PDA

View Full Version : BUSA Individuals



Farrago
-30th October 2005, 09:16
I haven't been able to find a thread on this so sorry if there is one and I've just not looked hard enough.

Does anyone know where I could find information about BUSA individuals? Alternatively do you know what date it will be and when applications have to be in by.

Thanks.

edwin
-30th October 2005, 09:24
Entry details can be found here (http://www.busa.org.uk/mailout.asp?section=000100020005&code=10010117&year=2005) about half way down the page

JEH

gbm
-30th October 2005, 09:50
I've just noticed how expensive the BUSAs are (in comparison to other competitions) - it's going to cost me 52.50 in entry fees alone! :confused:

kitten
-30th October 2005, 09:54
I think your Uni usually pays - try asking your AU

gbm
-30th October 2005, 10:10
Hah - not ours! :tongue:

edwin
-30th October 2005, 10:43
If they pay for you're away matches, then they should pay for this aswell, because the results that you get in this add to the uni's tally in the BUSA league, hence making the uni seem better.
If not that, then you could always chat up the club's treasurer.

It looks like it should be a good weekend and any pubs near the venue, I imagine will notice a large increase in profits. How many of the sabreurs on Sunday do you think will be hungover?

JEH

Piston Broke
-31st October 2005, 10:21
Unless the treasurer is a man that would just be wrong.

nessyfencer
-31st October 2005, 11:15
Originally posted by Piston Broke
Unless the treasurer is a man that would just be wrong.

What if the treasurer was a man that was right?

Farrago
-31st October 2005, 11:43
Thanks guys. Hmmm, they're the weekend before my end of term exams. And this term that means 16% of my degree I believe:(

monobrow
-31st October 2005, 13:08
any ideas how long it'll take for me to get to nottingham for the mens sabre from cardiff on the sunday morning? i'll be driving but cant leave on saturday night as am watching oasis (gloat!)

rory
-31st October 2005, 13:38
Bare minimum at illegal speeds is 4 hours ish. M4 -> M5 -> M40 -> M42 -> A42 -> M1.

Watch out for average speed monitoring on the M42 & A42.

monobrow
-31st October 2005, 13:46
so 5am. i guess i'll have to think about it!

Insipiens
-31st October 2005, 13:52
RAC route planner says 3 hrs 40 mins or so, so I would have thought you can make it in less than 4. I am sure I have done it from Bristol in three.

ChubbyHubby
-31st October 2005, 14:05
Originally posted by rory

Watch out for average speed monitoring on the M42 & A42.

How does that work then? :confused:

rory
-31st October 2005, 14:12
That's the one where they use number plate recognition, log the time at point A, wait til you hit B, subtract the times and say "you did a mile in 30 seconds? you're nicked son!"

I think it's called SPECCS

pigeonmeister
-31st October 2005, 17:01
Originally posted by rory
That's the one where they use number plate recognition, log the time at point A, wait til you hit B, subtract the times and say "you did a mile in 30 seconds? you're nicked son!"

I think it's called SPECCS

That's just not fair!

Dragonfly
-31st October 2005, 18:54
You're right, it's not fair. It could be a completely empty stretch of road for as far as the eye can see, and you still have to keep to the speed limit. On the other hand, if you can get behind a lorry on the first camera, then it doesn't read your number plate and so you can go through at any speed... but you didn't read it here.
On other news, if you can make your car have the same resistance as the surroundings (330 Ohms I believe), then speed traps don't work either... The radar would be absorbed by the body of the car, nothing gets reflected back, and so the radar has nothing to go on... The problem with this, is your car would have to be permanently grounded, which isn't so easy to accomplish, especially as road surfaces aren't necessarily conductive. Works in theory though.

kitten
-31st October 2005, 19:24
Originally posted by monobrow
any ideas how long it'll take for me to get to nottingham for the mens sabre from cardiff on the sunday morning? i'll be driving but cant leave on saturday night as am watching oasis (gloat!)

My fiance lives in wales and studies here in Nottingham, he reckons between 4 to 4 1/2 hours. xox

Chris
-31st October 2005, 23:05
Does anyone know if the reflective paint stuff works? That would be a much more convenient way of avoiding speed cameras...

Dragonfly
-1st November 2005, 06:31
I haven't understood. Metal relfects the infra-red beams that the speed cameras work with. Unless this paint is capable of completely dispersing the beam, then it won't work...
Essentially you want nothing getting back to the camera. So driving at around 180mph, (because it'll only take one picture), or absorbing all the IR, or dispersing everything. Surely reflective paint would just do what a metal car does anyway...?

Gav
-1st November 2005, 08:34
I thnk he's confused. I may be wrong, I'm no desinger of MOD grade stealth systems, but there is no such thing as reflective paint - not any that's going to help you avoid detection. In fact reflecting the signal is the last thing that you want.

There are two components to stealth: reflection and absorption. Paint helps with the latter.

Reflection is controlled by shape. The reason that stealth vehicles are the shape they are is that it helps deflect signals away from the receiver - reducing the signal.

Considering that the average car has the profile of a brick, I don't think that 'shape' is going to help you much. Maybe those purveyors of carbage know something about all that rubbish they tie onto their cars that we don't ...

Absorption is controlled by the material's surface. Radar absorbing paint does exactly what it sounds like. It absorbs signals - reducing the signal back to the receiver. Think sound insulation and you have a vague idea.

Radar absorbing paint is expensive and, used to wash off in the rain (or at least the stuff on the stealth bonbers did), so can you imagine how expensive it would be to maintain your stealth car in the UK?

