venta | Follow the tail-lights out of the city

I've heard rumours that a new kind of police camera is being trialled on motorways which detects tailgating and records the numberplates of offenders.

In contrast to speed cameras, I find myself approving muchly.

I prefer the idea of the averaging speed cameras to the current ones. They're all connected and check the elapsed time between one camera and the next. So unless you like to crawl along at 5 miles an hour to build up your time, you can't speed without actually getting done.

Which would certainly save us all from the current pattern of tearing along like loons, then breaking harshly for the speed cameras and then accelerating again.

There was a copper talking about them on the TV a while back. He said that if they were introduced on motorways, they might consider upping the speed limit to 90 or so. Lots of people drive at that speed anyway, but if they raised the limit, then lots of people would just drive faster... unless the new cameras guaranteed that they'd get caught.

Also, I read about a company that make intelligent catseyes for roads, including ones which change colour to warn you if the road surface is below freezing. They're currently working on a speed-camera in a catseye. They're just not cheap enough yet, but if all catseyes were replaced by speed cameras, that would have the desired effect as well.

I prefer the idea of the averaging speed cameras to the current ones. They're all connected and check the elapsed time between one camera and the next.

Mutter mutter privacy mutter paranoia mutter governments how we hate them.

The application here being that an ordinary speed camera could in theory photograph everyone, but actually doesn't. An averaging speed camera system is required, in order to work, to track the movements of every motorist on the road. I give it 5 years before records of these movements are kept indefinitely and made available to the police in order to identify those whose movements mark them as suspicious, and about as long before they are misappropriated by tabloid journalists.

Have a point for spotting the secret agenda.

Not only could they be used to monitor motorist's movements (handy for when those darned getaway drivers getaway), but for massive generation of extra revenue.

Any road that has those cameras on them can instantly become a toll road with no need for any extra hardware. They can even be toll roads at certain times of the day and not others.

I must not reply "Why would that be a bad thing?".
I must not reply "Why would that be a bad thing?".
I must not reply "Why would that be a bad thing?".
I must not reply "Why would that be a bad thing?".
I must not reply "Why would that be a bad thing?".
I must not reply "Why would that be a bad thing?".
I must not reply "Why would that be a bad thing?".
I must not reply "Why would that be a bad thing?".
I must not reply "Why would that be a bad thing?".
I must not reply "Why would that be a bad thing?".

(...and I even didn't use copy-and-paste the first three times.)

I think most of us can work that out.

Well, the first 3 times anyway.

I was quite interested to learn recently that a guy called David Chaum had a system 15 or so years ago that enables tolls to be automatically and electronically and anonymously collected.

The basic deal is that you pay some money to put credits on your gadget, you hang the gadget in the window of the car, and the gadget pays the toll in such a way that (for cryptographic reasons) its impossible to figure out who it was that paid that particular toll unless they tamper with their gadget in such a way that it tries to use the same credit twice. Doing that leaks enough information that you can backtrack to the point where the credit was bought and nail the perp.

Buggered if I know how it all works, but I'll try to find out next time I have a spare day or two.

The point is that the tech exists for you to have your clever tolls and me to have my privacy. The main reason it isn't in use is that governments enjoy monitoring their ~~subjects~~ citizens.

I don't know whether it could be used to prevent speeding. Maybe you could give cars an anonymous token on their way into the monitored zone, then demand it back when they leave and photograph them only if they either can't give you a valid token or else they're giving it to you too soon. But you'd have to deal with attackers who just always fail to give you a token and always claim that their gadget must have been on the blink, and I don't know how to do that.

The main reason it isn't in use is that governments enjoy monitoring their citizens.

I'm not sure that's entirely fair, but certainly it's not in their interests to spend time and money developing ways of tracking speeding etc anonymously when the technology already exists to do it with some bonus infringement of privacy.

It's tolls that I'm referring to with the tracking thing.

I suppose the fairness of my comment depends on the difference in cost of the systems - the technology for both is researched, the question is deploying it.

Perhaps it would be more reasonable for me to say that governments do not enjoy paying to not monitor their citizens.

So you've potentially got an anonymous system, and a non-anonymous system.

What's to stop "people" (ie. the government) installing the non-anonymous system, and telling everybody that it's the anonymous one?

They'd end up with something that they couldn't admit to owning, but that's in the same category as inadmissible evidence: it gives them a big clue as to where to start looking for admissible evidence.

Plus, of course, such a gadget would cost money. I believe the going rate to charge for such things is 35 quid...

What's to stop "people" (ie. the government) installing the non-anonymous system, and telling everybody that it's the anonymous one?

1) Someone would notice. In the same way, speed cameras could take a picture of every passing car and add it to a national tracking database, but we'd find out eventually. The police (or BT) can tap phones without warrants, but if it were automated on a large scale we'd find out eventually, because big secrets are quite hard to keep.

2) There's nothing in the anonymous system to prevent the gadget being implemented by a third party (or the individual user). According to the description I've seen of Chaum's work in digital cash, it doesn't compromise your anonymity for the government to control the shop where you buy credits and the tollbooth where you turn them over. So long as you trust the gadget, you're OK, and all the government knows is how many credits you're buying each week.

