Version 2.4, Last updated; 8th August 1999
This is the Frequently Asked Questions (and answers) list for the newsgroup uk.transport. You should try and avoid asking the questions in this list on the newsgroup, since they have been beaten to death there over and over again, and we really don't want to go over the arguments again.
The more contentious questions in this FAQ have no real resolution; they come down to people's beliefs. In these cases I present all sides of the argument, and leave it up to you to decide. If you have more facts about either side of these arguments, then please feel free to post them, or mail them to me for inclusion in the FAQ. Please do not post trolls designed to provoke flame wars.
The FAQ is maintained by me, (huge{at}huge{dot}org{dot}uk) but the information is provided by you, the readers of and contributors to uk.transport. I should like to thank all of them for their contributions and patience at the length of time it takes me to incorporate them.
The FAQ is posted to uk.transport monthly on the 15th, and is available on the WWW
It would be helpful if contributors could limit their line lengths to 70 characters or so. If you using a Unix system, you can feed your text through 'fmt -70' to do this.
My apologies for munging the email addresses throughout this document. Regrettably, the spammers have started harvesting FAQs for email addresses and I have no desire to make their lives easier.
The FAQ was originally maintained in ASCII. As of 13 August '97, I have manually converted it into HTML, which is how it will be maintained from now on. The ASCII version will be converted from the HTML, either with Lynx or Netscape. This appears to cause the loss of the links at present, and I will work on this. I cannot run Microsoft Internet Explorer, so I do not know how well this FAQ looks in it. If it causes you problems, let me know, and I will help you compose your complaint to Microsoft. The conversion to HTML is not yet finished; several of the sections in <PRE> blocks should be in tables and I forgot about the <BLOCKQUOTE> tag until it was too late.
A spaghetti publisher is one whose philosophy of publishing is to "throw it at the wall and see if it sticks." Recently they been very busy putting out badly written Internet books, and are looking for yet more material they can rush into print in their ever greedier search for easy money.
Lately, spaghetti publishers have taken to exploiting FAQs and lists, often publishing them without obtaining written permission. This is an abuse of the copyright laws, and threatens the continued viability of the FAQ system which benefits us all. These are the same publishers who would sue at the drop of a hat if anyone so much as used a figure from their books without permission.
This FAQ is Copyright © 1995-6-7-8-9,2000-1 by huge{at}huge{dot}org{dot}uk, and is made available as a service to the Internet community. It may not be sold in any medium, including electronic, CD-ROM, or database, packaged with any commercial product, or published in print, without the explicit, written, permission of huge{at}huge{dot}org{dot}uk. The copyright of included material is acknowledged under the 'fair use' guidelines.
This language comes [mostly] from the comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc faq, maintained by Bernard Aboba.
This FAQ is presented with no warranties or guarantees of ANY KIND including correctness or fitness for any particular purpose. The author(s) of this document have attempted to verify correctness of the data contained herein; however, slip-ups can and do happen. If you use this data, you do so at your own risk.
This question pops up regularly on uk.transport, and probably causes more argument than any other. There appears to be no definitive answer, so here are the three (!) sides of the argument;
The chancellor taxes the UK motorists over £25bn a year. Only £5bn of that goes back into the roads, the rest is absorbed into the government. And yet, whenever there's a need for more money, this excess £20bn seems to be forgotten and the road tax and petrol prices go up. The current markup on 4-star is about 104%! More than 75% of the pump price is tax.
Motorists pay £13.8bn and cost £32.6bn, as the amount they pay does not not include the hidden costs such as the cost of accidents, policing the roads and pollution;
Taken from the Transport 2000 booklet 'Myths and facts: transport trends and transport policies':
------------------------------------ ----------------------------
Indirect costs of motoring Revenue from road users
(pounds, millions) (pounds, millions)
------------------------------------ ----------------------------
Congestion 15,000
Road building 3,650
Road repairs & cleaning 2,235
Roads: administration 146
Research on design & safety 32
Deaths & injuries 4,803
Policing 400
Licencing costs 150
Company car subsidy 1,500
Air pollution 2,500
Global warming 657 Fuel tax 10,760
Noise pollution 2,100 Vehicle excise duty 3,065
------ ------
32,591 13,825
====== ======
Contrasting, I have been given these figures from "The True Costs of Road Transport" by David Maddison (Earthscan Books, 1996);
cost/ billions of pounds
Global Warming 0.1
Air Pollution 19.7
Noise 2.6 - 3.1
Congestion 19.1
Road Damage 1.5
Accidents 2.9 - 9.4
TOTAL 45.9 - 52.9
Sources cited are: Dept of Transport, Confederation of British Industry, Cyclists' Touring Club.
