGVs or a width,
>height, length or weight restriction.
>
This is of course additional to the law which should ban them from all
roads between 7am and midnight. ;-)

(According to a walking partner of mine).
--
Gordon H
(Remove "Invalid" to reply)

Dominic Sexton

In article <memo.20071128181221.1696N@blue.compulink.co.uk>, Jon O'Brien
<Jon@N0onlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com> writes
>In article <5Kb8RT6hoaTHFwZh@nospam.demon.co.uk>,
>{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk (Dominic Sexton) wrote:
>
>> It isn't false if the unit does what they expect it to! Which it
>> does in the vast majority of cases.
>
>I don't want to nit-pick but, as far as I can see, the sense of security
>is false if there's any chance that it will fail to do what it's supposed
>to. If you never know whether or not you can depend on it, any sense of
>security is false.

Nothing is completely reliable or secure so where do you draw the line
between being a true sense of security and a false sense of security?

--

Dominic Sexton

Jon O'Brien

In article <cRNF3qA4jfTHFwsM@nospam.demon.co.uk>,
{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk (Dominic Sexton) wrote:

> Nothing is completely reliable or secure so where do you draw the
> line between being a true sense of security and a false sense of
> security?

By your definition, there would be no line.

Jon.

Dominic Sexton

In article <memo.20071129003943.1696R@blue.compulink.co.uk>, Jon O'Brien
<Jon@N0onlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com> writes
>In article <cRNF3qA4jfTHFwsM@nospam.demon.co.uk>,
>{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk (Dominic Sexton) wrote:
>
>> Nothing is completely reliable or secure so where do you draw the
>> line between being a true sense of security and a false sense of
>> security?
>
>By your definition, there would be no line.

Indeed by my definition they are only being lulled into a false sense of
security when the sat nav is leading them astray but they are blissfully
unaware of that fact. At any other times their faith (or lack of it) in
the sat nav is of no relevance.

--

Dominic Sexton

Bill Grey

In message <memo.20071128172947.1696M@blue.compulink.co.uk>, Jon O'Brien
<Jon@N0onlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com> writes
>They can't know. However, when routing was done manually, with reference
>to maps, the people who did the routing would generally avoid sending
>commercial vehicles through residential areas when alternatives were
>available. Many would also call the delivery address and ask about access
>if it was the first time they'd delivered to that location.
>
>It's the blind trust of technology that's the problem, not the technology
>itself. As is attested to by the fact that SAT NAV is specifically cited
>on the road sign.

Considering the fact that nothing is perfect, then the current use of
SatNav which works for the most part perfectly well for delivery drivers
in strange locations, then one must accept the very odd occasions when
things go haywire.
--
Bill Grey

Bill Grey

In message <yqv+Z26zqaTHFwbG@nospam.demon.co.uk>, Dominic Sexton
<{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <memo.20071128172947.1696M@blue.compulink.co.uk>, Jon
>O'Brien <Jon@N0onlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com> writes
>>It's the blind trust of technology that's the problem, not the technology
>>itself. As is attested to by the fact that SAT NAV is specifically cited
>>on the road sign.
>
>But in reality the problem is with HGVs driving down those roads not
>why they drive there so really the sign should be no HGVs or a width,
>height, length or weight restriction.
>

Where I live there is a T junction around which even lesser vehicles
than Artics have trouble in negotiating. This has resulted in one hedge
being demolished, a dry stone wall being re-designed and a concrete
block wall being flattened. This all occurred before SatNav came into
being so the map reading and route finding of the drivers must have been
at fault in not having researched their route before hand.