So, suppose that I could build the gadget myself out of off-the-shelf components, or buy one from a third party manufacturer. Likewise I could review the software and the crypto alogrithms involved. Then even though I'm not actually going to do all that, I can be fairly confident that a system so visible to the public will actually be the system claimed and not some other, incompatible system.

Obviously, this still assumes that "they" don't photograph me as I pass the tollbooth, but as I say, we'd know they were doing it and they'd have to admit that they were engaging in illegal mass surveillance of innocent people etc. etc.

Plus, of course, such a gadget would cost money

That is a nuisance, or course. But the usual use for similar non-anonymous gadgets at the moment is for toll roads, where you pay for the convenience of not having to stop at a booth and pay cash to raise a barrier. If you go through the "gadget" lane without a gadget, some machine notices and takes a picture.

Since the expense is acceptable to the public in the existing conditions, I don't see this as a major barrier to the adoption of an anonymous payment scheme. Toll roads are set to become more common regardless of the means used to actually collect the tolls. This system introduces a level of privacy impossible in a London-congestion-style "we'll photograph everyone and send them a fine in the post if they haven't phoned to pay us by the end of the day" effort.

No, the barrier to use is that no government is inclined to even explore such a means of ensuring privacy by technology as opposed to merely stipulating it by legislation.

Cycling home last night, I got to the Traffic lit crossroads between Old Road, Windmill Road, the Slade and ... um, the continuation of Old Road.

So the Volvo at the front of the queue pulls forward to turn right. I also want to turn right, so I pull forward as well, so I'm alongside it, to its left, turning outside it, so I end up on the nearside when we complete the maneouver.

And just as I stop my bike in the middle of the junction, to wait for the oncoming traffic to clear, some idiot comes blitzing through on his bike, from behind me.

He's also turning right, and can't be bothered to wait for a reasonable gap in the traffic, but insists on diving through between the oncoming cars.

There are two stupid maneouvers he could make: to my left, on the outside of the turn; or on the volvo's right, on the inside of the turn.

Oh no. He goes through between us. And narrowly missed me putting an elbow in his gut by accident. Which would have probably cannoned him into the volvo.

Which would have been justice, at least.

I never, ever sit alongside cars in a traffic que. I always take up my own space. Reason being that during the first few pedal strokes you can wobble from side to side a bit. I do not want motorists overtaking me in that time.

Oh, did I mention that I was an obstreperous bastard as well?

Fair enough: I wasn't claiming I was in the right :)

On the other hand, personally, I'd rather be outside the flow of traffic while I'm wobbling, instead of having the BMW driver immediately behind me.

There are a few extra signals that cars could do with. I propose the following:

Mostly for motorway driving, this addition would be for those moments when you're behind someone moving slower than you, and someone else is approaching from behind in the lane outside you.. but they hesitate in case you're going to pull out like so many nutjobs do. It would basically signal "I'm not a mental-case, so please pass me quickly so I can then overtake in due course."

"Thanks, and I mean that sincerely" and a "Sorry, and I mean that sincerely" indicators might also be useful, as long as they detected the level of sincerity in the driver and fined te driver a thousand pounds for insincere use.

Oh, and a "Get the fuck out of the middle lane, you middle lane hogging spanner... you're supposed to keep left unless overtaking, and you're not overtaking anything, and now a whole stream of other cars have to pull out two lanes to overtake you, you selfish pillock!" indicator would also be handy.

For the last of those, I frequently just adopt the policy of overtaking on the inside. This frequently gets the message across and they pull left shortly afterwards.

Mmm. What sort of frequency? Apart from it being illegal to pass on the left, whenever I've seen it done the middle-lane tosswads tend to carry on blindly, or flash me them irritably. Rarely do they take the point that they're not going to overtake that lorry for another 10 minutes.

I've always been a bit unclear on the passing on the left issues. It's definitely illegal to undertake - ie deliberately pull left, go round someone, pull right again.

But it isn't illegal to pass left if that's what the traffic is doing - for example if traffic is heavy, and all lanes are doing 40ish, you are expected to keep up with the flow even if that involves passing vehicles in a rightermost lane.

So, if I'm pottering along at 70 in the inside lane, and some dozy muppet is parked in the middle lane at 65, and I pass them, is that illegal ? I'm not sure.

According to the Highway Code (I didn't know this existed 5 minutes ago!) you can't overtake on the left unless you're in congested conditions. However, it doesn't have any of those big red letters, so I suspect that it's only a rule, not enforcable by a law.

You didn't know the Highway Code existed until five minutes ago ? How long have you been driving ?

:)

*raspberry*

I suspect that it's only a rule, not enforcable by a law

I reckon the ~~filth~~ lovely policemen¹ would be able to do you for dangerous driving if they wanted to... so it's indirectly enforcible by law.

[1] - you never know when the chaps at GCHQ will add blogs to the list of things they scan.

GCHQ monitor secret encrypted or encoded messages detailing hostage or terrorist activities, especially in planning phases.

(That ought to set 'em off!)