The incremental costs of motoring are also such that once you have a car, you might as well use it;
From the 18th Royal Commission on the Environment, chaired by Sir John Houghton, page 104:
"What it costs to run a car ...
| Fuel | 26% |
| Maintenance | 12% |
| Miscellaneous | 3% |
| Vehicle excise duty | 6% |
| Insurance | 11% |
| Depreciation | 42% |
"... Almost all of these costs are vehicle costs... [w]hen car owners consider whether to make a particular journey, and whether to make it by road, the costs they have already incurred are not relevant."
"Motorists" means probably more than half of the adult population. Is income tax paid by someone who drives a car a payment by a motorist or not?
It would be better to ask: Are the costs of transport made visible as such?
Does the way taxes are collected based on transport consumption (Road tax, Petrol Tax, Income Tax allowances for transport cost) and externalised costs tolerated (environmental damage, destruction of old city kernels) have an impact on the way people choose between different forms of transport (or even making do with less or without transport)?
When it comes to HGVs, the matter is even more complicated. If you consider that the road wear per axle per mile goes with the fourth power of axle load, you may take into account: car: 1-2 tons, 2 axles; lorry 18 tons, 2 axles or 26 tons, 3 axles. This means that a lorry pays 10-20 times the road tax of a car but damages the road 6000 to 50 000 times as much per mile driven and generally has a significantly higher annual road mileage; a lorry uses 2-3 times as much fuel per mile as a car but damages the road at least 6000 times as much. If lorries pay their way, car tax should justifiably be reduced to a couple of pence per year!
The RCEP [see Q.5] concluded that lorry taxes only pay between 68% and 49% of their identifiable costs. However, charging the true costs would not be the only measure necessary to encourage more sustainable transport.
This argument too comes up regularly, and the answer depends on what you think road taxes are for;
The anti argument can be summed up thus;
Pardon? If you think that cyclists actually cause any discernable damage to the roads then you've got another think coming. Per vehicle, the amount of damage caused by cars over cycles is a couple of orders of magnitude out. A car causes around 1000 times more damage. Cyclists do not weigh much. Cyclists cannot generally get up to the sorts of speeds where their tyres could start 'ripping' at the tarmac. Cyclists should not pay road tax.
But then;
It is not unreasonable to argue that road taxes are not for the roads; they are just taxes. Indeed this argument is a favourite of those who consider that motorists do not pay enough. If this argument is correct, then the argument that cyclists should not pay road taxes because they do not damage the roads, cause congestion, etc., collapses. Cyclists use the roads. They should pay taxes.
It depends.
If you're travelling alone, and don't have to carry much, then the train. If there's a group of you, then the car, even if you have to hire one. The break-even point depends on how many of you there are, and what kind of fares you have to pay on the train. There have been volumes of figures produced by both 'sides' in this argument, and the answer still seems to be "It depends".