I would be interested to know if SatNav does in fact route drivers
around our area and cause drivers to get into sticky situations.
--
Bill Grey

Terry Pinnell

Roger <roger@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:

>The message <M0buMIDVTUTHFwcd@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid>
>from Gordon H <Gordon@g3snx.demon.co.uk.invalid> contains these words:
>
>> In one case I was unable to work out how to get back onto the main road
>> (A556) to get us home, but turned up a narrow lane and trusted the
>> SatNav. I was a bit uneasy on a single-track section, but it
>> brought us out onto the main road within a couple of miles or so.
>
>> I would not have been happy if I was driving a truck, which brings us
>> back to the road sign!
>
>That reminds me of an incident on the weekend Martin joined the Marilyn
>Hall of Fame. We were heading for some miserable little Marilyn to round
>the day off using the on road programming in Martins handheld (60cs?)
>which probably has basically the same software as my Nuvi 310. It routed
>us onto a single track short cut which I don't think was the quick
>option anyway but we then met white van man who wouldn't back up all of
>2 or 3 yards forcing Martin to reverse well over 100 which delayed us
>further.
>
>So, for those who still retain the ability to read a map (:-)) which
>route would you take from SN 844137 to SN 857100.

If this was QI I expect I'd now get the klaxon usually reserved for
Alan Davies, but here goes...

I'd choose the scenic route, past Henrhyd Falls and Tonyfildre. About
2.9 miles. But I expect you're going to tell us the 4.6 mile main road
route is three times faster!

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Phil Cook

Bill Grey wrote:

>In message <memo.20071128172947.1696M@blue.compulink.co.uk>, Jon O'Brien
><Jon@N0onlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com> writes
>>They can't know. However, when routing was done manually, with reference
>>to maps, the people who did the routing would generally avoid sending
>>commercial vehicles through residential areas when alternatives were
>>available. Many would also call the delivery address and ask about access
>>if it was the first time they'd delivered to that location.
>>
>>It's the blind trust of technology that's the problem, not the technology
>>itself. As is attested to by the fact that SAT NAV is specifically cited
>>on the road sign.
>
>Considering the fact that nothing is perfect, then the current use of
>SatNav which works for the most part perfectly well for delivery drivers
>in strange locations, then one must accept the very odd occasions when
>things go haywire.

Indeed nothing is perfect, do you remember the Spar truck and trailer
that got stuck up Hardknot? He wasn't using sat nav, he'd asked for
directions at filling station.
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Geal Charn above Glen Markie
http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/Oct07/wh11.htm

Roger

The message <249tk3hua66me1ua0imvok2384vv78c26t@4ax.com>
from Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> contains these words:

> >That reminds me of an incident on the weekend Martin joined the Marilyn
> >Hall of Fame. We were heading for some miserable little Marilyn to round
> >the day off using the on road programming in Martins handheld (60cs?)
> >which probably has basically the same software as my Nuvi 310. It routed
> >us onto a single track short cut which I don't think was the quick
> >option anyway but we then met white van man who wouldn't back up all of
> >2 or 3 yards forcing Martin to reverse well over 100 which delayed us
> >further.
> >
> >So, for those who still retain the ability to read a map (:-)) which
> >route would you take from SN 844137 to SN 857100.

> If this was QI I expect I'd now get the klaxon usually reserved for
> Alan Davies, but here goes...

> I'd choose the scenic route, past Henrhyd Falls and Tonyfildre. About
> 2.9 miles. But I expect you're going to tell us the 4.6 mile main road
> route is three times faster!

2.9 miles @ 20 mph should take 8 min 42 sec (but seems longer even
before adding in the 5 minute delay occasioned by white van man).

4.6 miles @ 55 mph is 5 min 1 sec so your 3 times faster does seem a
reasonable estimate.