Dunno about illegal, but definitely a contravention of the Highway Code:

   "241. ...Overtake only on the right... "

and

   "242 Do not overtake on the left or
   move to a lane on your left to overtake.
   In congested conditions, where adjacent
   lanes of traffic are moving at similar
   speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may
   sometimes be moving faster than traffic
   to the right. In these conditions you
   may keep up with the traffic in your
   lane even if this means passing traffic
   in the lane to your right... "

You are allowed to pass a car on the left if it is waiting to turn right. But as we're talking about motorways, that's probably irrelevant here!

There is a reason (well two reasons I suppose, but only one of them is safety-relevant) why that's called undertaking...

And if they do pull over into the lane they're meant to be in while you're undertaking them, then the balance of blame is going to be leaning heavily towards you.

Never found much use in overtaking on the inside. Yes, sometimes it's the most expedient approach, but the bumbling fools (most probably in a Volvo, wearing a flat cap or similar headgear - Why, ffs? Not as though it's going to rain inside the car is it? - has a caravan, and is probably called Gerald) don't even notice that they're doing anything wrong or at least inconsiderate to other road users. Some of them probably even tut at the youth of today doing so.

No, far better IME is to follow them in the inside lane, then when it's all clear and safe to do so, pull out around them, pass them in the outside lane, all the while indicating clearly what you're doing, and then cut back in front of them back to the inside lane once you're past. Had a great deal of success with that tactic - the 'Geralds' seem to wake up and realise that there *is* an inside lane after all and pull in at that point.

Of course, this doesn't work with anyone driving a German car - they all come with the bit of paper giving them all rights to the road.

They'd all be useful. I've noticed since driving more that while there are plenty of gestures which are handy for suggesting you blame the other driver for whatever happened, there really isn't a hand gesture for "sorry, my fault".

Incidentally, there is also a smell of handcream around J10 or J11 of the M40. I'm wondering if it's some flowery sort of crop that's in season around now ?

there really isn't a hand gesture for "sorry, my fault"

Well, there's the two hands off the wheel held up in a placating manner, combined with a shrug and facial indication of contrition, but I'm pretty sure that isn't in the Highway Code.

I rather suspect driving without hands on the wheel *is* in the Highway Code, just not as a Good Thing ;)

Incidentally, there is also a smell of handcream around J10 or J11 of the M40. I'm wondering if it's some flowery sort of crop that's in season around now ?

And there's a smell of piss all through Abingdon.

a "Sorry, and I mean that sincerely" indicator

Even having this indicator on your car would probably double your insurance premiums.

detected the level of sincerity in the driver and fined te driver a thousand pounds for insincere use.

You've just bankrupted the late, dearly departed, Bob Monkhouse.

Bastard.

Incidentally... that's probably my favourite NMA song.

I think it's a popular choice for favourite. I'm controversial, I'd vote for Eleven Years.

I hate tailgaters too. It's effectively threatening behaviour in a vehicle, except it's even worse because half of the time it's out of incompetence - so should the person be driving at all?

In London I tend to tap the footbrake, that usually wakes them up.

I do that too. Sometimes, though, particularly on motorways, people can get sufficiently close that you're worried to put the brakes on at all. I sometimes turn my headlights on and off to create the brakelight effect, but I'm always worried I'll be confusing the person in front of me by flashing.

Tapping the brake didn't scare this morning's specimen. I have a suspicion that he was very impatient - driving too close, constantly sitting over the white line in case he could overtake, drumming his fingers on the dash in queues. Worse, I suspect him carving me up at the roundabout was probably something he was proud of; it was certainly entirely deliberate, since he pulled out of the correct lane and into the wrong lane when he saw it was free. I bet he thinks he's a great driver :(

I sometimes turn my headlights on and off to create the brakelight effect

Foglights have a better effect, 'cause they're the same wattage as brakelights. The downside being that some cars don't have them, or have them in odd places. The upside is that you don't confuse the person in front :-)

Good thinking, Batman.

> The upside is that you don't confuse the person in front :-)

I have found that they don't always come on unless the headlights are on as well, though.

Well, it works for me. Keep your right foot on the go faster pedal just as normal, and since you're unlikely to be changing gear at the time you're dealing with a tailgating fuckwit just slide the left foot across and tap the brakes lightly for a second or so. Not enough to actually slow you down, but enough to brighten the brakelights.

Of course, the trick I used to use that only worked in my first car was to flip the switch that was the manual reversing light. Amazing how quickly tailgaters find the brakes when they think you're going directly towards them...

However, I'm with you - a big, programmable LED sign with a suitable variety of 'appropriate' messages sounds like a fine idea.

You want one of these:

http://www.maplin.co.uk/Products/Module.asp?CartID=04060710033043&ModuleNo=35483&MR=N

Actually, I am sure I have seen one of these moving display things designed specifically to go in the back of a car. Probably in one of those gadget stores - but I can't find any such thing online now.

Or, in a cunning cross-reference to the other post:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/02/nokia_shells_waving/

Follow the tail-lights out of the city

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Undertaking? Only possible in a hearse...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Left foot braking...

no subject

no subject