Combine the two and you an effective stealth system. Stealth vehicles often appear to be something other than they are (e.g. a flock of birds or a shoal of fish) as this is easier to achieve than total invisibility.

He might be thinking of something else ...

Jamming is different; you are using signal emission to overwhlem the receiver. If you broadcast enough of a signal it's makes it difficult to pick out the threat. Like stealth you can also use signal emission to appear as something other than you are - a bigger ship or different type of plane. So there may be reflective paint that could help you do this; although why you would want to appear to be a truck rather than a car, doing 120mph, is beyond me.

As an aside; broadspectrum EM emission is quite illegal in the UK.

Before the nitpickers catch up with me I just like to say that I'm only giving a brief overview of EM warfare not writing a manual on how to avoid speed cameras. I'm pretty sure there are a few people here who coud expand on what I've written.

In my opinion either obey the traffic laws (whether you agree with them or not is a different discussion) or avoid the speed traps. You can get maps and sat-nav gear to help you with the latter.

ChubbyHubby
-1st November 2005, 09:13
Originally posted by Dragonfly
I haven't understood. Metal relfects the infra-red beams that the speed cameras work with. Unless this paint is capable of completely dispersing the beam, then it won't work...
Essentially you want nothing getting back to the camera. So driving at around 180mph, (because it'll only take one picture), or absorbing all the IR, or dispersing everything. Surely reflective paint would just do what a metal car does anyway...?

Unless Chris means the super reflective number plates? When the flash in the camera goes off they just get a white rectangle?

nessyfencer
-1st November 2005, 12:43
Originally posted by ChubbyHubby
Unless Chris means the super reflective number plates? When the flash in the camera goes off they just get a white rectangle?

And there is a lot of debate as to whether this sort of thing really works (and there are a lot of different kinds out there, sprays, paint on stuff, etc) - car mags are full of ads for them, you may be lucky and get one that works... You want to test it? :transport

Dragonfly
-1st November 2005, 13:59
Invariably now the flash is weather related, and in some cases, just a formality. So if it's sunny, it won't go off, or if it does, it didn't need to. Hence at night, the flash does go off.

People have tried all sorts to not have their number plates read. Cling film is probabily the worst one I've heard of. Then there's getting the DVLA to have the picture blown up, then sending it back citing tampering of evidence, to putting a piece of cardboard behind the head rest on the back, so you can say it wasn't you driving the car.

There's even students out there, strapped for cash, that will say they were the ones driving the car, so long as you give them a few hundred 's. Sounds silly, but if you've already got 9 points on the license, you don't really want another 3...

Speed cameras are good in principle, but when it got to the stage where you can lose your license in one journey out, that's where it got silly. Add to this that speed cameras don't appear to be helping the reduction in road deaths, and that some police in Essex haven't a clue when it comes to the physics of radar (ask for details), and the idea quickly goes very very sour.

monobrow
-1st November 2005, 14:12
you know, i probably won't bother changing my plates or putting reflection paint on or burning down every speed camera i come to. Thanks to all suggestions to get around these hideous speed detectors. its probably best to start cutting out some wings to stick on the side of the car, or if i remember from top gear, fitting a jet on the back of it to thrust me through each detection device at an unnoticable 175 mph. (or leave a little earlier then planned!)

gbm
-1st November 2005, 17:01
AARRGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Simple solution to all you law-breaking fiends...

DON'T SPEED!

The rules apply to you too...

(A 1mph increase in speed approximates a 5% increase in accidents. And the reason we have to have speed limits is because the vast majority of British drivers can't drive properly... one look at what happens to stopping distances when traffic gets heavy at 65-70mph shows that. It's not that hard to keep distance! And no, you are not one of Britain's better drivers!)

gbm
-1st November 2005, 17:01
Originally posted by monobrow
(or leave a little earlier then planned!)

Finally a sensible suggestion!!


Originally posted by Dragonfly
Speed cameras are good in principle, but when it got to the stage where you can lose your license in one journey out, that's where it got silly.

If you can get 4 speeding offences for one journey, then either:
a) you can't control your speed (true of most British drivers)
and/or b) you don't care

In either case you deserve to lose your license!

Driving is the one thing we do every day where we endanger other people's lives for our own convience. 3000 people die every year. Therefore there are rules, and rules are NOT meant to be broken.

randomsabreur
-1st November 2005, 17:20
OK, try the A13/A12 route out of London to the M25 for fun - and see if you still think that there is a problem with any driver who accumulates more than 1 speeding ticket per journey.

Now, this road starts at the Blackwall tunnel, and the speed limit is 40 mph - pass speed camera 1. At some point beyond this, speed limit becomes 50, and then returns to 40. Shortly (but legally) after the speed limit change, there is another camera, with no speed limit sign in sight. Then you have another 50 stretch, back to 40, another camera - seeing the pattern here...

Finally, there is a variable speed limit stretch, where the limit varies between 40 and 50 depending on what the signs (like the ones where you get varying adverts - triangular slat things) are saying at that time.

Add to the fact that this is a major route out of London and you have people impatient up your tail if you waver a bit over what the limit actually is. Oh, and there's a couple of bits with dual carriageway with no lane changing lane markings, so if you were overtaking something as you hit that bit, you are stuck in the outside lane with Essex boy in his hot rod fiesta, or white van man trying to mate with the exhaust of your car.

There are similar roads throughout London, where the limit changes frequently, and the limit signs between changes are not all that frequent!

gbm
-1st November 2005, 17:35
I didn't say driving was easy...

just that if you do it you have a responsibility to do it safely. And not break the law (which overlaps, but does not always coincide with safety).
If you aren't good enough at it to do the speed limit/overtake something without accidentally breaking the speed limit/missing signs/getting stuck in an unfortunate position, then you shouldn't be!