I have been sent the following environmental impact asessment showing that in Germany in the late 80s, the train was between 50 and 100 times safer than the car. Note that this states the risk caused by a mode of transport, not the risk exposed: for motorised vehicles these numbers are very similar but pedestrians and cyclists are exposed to a significantly bigger risk than the risk they cause:
environmental impact of different modes of transport in Germany:
pedestrian cyclist rail bus car car with catalyst
area requirement 3 12 7 12 115 115
in m^2/person
primary energy use 0 0 42 27 90 90
in gSKE/Pkm
CO2 in g/Pkm 0 0 90 59 200 200
NOx in g/Pkm 0 0 0.12 0.2 2.2 0.35
Hydrocarbons 0 0 0.02 0.08 1 0.2
in g/Pkm
CO in g/Pkm 0 0 0.05 0.15 8.7 1.5
air pollution 0 0 1705 3315 38370 6525
in m^3/Pkm
accident risk 0.01 0.2 0.4 1 11.5 11.5
in h/1000 Pkm
KEY:
Also;
These figures for 1994 were posted to the urbancyclist-uk mailing list last year, by Andrea Casalotti, quoting the DOT:
Pedestrian deaths and serious injuries in 1994
Type of vehicle involved Deaths Serious injuries ------------------------ ------ ---------------- Bicycle.................... 3........... 107 Motor cycle............... 39........... 352 Car and taxi ............ 725 ......... 9258 Bus ...................... 51 .......... 345 LGV ...................... 75 .......... 545 Other vehicle............. 9 ........... 57 ------------- ---- ---- TOTAL 991 10886
These figures are from "Transport Statistics, Great Britain", sadly only the 1996 edition but never mind. This HMSO publication includes a table for Accidents, Fatalities and Fatalities + Serious Injuries across various modes of transport, all listed per billion passenger kilometres, years 1984-94;
Mode Air Bus Rail Van Car Sea P'bike pedestn M'bike Rate 0.1 0.5 0.8 2.4 4.0 10 47 66 101
So it seems that walking 200m to a bus stop carries as much risk of dying as 80 miles by plane, 16 miles by bus/coach, 10 miles by rail, 2 miles by car etc.
About 5% of pedestrian deaths involve buses (59 /1241 in 1993), so it seems you are about as likely to be killed *by* a bus in walking 250m, as killed *on* a bus travelling for 1 mile.
I also have the following on "traffic calming";
There are lots of pollutants, and they come from different sources:
(Taken from Quality of Urban Air Review Group, DoE, 1993)
UK National Pollutant Emissions; Pollutant % from traffic % from power stations CO2 18.8 33.1 Black smoke 41.6 5 CO 89.7 <5 SO2 1.2 71.4 Volatile organic33.5 0 NOx 51.9 25.7
[NOTE: But, I have repeatedly seen the assertion that the construction of a vehicle creates more pollution than the vehicle itself will emit in a lifetime's use. Does anyone have a reliable source for this?]
Also; "All US cars and light trucks subject to CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards represent only 1.5% of worldwide man-made greenhouse gases. If proposed legislation to require a 40% increase in CAFE standards is enacted into law, the reduction in the car and light truck portion of global greenhouse gases would be virtually undetectable - only 0.4%, and not until 2010."
Percent of Worldwide Man-Made "Greenhouse" Gases
| Coal | 14.7% |
| Natural Gas | 6.5% |
| Deforestation | 14.8% |
| Methane | 15% |
| Chloroflourocarbons | 24% |
| Nitrous Oxide | 6% |
| Other Petroleum Combustion | 14.9% |
| US Vehicles subject to CAFE | 1.5% |
| All other US transportation | 0.8% |
| Other | 1.8% |
Sources: US EPA and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
I also have some emissions related URLs, at;
I have also put a useful document by Marcus Jones (who is doing a PhD on air pollution) on my web site.
You might like to look at http://www.energyinfo.co.uk/uk.html. It says that electricity consumption rose in 1995 by 2%, gas by 18% and petrol deliveries fell by 2% (but then appear to rise again by 2% in 1996). There is also lots of other data nearby ...
Eighteenth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Transport and the Environment, published by HMSO in 1994.
"Cycling in Great Britain", HMSO 20pounds
"Transport Statistics of Great Britain", HMSO.
Also, see the web sites in Question 8, below.
Sort of. It used to tell you where the car was first registered, thus;
The Registration Letters Table
The Association of British Insurers run a research programme to establish this. You can get the results by calling the premium rate faxback line on 0660 666680.
You will also find the faxback numbers for lists of approved installers in the document faxed from the number above.
Depending on your postcode, try the following faxback numbers;
A - D : 0660 660162 E - K : 0660 660163 L - R : 0660 660164 S - Z : 0660 660165
or you can get the full list from 0660 660161.
Those numbers have the new list dated 5 January 1996.
