Speed camera detector ban

Richard Corfield said:

Don't they also give audible warning, in which case wouldn't extending the
database to cover all speed limits, not just those with cameras on, be a
good thing? It would be so easy to do with current GPS technology. I'd
stick at the verbal warning, rather than enforcing the limit, as there may
be reasons to hit transient high speeds that the system cannot know about.

There are trials going on in Leeds (IIRC) on a GPS based speed
controller for cars. The big effort is to map all the speed limits into
the database to extend it beyond Leeds. It does not prevent you going
over the speed limit but the accelerator pedal becomes heavy and needs a
good push to go any faster so that its pretty easy to stick to the speed
limit but go faster if an emergency requires it.

Tony

Velvet said:

I've had a few instances that've highlighted this 'common focussing
distance' in the last week, and I've been mulling this over, so was
intrigued to hear you post about the fighter plane HUDs.

Its a known problem in the airline industry - if there is a fairly bland
scene such a blank blue sky or flying in cloud the eyes will tend to
relax to focus about 6-8 ft away. The trouble then is if an aircraft
comes into view its out of focus so you cannot see it so you don't
notice it and don't focus on it - a vicious loop.

Tony

Shaun said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

John Burns said:

I'm sure they could agree on a compromise. Maybe motorists would agree
not to use detectors and the government could agree to remove the
cameras.

ITYM "Maybe motorists would agree not to *break the speed limits and
the government could agree to remove the cameras.

Perhaps motorists would agree not to hit cyclists if cyclists agreed
to fit lights and look where they are going

I've kept my side of that bargain every time I've been out on a bike.
A shame the blind bat that hit me with her Clio failed to keep hers;
I've not been able to ride a bike for nearly 8 months because of that.

Pulling out of a side road, she somehow managed to miss seeing the
hugely overspec halogen lights but managed not to miss actually
hitting me.

"Shaun" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Perhaps motorists would agree not to hit cyclists if cyclists agreed
to fit lights and look where they are going

Considering the complaints drivers have about cyclists without lights maybe
they only see the ones without lights :-)
--
Mark

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 13:31:14 GMT, Shaun
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps motorists would agree not to hit cyclists if cyclists agreed
to fit lights and look where they are going

From personal experience, using lights and looking where you are going
does not prevent numpties from crashing into you. I have spent more
on lights than some people spend on their entire bike.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

In news:[email hidden],
Tony Raven <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

Graeme said:

They said it was set to act as if it was eight feet
away as that was the natural distance that drivers eyes focussed on.
I found that pretty scarey! Apparently this is also the distance
that fighter plane HUDs use (according to my dad, who used to design
them) so maybe it isn't too worrying after all. :-/

As someone who has worked on the optical design of HUDs I can tell you
your Dad is wrong.

What haven't you done in your life?

A

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Tony Raven <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

As someone who has worked on the optical design of HUDs I can tell you
your Dad is wrong.

What haven't you done in your life?

I swear he was the sixth Beatle, too.

R.

Ricardo said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Tony Raven <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

As someone who has worked on the optical design of HUDs I can tell you
your Dad is wrong.

What haven't you done in your life?

I swear he was the sixth Beatle, too.

R.

You may say that, I couldn't possibly comment ;-)

Tony

Ambrose Nankivell said:

What haven't you done in your life?

Been a woman

Tony ;-)

Tony Raven said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

What haven't you done in your life?

Been a woman

Tony ;-)

You know, with modern medical techniques now, you can get most of the
way there... time to start saving? ;-)

--

Velvet

Tony Raven <[email hidden]> wrote in news:2lsp1fFggqisU1@uni-
berlin.de:

Quoted message said:

As someone who has worked on the optical design of HUDs I can tell you
your Dad is wrong.

More likely my memory of what he said is wrong. This was about 10 years or
so ago.

Graeme

Velvet said:

You know, with modern medical techniques now, you can get most of the
way there... time to start saving? ;-)

I like me as I am plus my S.O. might have something to say about it ;-)

Tony

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I have spent more
on lights than some people spend on their entire bike.

That's not difficult in these days of supermarket gas pipe bikes and decent
halogen lights. I've spent more on a *battery* than my last bike cost
(okay, I did rescue that one from the bin but...)

Graeme

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Graeme said:

They said it was set to act as if it was eight feet
away as that was the natural distance that drivers eyes focussed on. I
found that pretty scarey! Apparently this is also the distance that

fighter

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

plane HUDs use (according to my dad, who used to design them) so maybe

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

isn't too worrying after all. :-/

As someone who has worked on the optical design of HUDs I can tell you
your Dad is wrong. They focus to infinity because the prime aim is to
prevent the pilot having to refocus between the world outside and
looking at his instruments.

Tony

So, optically, how do you form an image to 'focus' at infinity?

Graeme said:

That's not difficult in these days of supermarket gas pipe bikes and
decent halogen lights. I've spent more on a *battery* than my last bike
cost (okay, I did rescue that one from the bin but...)

There was a conversation on the trikes list about these bikes using nylon
bushings instead of wheel bearings nowadays.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.

LaoFuZhi said:

So, optically, how do you form an image to 'focus' at infinity?

In simple terms, put the object at the focus of a lens and the image of
the object will be formed at infinity i.e. the rays of light from each
point on the object exit the lens parallel to each other so they
converge to a point on the image at infinity.

Tony

Quoted message said:

From personal experience, using lights and looking where you are going
does not prevent numpties from crashing into you. I have spent more
on lights than some people spend on their entire bike.

Here's me in full "cloak of invisibility" mode...

white LED helmet mounted light
2 x Cateye HL-EL300 Front LED Lights
1 x front white flashing LED
1 x *bright* rear red light
1 x "ordinary" rear red light
1 x rear red flashing LED
Self swathed in reflectives from head to foot also reflectives on bike too
(front side and rear)

During the day I am a vision in fluorescent or bright yellow.

Yet some motorists still seem to have difficulty in spotting me without last
second diversions along the lines of "Oh my god, it's a cyclist!" Even though I
cycle assertively - don't wobble all over the place and actually indicate my
intentions.

I have to say, I do have little sympathy with cyclists who cycle during hours
of darkness with lights *off* and don't make any attempt to make themselves
visible.

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 00:58:59 +0100, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

I like me as I am plus my S.O. might have something to say about it ;-)

And you're a bit tall for a girlie anyway :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Quoted message said:

Perhaps motorists would agree not to hit cyclists if cyclists agreed
to fit lights and look where they are going

I have kept my side of the bargain and still get hit. Usualy by folk
not looking .....

Richard Webb

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

LaoFuZhi said:

So, optically, how do you form an image to 'focus' at infinity?

In simple terms, put the object at the focus of a lens and the image of
the object will be formed at infinity i.e. the rays of light from each
point on the object exit the lens parallel to each other so they
converge to a point on the image at infinity.

Tony

Sorry, Must be me; I was lead to believe an image had to be formed at some
finite point.....