I appreciate that things like ending up in the wrong lane on roundabouts/major roads, if you are unfamiliar with them, is practically unavoidable at times, but speed limits are the easy bits! (if you actually pay attention to them, that it)

ChubbyHubby
-1st November 2005, 17:44
Originally posted by gbm


(A 1mph increase in speed approximates a 5% increase in accidents. And the reason we have to have speed limits is because the vast majority of British drivers can't drive properly... one look at what happens to stopping distances when traffic gets heavy at 65-70mph shows that. It's not that hard to keep distance! And no, you are not one of Britain's better drivers!)

So you are telling me that by going at 90mph on a clear motorway increases my chances of an accident by 100%?

gbm
-1st November 2005, 17:48
Originally posted by ChubbyHubby
So you are telling me that by going at 90mph on a clear motorway increases my chances of an accident by 100%?

a) It is averaged; making no statements about specific cases...
b) How likely are you to have an accident anyway on a clear motorway? Not very - so even doubling it (not unreasonable if you tried it in my car!) wouldn't make it very high, BUT:

a) You may disagree with speed limits, but that doesn't give you the right to break them; do so, and you should be punished,
b) How often are our motorways clear? Not very often... unless you go driving about 4 in the morning! There's still plenty of traffic on the M4 even where I live at 6:30 in the morning and 12:30 at night... and I've seen accidents at those sorts of times.

Sometimes speed limits are there for reasons other than safety - e.g. noise.
Sometimes they are just there without a good reason... but that's tough luck.
And 30mph speed limits is not to do with other cars, but pedestrians (and no, that does not mean you can drive at 45mph just because there aren't any!).

randomsabreur
-1st November 2005, 17:48
Generally on that particular road, the speed limit changes come at points when you have other concerns (3 lanes down to 2). Yes, I know I should always remember what the limit is, BUT, when you see a camera, and you can't remember what the last sign you passed was, having passed 3 different ones in the last 10 minutes, or did you miss one while you were paying attention to the motorbike who was diving between lanes, and the red fiesta up your tail.

There are more important things that speed limits - like lane discipline on motorways, not tailgating, not undertaking, driving sensibly in relation to the conditions of the road.

I have never got caught speeding in 5 years' driving, mostly due to the fact that on roads where there sensibly should be cameras(built up areas, near schools, residential, complicated road layout, blind bend) I do not speed. I do have more of a problem with speed cameras on motorways and dual carriageways where the road has on and off ramps and few junctions. In those situations, speed is unlikely to be the main factor in an accident, inattention, tiredness, tailgating, discourteous driving, and/or undertaking type things are much more likely causes.

I also don't like speed cameras as a means of enforcing speed limits on faster roads, police officers, with 2 eyes and a brain are more useful because they can, as well as picking up speeders, catch people who undertake, weave through lanes, tailgate or use their mobile phones. They might also notice that a car is untaxed, uninsured or stolen!

gbm
-1st November 2005, 17:54
Originally posted by randomsabreur
Generally on that particular road, the speed limit changes come at points when you have other concerns (3 lanes down to 2). Yes, I know I should always remember what the limit is, BUT, when you see a camera, and you can't remember what the last sign you passed was, having passed 3 different ones in the last 10 minutes, or did you miss one while you were paying attention to the motorbike who was diving between lanes, and the red fiesta up your tail.

Roads could be improved... as could the driving standards of the motorbike and the fiesta.


There are more important things that speed limits - like lane discipline on motorways, not tailgating, not undertaking, driving sensibly in relation to the conditions of the road.

I agree that all those things are more important. But that doesn't make speeding OK...


I have never got caught speeding in 5 years' driving, mostly due to the fact that on roads where there sensibly should be cameras(built up areas, near schools, residential, complicated road layout, blind bend) I do not speed. I do have more of a problem with speed cameras on motorways and dual carriageways where the road has on and off ramps and few junctions. In those situations, speed is unlikely to be the main factor in an accident, inattention, tiredness, tailgating, discourteous driving, and/or undertaking type things are much more likely causes.

But they are all things that speed will increase the danger of e.g. tailgating is much less dangerous at lower speeds. It's easier for the goverment to tackle the symptoms rather than the underlying cause. Do I agree with the Governments approach to driving? Not really...


I also don't like speed cameras as a means of enforcing speed limits on faster roads, police officers, with 2 eyes and a brain are more useful because they can, as well as picking up speeders, catch people who undertake, weave through lanes, tailgate or use their mobile phones. They might also notice that a car is untaxed, uninsured or stolen!

100,000 traffic police (plus extra roads to handle the traffic!) would be a wonderful thing... they could even pull people over and give them helpful advice on their driving (you are making fault X, here's how to correct it), and in an ideal world people would thank them and improve their driving...

Funnily enough I agree with (virtually) everything you say.

ChubbyHubby
-1st November 2005, 18:06
Originally posted by gbm

a) You may disagree with speed limits, but that doesn't give you the right to break them; do so, and you should be punished,
Only if I am caught :moon:

gbm
-1st November 2005, 18:10
Originally posted by ChubbyHubby
Only if I am caught :moon:

Precisely why I'd have the government put speed cameras everywhere. Making them obvious is also ridiculous. You should just be tracked by a clever GPS system so that if you speed for more than 2 seconds, you get a warning. If you speed more more than 10 seconds, you get points. If you speed for more than 30 seconds, you lose your license.

randomsabreur
-1st November 2005, 18:18
No! Big brother, nanny state alert

I do not want the government or anyone else keeping tracks of where I am. (Admittedly I am generally at work, so it is quite easy to work out where I was at a given time - look at time sheet, work out time spent at work that week and wince!)

edwin
-1st November 2005, 18:19
Originally posted by gbm
...Making them obvious is also ridiculous...