The Motor Insurers Repair Research Centre can be contacted on 01635 868855 (Fax 01635 871346).
Failing that, the address is
Department VS Association of British Insurers 51 Gresham Street London EC2 7HQ
They also have a Helpline 0660 222244.
Billions...
I have the following transport related mailing lists;
Perhaps you should have been driving more slowly...?
Real cameras must flash twice, but fakes can also flash twice. If two or more offenders pass through in sequence there is only one extra flash for each, at half second intervals. It is therefore possible for three or more flashes to occur - but very rare. The speed is measured using a narrow band X,K or Ka radar emitted from the front of the camera (where the flash is). It measures your speed using the doppler effect and then takes two photos of the back of your car. It takes two so that the speed information superimposed on the resulting photographs can be manually double checked by calculating the distance the car has moved between pictures. As the pictures are taken half a second apart, and there are markings on the road at five foot intervals. (They look *much* closer when you drive through at speed.) This distance is chosen by the local police and may well be different in various parts of the country. From this the speed can be calculated. Most GATSOs are tuned to 10% above the speed limit plus 2 mph. This is a *very rough* estimate, but it means that theoretically a GATSO in a 30mph zone will only register vehicles travelling at 35mph or more. Of course this is all tuneable by the officer who sets the camera, but AFAIK those are the guidelines. This is to take account of the number of cases that would otherwise come back with people complaining that "their speedo said 30mph" and suchlike.
(I have it on reasonable authority that most Gatso's are set to 10% + 10mph, meaning that you will have to be exceeding 43mph in a 30 limit and 87mph in a 70 limit to be prosecuted. The 10% + 2 mph limit has been proposed for the M25, but has not been implemented. Yet. [HJED])
There are currently three types of GATSO. (GATSO is not an acronym, but an abbreviation of the surname of the inventor; Gatsonides [HJED]).
There is no such thing. None of the products you see advertised are any use at all against GATSO pictures. With the computer enhancement technology that is available now, the only thing guaranteed to fool it is if you don't have a numberplate there at all, and the car is anonymous. By that I mean it's not a supercharged dayglo green american import with wide wheels but no rear plate - that would be easy enough to find. Trust me. I work with the sort of equipment the police use and you can pull basically any information you like out of the picture.
As we're at it, here's the other speed devices:
Everyone knows this. It's the black hairdryer that the police point at you just before they pull you over (in most cases). Works just like any radar controlled GATSO but displays the speed on the back for the operator to see. It's then up to the operator's discretion whether or not to stop you. You can buy so-called 'radar-scattering numberplate covers' which do actually scatter the returning radar so the gun can't get a reading. This does, of course, rely on the policeman having pointed the gun at your numberplate in the first place. Generally they don't as any flat-ish surface will do. Headlights, bumpers etc.
So called because it's a TRUe VELOcity measurer. This is the pair of rubber strips that you drive across. They're a known distance apart, and the time between compressions is measured to give the resulting speed of the vehicle. Unfortunately, these look remarkably like the devices the DOT use to do road-usage statistics (counting the number of vehicles etc). The most common use for TruVelo is on blind bends or flyovers. The arresting officers are out of sight, but they can see you, and they can get a speed reading. So if you bomb onto a flyover and slam on the anchors when you see the policemen, it's too late.
[I have been told repeatedly that if you slam your brakes on so that they're locked as you go over the rubber strips, that they get ripped out of their holders and thus are useless at their supposed function. I've never tried it, and it sound suspiciously UL-ish to me. [HJED])
Vehicle Actual Speed CAlculatoR. This is a glorified stopwatch. The policecar will either tail you matching your speed for upto a minute and one of the officers will time the time it takes to travel between two points a known distance apart. Ever wondered what those white squares are for that are painted on the road? Ever noticed how they seem to be most predominant near motorway bridges? The police don't actually have to be following you. They can sit on a motorway bridge and time a car passing over these marks with are usually an eighth or a quarter of a mile apart. They then radio to the motorbike on the hard shoulder a bit further on and he pulls you over.
[I thought VASCAR stood for Visual Automatic Speed Calculator And Recorder? What *does* it stand for?]
