Speed Cameras

Two years is not a lot later IMHO. Give him a break.

I was still formatting and using the single-sided muthers in
the late *80's*. :-( IIRC single-sided, double density (400k).

T.C. Feral

 

Found another site which details early issues they had with the lunar module
landing radar. It kept changing ranges for no apparent reason until they
worked out why and apparently fixed it. Possibly a software problem.

If I suggested that errors of this magnitude could be found on the Kustom
gear we're using the Tech's downtown would laugh at me. These guys swear by
the accuracy of these things both on the bench and on the road. All of our
equipment is tested by tech's on the road before allowing them to be used
operationally. Put it this way Bernd, I can MAKE a Silver Eagle play all
kinds of strange games if I wanted to. The things I'd have to do to MAKE it
do this are so far away from the services guidelines it's not funny.

 

"feral" wrote

It's harsh week.

Theo

 

You weren't there, were you.

8" FDDs came along much later than $30M computers with 64K of ram.

I think the Micromation mictocomputer I was using in the early 80s was
about those specs (~1MHz, 64K, and 8"FDDs, but cost was only about $10k)

Oh, and I don't think 720kb was ever a standard capacity for 8" drives.
That would be the 3.5" DSDD.

Moike

 

D'oh. Must read whole thread before making smartarse reply....

Moike

 

those fixed cameras don't use radar though...

Nev..

 

D'oh!

Good point...

big

 

But it does sound like you've tried them out, doesn't it?

big

 

You mean they're still dearer than that?! It'll still be a while before I
upgrade then.

 

Weren't the DD 8" ers 180K ? - the 5 1/4" double density were 360K and
seem to recall that being an advance

JL

 

How is that so?

J.

 

The steering wheel's rim is in the way.

 

Accuracy isn't the problem here. The problem is reliability. These
cameras were accurate the vast majority of the time and miles out
perhaps one in a thousand cars.

Rather than pursuing improved accuracy, what is needed is improved
reliability. One method would be to have a second speed measuring device
and to log any and all examples of the two devices disagreeing, even
if both say no offence occurs. The second devide doesn't even have to be
particularly accurate, +/-5kph would be ample to show if any systematic
errors are made by the primary device. This way, even very low rates of
sporadic errors such as were apparently happening will get detected.
Obviously where they disagree no ticket should be issued too.

 

I recall the original 1971 IBM single-side floppy as 200k.
In the 80's Siemens Telecom were still using them, but they
could not be formatted on the equipment. We found a system
(NEC IIRC)that could format them in either single or double
density. Now I remember, single sided for programming and
double sided for data saves.
I do not know if Siemens formatted them to 200k though, and
never will now.

T.C. Feral

 

best suggestion ive heard in a while.
this would fix the problem

sadly it would also increase costs, thus reducing their ability to
realise the "true" benefits of speed cameras

 

Erm... no.

The computer on the LEM was much smaller and slower than that.
But it was also far more _robust_ than the piece of crap you're
using.

And guess what? There were several humans in the loop, and backup
systems (inertial guidance and optical) to help the humans decide if
the information from any single source is valid.

You're also conveniently over-looking that:

a) the technology for distance measurement used in the LEM and that
used for "speed detection" is quite different. The speed detection
units are incapable of detecting distance to the target.

b) the underlying limitations of the physical world that cause many
of the errors cannot be eliminated.

The main problem with the way in which speed cameras are used is
that it's *impossible* for the only human in the loop (after the
fact) to obtain a perspective beyond the machine which may provide a
clue as to the validity of the information presented.

It's indeed possible for the cameras to provide additional
information to increase the certainty that the result obtained by a
firmware upgrade or maybe even a configuration option, but that is
not done.

 

It sounds like you need to adjust your wheel and/or seat so that you have an
unobstructed view of all the indicators and gauges on your dashboard.

J.

 

The steering wheel position is not adjustable.

The seat is adjusted so that my foot can fully depress the brake
pedal without the leg being completely straight.

The seatback is adjusted so that my wrists can rest on the top of
the steering wheel rim, with my shoulders against the backrest.

 

Are other indicators and gauges on the dash obscured too?

If you cannot see all of your indicators and gauges whilst having the seat
and wheel positioned for optimum comfort, it sounds like the car doesn't
particularly suit you ergonomically.

J.

 

I don't think I'd pay too much attention to someone who can't spell
"Felcher" properly, even when it's his own name.