They are made visible to deter speeding, they are not there to purposefully make people lose their license.
Is it better for drivers to lose there license or for them to not speed?

JEH

nessyfencer
-1st November 2005, 18:37
Originally posted by gbm
Making them obvious is also ridiculous.

But I thought you didn't like people speeding? That's what you have been saying all along. Now that statement tells me that you don't want people to stop speeding, you want people to be caught speeding.

Situation 1...
Driving down the dual carriageway at 85mph, see some complicated junctions ahead, going in all directions (A90 Aberdeen - Dundee for example), see the speed camera beside the junctions, slow down to 70, pass the camera, speed up to 85

Situation 2...
Driving down the dual carriageway at 85mph, see some complicated junctions ahead, going in all directions (same road as situation 1), don't see the camera because making them visible is "ridiculous", carry on at 85mph, hit the new driver who came out of a junction when they shouldn't have just as the camera goes off. It's ok, that 18yo girl is in hospital and that the speeder may die - at least he will get points :)

In your opinion GBM situation 1 is ridiculous? I say that situation 2 is ridiculous.

gbm
-1st November 2005, 18:54
Originally posted by nessyfencer
But I thought you didn't like people speeding? That's what you have been saying all along. Now that statement tells me that you don't want people to stop speeding, you want people to be caught speeding.

I just want people to not speed, ever!
The 'slow zones' that visible cameras create are only a tiny fraction of the road...
If speed cameras were hidden, people would not be able to cruise at 85mph because they wouldn't know where they were!

And situation 2 is highly biased. Such a speeder is much more likely to pick up the points and get disqualified first, before hitting anybody. Most junctions do not have speed cameras.

Situation 3, speeder drives at 85mph, loses license. Regains license, drives at 70mph to avoid repeat. Hopefully went on some sort of a course, and avoids collision with new driver through defensive driving...

And with technology increasing the way it is, the CAPABILITY to track what you are doing will probably become not impossible to avoid, just impractical. You would, for instance, have to stop using a mobile phone...
You just have to make sure that the information cannot be misused.

D'Artignan
-1st November 2005, 19:01
Can't we get back to the student bashing?

nessyfencer
-1st November 2005, 19:05
Originally posted by gbm
I just want people to not speed, ever!
The 'slow zones' that visible cameras create are only a tiny fraction of the road...

Yup, the important fraction.



If speed cameras were hidden, people would not be able to cruise at 85mph because they wouldn't know where they were!

You really believe that? Do people stop drug dealing because they don't know if the police is on to them or not?

gbm
-1st November 2005, 19:11
Originally posted by nessyfencer
Yup, the important fraction.

Don't be ridiculous. How many miles of road are there in the UK? How many junctions? How many speed cameras?
The most dangerous roads are single carraigeway A roads. How many speed cameras do you see on them? (the longer trunk roads)
A common complaint of speed cameras is that they are sited poorly.

Causing people to slow down for the 20 yards of white stripes on the road is not the way to improve road safety. You can't even do that at a junction, it's too dangerous (due to poor driving standards). And people don't slow down through the junction afterwards. Instead they drive through at 5-10mph less than the limit then put their foot down again.

What is needed is the threat that if you speed, you may/will be caught. Not 'you can speed provided you only do it where we tell you we aren't doing it'.


You really believe that? Do people stop drug dealing because they don't know if the police is on to them or not?

What? (falls over laughing)
Ever heard of undercover police?

If I was drug dealing, the threat of the police being on to me would be a big fear - an incentive not to have started, or to stop!
If I could look up who the Police were investigating on their website, and see that they weren't on to me, then yes this would be reassuring! :tongue:

How would the police work if they had to loudly announce themselves before making a raid/performing a search etc?
"Right, we think you are taking drugs. So if you've got any, you better get rid of them quickly before we come in!" :moon:

doobarz
-1st November 2005, 19:17
Originally posted by D'Artignan
Can't we get back to the student bashing?

Well GBM is a student....

Regarding speeding, remember they are not speed cameras, they are safety cameras. They are only in accident hot spots. And as the police don't enough officers, most of them don't have film in anyway....

D'Artignan
-1st November 2005, 19:20
Originally posted by doobarz
Well GBM is a student....
I meant students in general....

(not leaving myself open to a slagging at all:confused: :rolleyes: )

gbm
-1st November 2005, 19:21
Originally posted by doobarz
Well GBM is a student....

Regarding speeding, remember they are not speed cameras, they are safety cameras. They are only in accident hot spots. And as the police don't enough officers, most of them don't have film in anyway....

(from http://www.checkyourspeed.org.uk/fe/default.asp?n1=32&n2=34 )
Where people have been killed or injured
Fixed speed cameras are used at sites where there have been four or more killed or seriously injured collisions per km over the last three years, and where there is also evidence of speeding.

Mobile speed cameras are used where there have been two or more killed or seriously injured collisions per km over the last three years, and where there is also evidence of speeding.

Signs remind drivers of their speed without penalty
Red light cameras are used where there have been two or more killed or seriously injured collisions or four or more personal injury collisions within 50 metres of the junction over the last three years.
Where there is a site of community concern

We do not believe in waiting for people to be injured before we take action so mobile cameras also operate in areas where communities have complained that speed is endangering lives and a survey confirms that there is a genuine speeding problem. The Partnership is allowed to spend 15% of deployment time at sites of community concern, which are often outside schools and hospitals, and in rural villages.