[HJED] Jason Price <jasonp{at}parallax{dot}co{dot}uk> wrote to his MP (Sir Patrick Mayhew) and the following is his summary of the letter he got in reply;
"Perhaps I can shed a little light on the UK bull bar issue by letting you in on the reply I got from my MP (Sir Patrick Mayhew, NI Secretary) when I wrote to him about it. He contacted the department of Transport and the reply he got went something along the lines of...
The Dept. of Transport has asked the UK police forces to collect pedestrian accident statistics for those accidents with bull bars specifically. 21 police forces have agreed and have been providing the real data on which the dept. of Transport has based the government's school of thought on this.
Of the 20,000 or so pedestrian accidents and fatalities reported, there were less than 1,000 involving bull bars (that's fatalities and non fatalities). Of fatal accidents, we're down to 3 figures of all accidents, so the number of accidents currently involving bull bars is positively miniscule. However, not wishing to have the 'they'll increase as the numbers go up' argument, I did a little bit of percentage style calculation on this to address the real issue.
Of pedestrian accidents, fatalities caused by the group of non-bull bar fitted vehicles amount for just under 1.5% of all accidents involving non-bull bar fitted vehicles.
Of pedestrian accidents for bull bar fitted vehicles, fatalities account for marginally over 2% of all accidents involving bull bar fitted vehicles.
Now considering the shape and size of most 4x4 style vehicles that have bull bars fitted to them, I don't really think that an increase of less than .75% in the likelihood of fatalities can be justifiable cause to ban bull bars as the horrific pedestrian maimers that they are.
Reports such as those on BBC Watchdog and the like usually tend to take the moral high ground by comparing the vehicular equivalents of an apple and orange (i.e. a 20mph accident in a ford fiesta and a LR with bull bars!). I've never seen anyone yet do a like comparison between the different types of vehicle without bull bars (if you get my point?). These figures from the real accident statistics collected by police will be far more accurate in that respect, as they classify the accidents (fatal and non-fatal) from distinct groups of 'bull bar fitted or not fitted' vehicles, rather than trying to draw conclusions on bull bar fitted accidents from a group of all vehicles.
The concluding statement was that the department of transport is continuing to collate these statistics from police forces and feels, until there is suitably convincing evidence available from the results, it would be an unnecessary imposition on a tiny minority of vehicles when there is no appreciable evidence that it's all that serious. basically, they weren't going to do anything for at least another 2 years, by which time they'll have enough statistics to genuinely show whether or not bull bars are in fact a danger."
[HJED] I ran a search on the Electronic Telegraph, for "Bull Bars" and also "road deaths", and discarding the hyperbole, here are some of the statements made;
"Last year 35 people were killed and 1,145 injured in accidents involving vehicles with bull bars. Coroners have urged Steven Norris, the transport minister, to ban them." (The Electronic Telegraph Friday 8 December 1995)
"Nigel Griffiths, shadow consumer spokesman, said a Government-funded study by the Transport Research Laboratory showed casualties from bull bars could rise to 60 deaths and almost 1,500 serious injuries next year." (ibid.)
"The European Parliament has voted to ban bull bars on vehicles, responding to representations from safety campaigners who say they are dangerous to pedestrians." (The Electronic Telegraph Friday 22 September 1995)
"The Association of Protector Bar Manufacturers reacted angrily to the possibility of a ban. "The projection of extra deaths put out by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory has been overstated," said a spokesman, Selwyn Rowley. "The reality is that the Department of Transport has been monitoring all accidents during 1994, and has said that six deaths involved vehicles with bull bars." (ibid.)
[HJED - Why do the numbers differ? Norris says 60 deaths, APBM says 6, both quoting the DoT as the source.]
"THE Government was accused of "treachery" last night after a minister blocked a cross-party attempt to ban bull bars on vehicles. Labour and Conservative MPs were furious after Steven Norris, the road safety minister, talked out the Bull Bars (Prohibition) Bill." (The Electronic Telegraph Monday 1 April 1996)
"MPs said during the debate that the rigid metal frames fitted to the front of vehicles were responsible for up to 70 deaths a year. Mr Norris said he supported the principles behind the Bill, but insisted the problem could only be tackled through European-wide legislation." (ibid.)