Ignoring white van man for comparable times the average on the largely
single track road would have to be 63% of that for the A road or
approximately 35 mph if 55 mph is taken as the A roads average. While I
am confident that with little or no traffic a 55 mph average would be a
pedestrian pace on the A roads I am by no means confident that I could
average even 20 mph on the 'short cut'.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

Terry Pinnell

Roger <roger@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:

>The message <249tk3hua66me1ua0imvok2384vv78c26t@4ax.com>
>from Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> contains these words:
>
>> >That reminds me of an incident on the weekend Martin joined the Marilyn
>> >Hall of Fame. We were heading for some miserable little Marilyn to round
>> >the day off using the on road programming in Martins handheld (60cs?)
>> >which probably has basically the same software as my Nuvi 310. It routed
>> >us onto a single track short cut which I don't think was the quick
>> >option anyway but we then met white van man who wouldn't back up all of
>> >2 or 3 yards forcing Martin to reverse well over 100 which delayed us
>> >further.
>> >
>> >So, for those who still retain the ability to read a map (:-)) which
>> >route would you take from SN 844137 to SN 857100.
>
>> If this was QI I expect I'd now get the klaxon usually reserved for
>> Alan Davies, but here goes...
>
>> I'd choose the scenic route, past Henrhyd Falls and Tonyfildre. About
>> 2.9 miles. But I expect you're going to tell us the 4.6 mile main road
>> route is three times faster!
>
>2.9 miles @ 20 mph should take 8 min 42 sec (but seems longer even
>before adding in the 5 minute delay occasioned by white van man).
>
>4.6 miles @ 55 mph is 5 min 1 sec so your 3 times faster does seem a
>reasonable estimate.
>
>Ignoring white van man for comparable times the average on the largely
>single track road would have to be 63% of that for the A road or
>approximately 35 mph if 55 mph is taken as the A roads average. While I
>am confident that with little or no traffic a 55 mph average would be a
>pedestrian pace on the A roads I am by no means confident that I could
>average even 20 mph on the 'short cut'.

Even assuming no speed cameras around, I reckon a 55 mph average would
be pretty good going. No problems on the A4221, but that first stretch
down the A4067 looks a bit twisty, with 7-8 roads/streets joining it,
and wouldn't the two sharp lefts to join the A4221 take the average
right down?

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Roger

The message <o2ftk39kqns9amfromfa2r7ntc4dpi1u9m@4ax.com>
from Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> contains these words:

> >Ignoring white van man for comparable times the average on the largely
> >single track road would have to be 63% of that for the A road or
> >approximately 35 mph if 55 mph is taken as the A roads average. While I
> >am confident that with little or no traffic a 55 mph average would be a
> >pedestrian pace on the A roads I am by no means confident that I could
> >average even 20 mph on the 'short cut'.

> Even assuming no speed cameras around, I reckon a 55 mph average would
> be pretty good going. No problems on the A4221, but that first stretch
> down the A4067 looks a bit twisty, with 7-8 roads/streets joining it,
> and wouldn't the two sharp lefts to join the A4221 take the average
> right down?

I have a rule of thumb that says you rarely meet a bend on an A road
that can't be taken at least 50. :-) I don't think there are any speed
cameras as yet but I had forgotten that some of that road is subject to
the lower speed limits, although I can't recall exactly what and where.
I don't think I have ever been along those roads as anything other than
a passenger as when I go down that way I invariably turn right onto the
Trecastle road at Tafarn-y-Garreg.

If the speed was 60 mph all the way apart from the road junction the
overall average would still be above 55. However if the 4.6 miles is
divided up into 3 miles at 60, 1 at 30 and .6 at 40 the elapsed time is
increased to 5.9 minutes (5-54) and the average is only approximately
47.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

Bill Grey

In message <3130303031313434474EE4BB02@nospam.zetnet.co.uk>, Roger
<roger@nospam.zetnet.co.uk> writes
>I have a rule of thumb that says you rarely meet a bend on an A road
>that can't be taken at least 50. :-) I don't think there are any speed
>cameras as yet but I had forgotten that some of that road is subject to
>the lower speed limits, although I can't recall exactly what and where.
>I don't think I have ever been along those roads as anything other than
>a passenger as when I go down that way I invariably turn right onto the
>Trecastle road at Tafarn-y-Garreg.

You take /that/one at 50 - or your driver does - ?....Wow
--
Bill Grey