Where there are roadworks
Every year a large number of roadworkers are killed while working in areas with restricted speed limits, narrow lanes or contraflows so cameras are also used to protect the workers by reducing the speed of traffic travelling through roadworks.

Skippy
-1st November 2005, 19:25
This year I want my L16 (at least)... :joker:

Last year I seeded 10th and went out in the L32 to my team-mate (and captain) 14-15 on an "iffy" call. :o:

GRRR!!!

But this year he's not around to ruin my plan, so roll on BUSA! :)

D'Artignan
-1st November 2005, 19:49
If I go (work and exams permitting), I'm bringing back some metal. Even if I have to use my poker skills to get it.

Insipiens
-1st November 2005, 21:58
Originally posted by D'Artignan
Can't we get back to the student bashing?
That's alright, gbm is a student and judging from his comments on this thread possibly the most arrogant one I have ever come across.

Dragonfly
-2nd November 2005, 06:52
Hmm, everyone has a right to an opinion. Not necessarily the right opinion! In some cases, where there weren't speed cameras to begin with, a new speed camera can cause far more accidents as people slow down to avoid getting caught. Then there's the police, who say that it's all because of car stopping distances. What is it? For every 10mph add an extra car length in front of you. 7 Car lengths even on an A road is lucky, but on an M road? Anyways, with assisted brakes, stopping distances are easily half that so long as it's not raining (not uncommon for Essex) or it's not snowing (this is Britain we're talking about), but even then it's not the distances cited by officials as a 'safe' distance.
Speed is extremely safe, so long as everyone in your lane is doing the same speed, that way relative to yourself, none of them are moving.

J_D
-2nd November 2005, 08:53
Originally posted by Insipiens
That's alright, gbm is a student and judging from his comments on this thread possibly the most arrogant one I have ever come across.

He used to rant in a similar fashion about french grips, so expect the opinion to change sometime in the future.

Back on topic, I hope to be there for the BUSA Indies too....MF

gbm
-2nd November 2005, 09:54
Originally posted by Dragonfly
Speed is extremely safe, so long as everyone in your lane is doing the same speed, that way relative to yourself, none of them are moving.

But you still have to keep the stopping distance (or at least some semblance of)...
I see cars on the motorway every week who are so close to the car in front that if they had to slam on their brakes, they wouldn't even have STARTED braking...
Stopping distance go by a square rule, so the official stopping distance for 70mph is 96m - almost the distance between the little white posts at the side of the motorway. I agree that you can stop quicker than this in many circumstances, but this distance also includes thinking distance.
Even if you assume that the car in front of you has brakes worse than yours, and that there will never be anything in the road you need to avoid (which is silly), then you should still leave a 2 second gap, because that is how long it can take for you to realise that the car in front is stopping (unless you join the brake light in front = I must brake brigade). I know, because it's taken me that long before now to realise that traffic has, in fact, just come to a halt in front of me (leading to much panicked braking on my part)... :stop:

PS ABS brakes do not let you stop quicker. They just allow you to make course corrections while braking. If you want to stop in a straight line, locking out your wheels is OK. Just don't expect to be able to turn (without using cadence braking or similar technique)...

The problem with driving is that the situations that people need to avoid happen rarely - most people are lucky. How often do you do an emergency stop from 70mph?

Multiple car pileups should NEVER happen (if it stays in one lane that is, if a car veers across lanes then they will happen).

And I was wrong about the French grips. Horribly, horribly wrong... :upset:

ChubbyHubby
-2nd November 2005, 10:21
Originally posted by gbm
But you still have to keep the stopping distance (or at least some semblance of)...
I see cars on the motorway every week who are so close to the car in front that if they had to slam on their brakes, they wouldn't even have STARTED braking...
I don't think anyone is saying you should tailgate the car in front at 85mph, you shouldn't do that at any speed anyway.

If everyone else is doing 80 (maintaining proper distance - hey had to throw in a bit of fencing somewhere in this thread) and you do 70, you become the hazzard as they have to over take you.

If you think people drive too close here, you'd go potty if you ever drive on holiday. Take freeways in LA, they have lots more lanes, they drive VERY close, can over/under take, leave a gap and they are in there.

Speeding/driving habits are probably cultural (what's considered suicidal here, would be perfectly ok in Italy, India etc), arguing about it technically probably doesn't get you anywhere.

:transport

(off topic again, maybe this thread should be moved to chitchat)

Boo Boo
-2nd November 2005, 10:54
Originally posted by ChubbyHubby
If you think people drive too close here, you'd go potty if you ever drive on holiday. Take freeways in LA, they have lots more lanes, they drive VERY close, can over/under take, leave a gap and they are in there.

Speeding/driving habits are probably cultural (what's considered suicidal here, would be perfectly ok in Italy, India etc), arguing about it technically probably doesn't get you anywhere.

Chubby is right - if you leave a car space between you and the car infront on an LA freeway, two cars and a large-articulated truck will be in there before you can blink. No, it doesn't make it right - and probably explains the frequency of road traffic accidents they have other there...

Cairo is by far the MADDEST place I have seen for driving (although haven't been to India...). People constantly beep their horns to "let other drivers know they are there", rather than give way or anything. So they are ALWAYS beeping...

Going 80/85 on motorways doesn't seem that bad - providing you are controlled, observant and keep good distance. Driving at speed in built up areas is certainly a LOT worse. Also running red lights, cutting people up, overtaking on blind bends, talking on mobile phones whilst driving etc.etc...