[HJED - *Another* different number!]
Now. That's right; this very instant. Lean down and press that switch right now.
Seriously though, the Highway Code says that you must not use your rear fog lights unless "visibility is seriously reduced, that is, generally, reduced to a distance of less than 100 metres. Do not use them simply because it is dark or raining or misty."
If you are sitting in a queue of traffic, have some consideration for the person behind you and turn them off. There's no point in having your rear fogs on when the car behind you is only a few feet away and stationary.
Or, if you want the Law on this;
Regulation 27, Road Vehicles Lighting Regs 1989:
No person shall use, or cause or permit to be used, on a road...
Rear Fog Lamp...
(a) used so as to cause undue dazzle or discomfort to the driver
of a following vehicle
(b) used so as to be lit at any time OTHER THAN IN CONDITIONS OF
SERIOUSLY REDUCED VISIBILITY. [my emphasis]
(c) save as in the case of an emergency vehicle, used so as to be
lit when parked.
So, as soon as visibility improves, switch them off. Please!
My 1996 Highway Code says;
"Special care is needed at road works. Observe signs, signals and speed limits. Check your mirrors, get into lane early, and adjust your speed appropriately."
So, like the good book says; GET INTO LANE EARLY. Don't come charging down the outside lane and barge into the queue of traffic at the last moment. Conversely, when someone does this, don't obstruct the lane. Swallow your pride and let them in; after all they're an arsehole and you're not, right?
Unfortunately, the consultation document for the new edition of the highway code changes the advice about merging lanes before road works. The covering letter with the consultation document says;
Alternate merging at road works - rule 263
Current advice when approaching road works is to get into the correct lane for your vehicle in good time. Signs, especially on motorways often begin 800 yards from the road works, and many drivers change then. This is thought to allow safer and earlier merging but can cause additional delays as one lane becomes empty. It also creates bad feeling if drivers overtake queuing traffic in the empty lane and then attempt to push in close to the road works. We suggest the following."at lane restrictions/closures traffic, when queuing, should fill all approach lanes and merge alternately at the lane restriction."
No.
The following letter is from Stephen Norris to John Catt, and was posted on the urbancyclist-uk mailing list;
"Firstly, may I confirm that the Department has not made any proposals to ban the use of LED cycle lamps. I would also point out that there is no Directive from the European Commission prohibiting the fitment of non-standard lamps to pedal cycles.
The Department recently conducted a consultation exercise on proposals to amend the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989. As part of this exercise, we requested consultees' views (ie. we were NOT making proposals) on whether further amendments should be proposed to require ALL lights fitted on pedal cycles to be 'e/E' approved or to comply with the British Standard BS6102 part 3 or equivalent. The purpose of such a change, if introduced, would be to persuade retailers to sell, and cyclists to buy, only approved lights and hence reduce the number of poor quality cycle lights on the market and on the road.
If such a change was to be proposed, it would be on the basis of the latest version of BS 6102 part 3 (which the lighting regulations do not currently recognise). This version of BS 6102 Part 3 recognises the use of LED lamps in the steady state (ie. not flashing). Therefore, the idea on which we requested views would permit the use of 'non-flashing' LED lamps as either obligatory or additional lamps, provided they are 'e/E' approved or comply with the British standard BS 6102 part 3 or equivalent. We do not have any plans to remove the current prohibition on the use of any flashing lamps on pedal cycles, but this will be reviewed, taking account of comments received during the consultation exercise.
Mr. Catt should be aware that this is only an idea on which views were requested. No proposals have been made and at present there are no plans to do so. If, in the future, we decide to make such proposals then a separate consultation exercise will be conducted."
Also;
The BS for cycle lights is *not* a law. It has legal force only when referred to by law, in this case the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations. However, the two (BS & law) may change independently of each other, and thus the law refers to a specific publication of BS, in this case BS 6102: Part3: 1986. However, since then, the BS has been updated (April 1995), and the word "bulb" was replaced with the words "light source". In a classic cock-up, the Lighting Regs were changed leter in the year - but the (old) BS date was left in... So, on a technicality, cycle lights still have to comply with an out-of-date standard.
No. They are part of the TrafficMaster automated traffic flow metering system, a commercial product, not a Government system. They measure the speed of vehicles in each lane and feed the information back to a central computer. This collates the information and retransmits it to these little boxes which in turn relay national road situations to cars passing by with TrafficMaster boxes in them. Check out this Web site for an Internet version of it. It's live!
In the case of Dual carriageway and Motorways, lanes should be referred to by numbers. Lane 1 is the nearside line, with lane 2 the next, then lane 3 etc, counting up towards the central reservation.
There are NO slow or fast lanes, and traffic should always keep to the left most lane, except when overtaking slower moving traffic.
These are usually areas where a moderation of speed would be wise, but is not absolutely necessary. It's based on the principle that a large area of red road is a lot harder to ignore than a small speed limit sign or "slow down" sign. A couple of examples: on the A24 heading towards Worthing, there is a huge crossroads with no lights or roundabout. At this point, the A24 is a 60mph zone, and it's a B-road which crosses it. Naturally, it's wise to slow down a little so that when the idiots pull out of the B-road without looking, you have half a chance of missing them. Another one is on the entry and exit to a small village on the A4074 from Reading to Oxford. The village itself has an armed speed camera in it, and the road is painted red to warn you ahead of time.
Cycle and bus lanes are also frequently coloured, usually red or green. These lanes are reserved for the 'vehicles' concerned and cars should keep out
Finally, the strictly enforced 'No Parking/No stopping' "Redways" in and out of London are coloured. I leave which colour as an exercise for the reader!
The average Transit van falls below the 3.5t max gross weight and therefore is subject to the same limits as a car under national speed limits (70mph on Dual carriageways and motorways, and 60mph on singles). Any vehicle with a gross weight over 3.5t and under 7.5t (including tranny's with a trailer) are limited to 70mph on a motorway, 60 on dual carriageway and 50 on single carriageway. Any vehicle over 7.5t has 60mph, 50mph and 40mph limits respectively.
BS217 1987 : All heavy goods vehicles with a gross vehicle weight limit exceeding 7.5 tons must be fitted with a speed limiter set to 60 mph, now amended by EEC regulations to 56 mph (90 km/h). All coaches which have a gross vehicle weight more than 7.5 tons must have a speed limiter set to 70 mph, amended to 65 mph in 1996 and finally amended by EEC regulations to 62 mph (100 km/h). From 1996 they no longer been permitted to use the outside lane of a motorway.
The speed limit on motorways of 70 mph came in as part of the 1968 Road Traffic Act. Rumour has it that AC and Aston Martin were using the motorways for high speed proving.
Austria - 81mph/130km/h
Belgium - 74/120
Bulgaria - 74/120
Croatia - 81/130
Czech Rep - 68/110
Denmark - 68/110
Finland - 74/120
France - 81/130 (and during wet conditions, 68/110)
Germany - Recommended maximum of 81/130 - many compulsory limits
near interchanges/busy urban areas/in urban areas at
night
Greece - 74/120
Hungary - 74/120
Italy - 81/130
Luxembourg - 74/120
Netherlands - 74/120
Norway - 49/80 or 55/80 (National speed limit of 80 usually applies
otherwise)
Poland - 68/110
Portugal - 74/120
Romania - Standard limits, which may be varied by signs, for
private vehicles with or without trailers: built-up areas 37 mph (60
kph) for cars, 24 mph (40 kph) for motorcycles; outside built-up areas
43 mph (70 kph) for vehicles of less than 1100cc, between 1100-
1800cc 49 mph (80 kph), over 1800cc 55 mph (90 kph) and
motorcycles 31 mph (50 kph); on motorways the limits applicable
outside built-up areas apply
Slovak Rep - 68/110
Slovenia - 74/120
Spain - 74/120
Sweden - 55/90 or 68/110 according to signs
Switzerland - 74/120
former Yugo - 74/120
A while ago an article in the Independent stated that the Cones Hotline "has been discreetly remodelled as the Highways Agency Information Line (HAIL, 0345 504030). These days HAIL's main role is giving information on roadworks, pollution and fuel economy, though cones communications are still welcome."