Boo

Threestain
-2nd November 2005, 11:42
I thought one of the main points of abs braking is that it doesn't lock the wheels hence you don't lose grip and skid, as skidding is a loss of grip and traction. but obviously I'm probably wrong

nessyfencer
-2nd November 2005, 18:28
Originally posted by gbm
But you still have to keep the stopping distance (or at least some semblance of)...
I see cars on the motorway every week who are so close to the car in front that if they had to slam on their brakes, they wouldn't even have STARTED braking...
Stopping distance go by a square rule, so the official stopping distance for 70mph is 96m - almost the distance between the little white posts at the side of the motorway. I agree that you can stop quicker than this in many circumstances, but this distance also includes thinking distance.
Even if you assume that the car in front of you has brakes worse than yours, and that there will never be anything in the road you need to avoid (which is silly), then you should still leave a 2 second gap, because that is how long it can take for you to realise that the car in front is stopping (unless you join the brake light in front = I must brake brigade). I know, because it's taken me that long before now to realise that traffic has, in fact, just come to a halt in front of me (leading to much panicked braking on my part)... :stop:

PS ABS brakes do not let you stop quicker. They just allow you to make course corrections while braking. If you want to stop in a straight line, locking out your wheels is OK. Just don't expect to be able to turn (without using cadence braking or similar technique)...

The problem with driving is that the situations that people need to avoid happen rarely - most people are lucky. How often do you do an emergency stop from 70mph?

Multiple car pileups should NEVER happen (if it stays in one lane that is, if a car veers across lanes then they will happen).

And I was wrong about the French grips. Horribly, horribly wrong... :upset:


Hmm... thanks for the driving lesson :rolleyes:

And ABS does help you stop quicker whilst keeping your car under a lot more control. Locking your wheels is NOT ok, if that happens you are not in control.

Moppet
-2nd November 2005, 19:02
Hmmm, seems daft it's me saying this, but after all this arguing maybe it's time to go back on-topic? :confused:

J_D
-2nd November 2005, 22:49
Originally posted by ChubbyHubby

Speeding/driving habits are probably cultural (what's considered suicidal here, would be perfectly ok in Italy, India etc), arguing about it technically probably doesn't get you anywhere.



Ah Italy: redefined driving for me ;)

On a different approach, 3000 dead on the roads each year, nasty for those involved but not many in the scheme of things, I mean, compare that with 20,000 iatropic deaths each year [deaths through misdiagnosis, medical negligence etc] in a population of around 60,000,000......

How many deaths on the road are due to speeding?

Ok. the road camera people seem to have come up with a figure of 8% as an improvement.....that's 240 people if you believe that statistic.

How many of the deaths were due to a lack of care on the victims side? eg kid runs into road without looking, driver (perhaps not even a speeding driver!) hits them; a couple of lads in the car on the way home from the pub, driver drinking, no one wearing seat belts (ok, speed may have been an issue, but hell, you know.....) ; cyclist, no lights cuts across traffic lights etc etc etc

Really, how far can you actually reduce fatalities on the road without restricting civil liberties? Speed cameras, sorry road safety cameras do a very good job of revenue generation don't they?

Oh, and by the way, we do have one of the best road safety records in Europe, and Europe has the best road safety in world...........

Where else can we find apply a quick and easy safety tax?

Nick_C
-2nd November 2005, 23:32
Cardiff-Nottingham is xxx miles and usually takes me about xxx hours.

There are no excuses for speeding, or for getting penalty points. If you were over the limit, and therefore breakin the law, you deserve to be punished.

One bloody annoying road is the A5 between Telford and the M42, where there are temporary roadsigns indicating changes of permitted speeds: 40 changes to a 50 zone... BUT the 50 zone (plus cameras) contains 40mph reminders that were presumably not taken down during the roadworks. Soooooo... that camera is set at 50.... RIGHT? Driving through at over 45ish will jeapardise my career, wallet and sanity. Worth it for the sake of 20 seconds lost time though? i think not.

I think the reason that people get so stressed with speed cameras generally is that a fine is proof that you're not a perfect driver - and insulting a man's driving is like saying he's crap in bed. It's an accusation no man can handle. None of my girl friends have points.

gbm
-2nd November 2005, 23:39
Originally posted by nessyfencer
And ABS does help you stop quicker whilst keeping your car under a lot more control. Locking your wheels is NOT ok, if that happens you are not in control.

To quote 'Roadcraft - the essential police drivers handbook':


The quickest and shortest way to stop on a good dry road is to brake to a point just before the wheels lock (technically, the point at which there is 15% wheel slip). In vehicles not fitted with an anti-lock braking system, many drivers find this degree of finesse difficult to achieve and brake so as to lock their wheels. This also achieves a high degree of braking.

Once the wheels are locked all steering effect is lost. The driver must quickly decide either to brake to a standstill on a straight course if there is enough room or to relax brake pressure to steer out of trouble... It must be emphasised that anti-lock braking systems and cadence braking do not assist braking, they assist steering while braking.

(from a different section)

An increasing number of modern vehicles are fitted with an automatic anti-lock braking system (ABS). The purpose of antilock braking systems is to retain steering potential during harsh or emergency braking.
...
ABS does no more than provide the driver with an additional safety device. It does not increase the grip of the tyres on the road, nor can it prevent skidding. In limited circumstances a vehicle equipped with ABS can stop within a shorter distance than if the wheels were fully locked, but it does not reduce, and could increase, the stopping distance on a slippery surface.

PS I went on holiday to the south of France (near to Italy) a few years ago. I wasn't driving, but the driving there was fairly, um, psychotic... :dizzy:

Nick_C
-2nd November 2005, 23:51
Originally posted by Nick_C
Cardiff-Nottingham is xxx miles and usually takes me about xxx hours.