No.
There is little evidence that vehicle pollution cause healthy people to become asthmatic BUT there is evidence that pollution makes life worse for those that are asthmatic; or indeed those who suffer from other respiratory complaints. I suggest you read a recent BMJ edition: volume 312 16 March 1996 which has a number of articles on this subject.
According to an article in the "The Guardian", Section 2, Monday 25 March. (Reproduced without permission.) [Edited for length - HJED]
"What we do know for sure is that asthma is making life a misery for some three million sufferers in this country, including some one in 10 children whose numbers have leapt about 50 per cent over the last 30 years. We are up against a baffling assortment of causes: pollen, fungal spores, house dust, dust mites, emotional stress, respiratory infections, certain foods, sudden changes in the weather, indoor and outdoor air pollution, and more. Most disturbing of all, no one is really sure what actually triggers asthma in the first place."
"The arguments recently burst open again when the DOH published a report into the possible links between outdoor air pollution and asthma (Asthma and Outdoor Air Pollution, HMSO, 1995, GBP21)."
"Their findings flew in the face of popular opinion because a committee of experts found there was no evidence that traffic pollution caused asthma, it only made asthma slightly worse."
"But the most important trigger of asthma is probably how you live indoors, especially tobacco smoke. And the biggest threat of all is the house dust mite which feeds on dust and debris in mattresses and carpets, drawing all its water needs from soaking up humidity in the air. In fact, the dust mite could be the most important factor in causing asthma - once the mite has sensitised the victim then other factors can home into play. The microscopic mite droppings are the things which do the damage because they envelop homes in a cloud of invisible particles. The mite thrives in warm, humid conditions; so a tightly insulated house is an ideal breeding ground. Even in summer, we just don't seem to open many windows, and the air indoors is often stuffy and perfect for dust mites."
See also this summary of the relevant literature up to 1995.
No.
Section 87, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984:
'No statutory provision imposing a speed limit ... shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, if the observation of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose to which it is being put at the time'.
Nothing there about blues and twos, marked vehicles or any of the other myths.
Traffic lights and give way signs have different exemptions which are laid down in the Traffic Signs Regulations 1994.
The DoT has a national complaint line on 01323 451500. If you ring them and give the vehicle's registration number, the department will contact the owner and insist repairs are carried out.
If owners do not produce a certificate to say that the work has been completed, they become liable for prosecution or have their licence withdrawn by the department.
The service covers all commercial vehicles over 3.5 tons, which excludes taxis, but includes buses.
When phoning in you will be asked for your name and address, (which is kept confidential, but presumably is used to ensure you are not being vexatious), the registration number of the vehicle concerned, where you saw it, and the date and time.
Also, from The Times, 19 August 1996 p.6;
Commercial vehicles can be reported to the Vehicles Inspectorate on regional hot lines, but cars can not.
You'll need:
Regional numbers:
No.
Only 2% of the total land area of the UK is taken up with roads. The other 98% is distributed amongst commercial, residential, industrial and countryside. Mostly the latter.
Look for the little circular signs on certain stretches of motorway etc. The first one is yellow, the second has a quarter red, the third is half red, the fourth is three quarters red and the last on is totally red.
They mark out a measured mile. Get a friend to time you over this distance - the rest is simple arithmetic.
I used to believe the emergency telephones on motorways were a mile apart, but a correspondent has measured them at between 0.7 and 1.3 miles, so they aren't a reliable mile.
If you want a metric check, the small blue posts which among other things tell you which way to walk to the nearest emergency phone, are 100 metres apart
They are used by the authorities responsible for the maintenance of the roads. A special vehicle is driven over the road, measuring the wear of the surface. It uses the barcodes in order to know where it is.
They are yet another part of the Trafficmaster holdup monitoring system. They allegedly scan in part of your registration number, generate and arbitrary "tag" from it, and send the tag to a central computer system. When it "sees" the "tag" pass another Trafficmaster point, it can calculate the average traffic speed between those points.
There is a very superficial description on the Trafficmaster Web site.