That should read 150 miles and 3ish hours, but i clicked 'submit' instead of 'preview' :o: , and my browser took longer than the 5 minutes allowed to download and edit posted messages. :(

In fact it took 20 minutes. How amusing.

Nick_C
-3rd November 2005, 00:01
Originally posted by gbm


PS I went on holiday to the south of France (near to Italy) a few years ago. I wasn't driving, but the driving there was fairly, um, psychotic... :dizzy:

yeah! i've just returned from South Spain, and they're total maniacs there! Totally different (ie macho) culture about driving. Thank God i didnt do any - i almost got killed enough times as a pedestrian. Drivers don't have red lights when the green man is lit up... So how many times did i step into a busy road assuming the traffic was halted for me??

vil
-3rd November 2005, 00:05
Originally posted by Nick_C
There are no excuses for speeding, or for getting penalty points. If you were over the limit, and therefore breakin the law, you deserve to be punished.
Wow, you and GBM are both determined to take a really hard line on this. Why?

Let me ask you something: did you ever copy a tape as a kid? Did you get punished for it? Bet you didn't. Would you have felt hard done by if you were? Bet you would. But that's breaking the law too, just like speeding... :rolleyes:


I think the reason that people get so stressed with speed cameras generally is that a fine is proof that you're not a perfect driver - and insulting a man's driving is like saying he's crap in bed. It's an accusation no man can handle. None of my girl friends have points.
Now there's some wild supposition! Personally, I think the reason people get so stressed with speed cameras is that the cameras are enforcing a law which often seems ill-considered and unfair. And I think the reason the law seems that way is that speed limits are a one-size-fits-all type of approach: a motorway has a speed limit of 70mph whether it's the middle of rush hour or the middle of the night, for example.

What any of this has to do with the BUSA individuals anymore escapes me.

Dragonfly
-3rd November 2005, 08:31
Originally posted by gbm
To quote 'Roadcraft - the essential police drivers handbook':



The quickest and shortest way to stop on a good dry road is to brake to a point just before the wheels lock (technically, the point at which there is 15% wheel slip). In vehicles not fitted with an anti-lock braking system, many drivers find this degree of finesse difficult to achieve and brake so as to lock their wheels. This also achieves a high degree of braking.

Once the wheels are locked all steering effect is lost. The driver must quickly decide either to brake to a standstill on a straight course if there is enough room or to relax brake pressure to steer out of trouble... It must be emphasised that anti-lock braking systems and cadence braking do not assist braking, they assist steering while braking.


Physicists everywhere will be very upset, the police seem to be able to change the laws of nature on a whim.

ABS helps, because it detects when the wheels have locked, releases the breaks, then quickly reapplies them. This means that a cold bit of the tire is then in contact with the road surface, which allows for thermal conduction to take away energy from the moving car. Remember, 4 wheels, that's a significant proportion of the total energy. The cold bit of the tyre would also have a higher coefficient of static friction (the tyre isn't revolving), so the prospect of ABS not helping is slightly wrong.

Lets take an example of the wheels locking and no ABS on the car, and for the sake of argument, it's a very clear road, the driver has just done it for a laugh.
The wheels lock, they're not able to turn left or right, and the breaks are solidly applied. The bottom of the tyres is getting very warm, which reduces the friction between the road surface and the tyres themselves ( a bit like pushing an icecube along a smooth surface ). So this would drastically increase the cars breaking distance.

And this has nothing to do with the BUSA individuals, but I'll be there too!

Gav
-3rd November 2005, 09:07
Originally posted by vil
Wow, you and GBM are both determined to take a really hard line on this. Why?

Let me ask you something: did you ever copy a tape as a kid? Did you get punished for it? Bet you didn't. Would you have felt hard done by if you were? Bet you would. But that's breaking the law too, just like speeding... :rolleyes:

Actually this is a bad analogy. Back in the days when tapes were commonplace the law, in the uk, was fuzzy. You were actually allowed to make copies for fair use, but you weren't for commercial distribution.


What any of this has to do with the BUSA individuals anymore escapes me.

I agree.

I should really move this to the chit chat section and merge it with the other discusions about speed cameras.

Let me reiterate one point though: whether you agree with the law or not, it is the law, and breaking it leaves you open to penalties.

Bambi
-3rd November 2005, 14:55
Does anyone know where there is cheap to stay in nottingham for the individuals?? Stayed at travellodge last year but a bit too expensive as sending down about 10 peeps this year.

Any suggestions? :)

Nick_C
-3rd November 2005, 15:29
Originally posted by vil
Let me ask you something: did you ever copy a tape as a kid? Did you get punished for it? Bet you didn't. Would you have felt hard done by if you were? Bet you would. But that's breaking the law too, just like speeding... :rolleyes:


Yes I did, and whether that was breaking the law or not, it was certainly not endangering oher people's lives.

And, yes i'll be at the BUSAs. I probably won't be doing 3 weapons again this year though :rolleyes:... far too knackering. Just gonna stick to sabre i think.

I am appreciative of the fact that the H&W and the BUSAs are on different days this year though. :cool: Much better !

Nick_C
-3rd November 2005, 15:35
Originally posted by Bambi
Does anyone know where there is cheap to stay in nottingham for the individuals?? Stayed at travellodge last year but a bit too expensive as sending down about 10 peeps this year.

Any suggestions? :)

BUSA used to send out a list of local guest houses and hotels. I'm not sure if they still do. You can look up nottingham guest houses on google and get a list too. I stayed at the St Andrew's Guest House about 3 years ago; was really nice, and quite cheap too, and about 5 mins' drive from campus. It was on Queen's Road, Beeston if my memory serves.

gbm
-3rd November 2005, 15:38
OK, one last post to finish.


Originally posted by vil
Let me ask you something: did you ever copy a tape as a kid? Did you get punished for it? Bet you didn't. Would you have felt hard done by if you were? Bet you would. But that's breaking the law too, just like speeding... :rolleyes:

Nobody ever got killed by copyright theft.


And I think the reason the law seems that way is that speed limits are a one-size-fits-all type of approach: a motorway has a speed limit of 70mph whether it's the middle of rush hour or the middle of the night, for example.

The alternative is what annoys people even more... speed limits that get even more confusing, and keep changing as you go through them!


Originally posted by Dragonfly
Physicists everywhere will be very upset, the police seem to be able to change the laws of nature on a whim.

ABS helps, because it detects when the wheels have locked, releases the breaks, then quickly reapplies them. This means that a cold bit of the tire is then in contact with the road surface, which allows for thermal conduction to take away energy from the moving car. Remember, 4 wheels, that's a significant proportion of the total energy. The cold bit of the tyre would also have a higher coefficient of static friction (the tyre isn't revolving), so the prospect of ABS not helping is slightly wrong.

Lets take an example of the wheels locking and no ABS on the car, and for the sake of argument, it's a very clear road, the driver has just done it for a laugh.
The wheels lock, they're not able to turn left or right, and the breaks are solidly applied. The bottom of the tyres is getting very warm, which reduces the friction between the road surface and the tyres themselves ( a bit like pushing an icecube along a smooth surface ). So this would drastically increase the cars breaking distance.

I'd like to think of myself as enough of a physicist to know that complex situations like braking are not amenable to easy application of physical laws...
I didn't say that ABS braking wasn't better, just that locking your wheels was still pretty good, provided you could stop in a straight line. If you haven't got ABS, locking your wheels is probably the best option in that case, unless you are an expert at nearly locking your wheels.
Practical experience from the police beats physics in this case, and they say ABS braking does not necessarily decrease braking distance (sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't) - just that it isn't a major factor.

In any event you will take longer to come to a halt if you are turning, since your tyres need to apply an additional force to your car.

And one final bit of information - I saw a survey done on driving in different countries. Unsuprisingly, about 3/4 of Italian drivers thought they were better than the average driver, one of the highest (if not the highest) in Europe. Funnily enough, those countries that were highest, Italy included, also had the worst road casualty rates...

D'Artignan
-3rd November 2005, 17:13
Give it a rest guys, general student-bashing forum here, not some legal discussion:mad: :mad: :mad:

randomsabreur
-3rd November 2005, 17:37
Will be there reliving the short nights of my student days with nostalgia. Where's the party this year?

Will be along as a ref provided work doesn't cause any issues unexpectedly making the day's holiday to ref the first day (and/or the weekend) go the way my last half day holiday did...

No suggestions on the hotel front, I always either travelled on the day or found a friend who lived in Nottingham and borrowed a patch of floor - much easier.

So, time for some serious student bashing...

Predictions anyone - who is a student this year, is anyone on for a record number of wins...

gbm
-3rd November 2005, 17:42
Originally posted by D'Artignan
Give it a rest guys, general student-bashing forum here, not some legal discussion:mad: :mad: :mad:

I'm finished :)

I'll be doing all three weapons this year... foil badly, epee nearly as badly, and sabre worse! ;)

That's assuming my club is entering people soon... :confused:

Just wish Nottingham wasn't so far away...

ChubbyHubby
-3rd November 2005, 17:44
Originally posted by gbm

Just wish Nottingham wasn't so far away...

Put your foot down, you'll get there quicker! :chicken:
(sorry, couldn't resist!)

Lenny
-28th November 2005, 20:09
Anyone entered women's foil?

Farrago
-29th November 2005, 17:51
*sigh* I don't get to play:( s'not fair! Mean exam on the following Tuesday. Was very tempted to go to individuals anyway but this exam is worth about 16% of my degree:dizzy:

Foilling Around
-29th November 2005, 20:28
Originally posted by gbm
I'm finished :)

Just wish Nottingham wasn't so far away...

That's funny, a few weeks ago I was wishing that Cardiff wasn't so far away!!

Junkie
-29th November 2005, 22:05
With more and more Universities moving to semesterisation is it time that the BUSA championships got a new date?

In previous years the early december date involved a few people missing a couple of lectures and having to cram in a few end of term deadlines, now it falls right in the middle of our exam time and understandably many people cannot go down. I am sure that a lot of other unis have moved to a similar academic year.

I am able to go because my department decided that it wanted to put all its exams in June.

stephen
-29th November 2005, 23:49
Some of us also have problems because the epee is always on the friday, thus as our course has conplusory attendance to sessions i am not able to go for 2nd year running.

How able doing it on a weekend like an open? or even changing the days for the weapons on a rota so you would be able to go at least a couple to times????:mad:

UglyBug
-30th November 2005, 12:47
Traditionally, BUSA runs over 3 days to minimise people fencing the same weapon on the same day - ie. Men and women never fence epee at the same time. This is so that clubs who are limited for kit can enter as many fencers as their kit supplies allow.

Normally competitors can get a concession from their university via the athletics union - it is only one day a year

silvercross
-2nd December 2005, 12:25
Does anyone know if BUSA has posted a preliminary list of the fencers signed up for the individuals?

Last year around this time they had it on the webpage, but I can't seem to find it now...:(

Maxim
-2nd December 2005, 12:46
They have. Use this link and look for "Fencing". http://www.busa.org.uk/mailout.asp?section=000100020005

silvercross
-2nd December 2005, 12:59
Fantastic! :)

Cheers for that!