Gridlock In Beeston – Thanks Again To The Tram

This is an old article. The tram still causes problems, but this was related to its construction phase.

I had a lesson with a pupil in Long Eaton yesterday. Getting down there for 1pm was no problem but coming back at 2.30pm was a nightmare. Traffic was solid along Queens Road West heading through Beeston – and this was a good 2 hours before the rush hour. And the reason?

The halfwits responsible for phase II of the tram system – that total waste of money that is currently putting people out of business and ruining lives by over-running and creating constant noise and access problems – have ripped out the roundabout at the end of University Boulevard and replaced it with a traffic light-controlled junction.

I heard on the BBC local traffic news this morning the glib comment:

There is queuing traffic in Beeston because of temporary lights and a new road layout.

That doesn’t tell even half of the story. The reason there is queuing traffic is solely because the Council and NET are a bunch of Neanderthals who are too stupid to even organise a piss up in a brewery. Between them they are destroying Nottingham. The only people who are ever likely to benefit from the tram are those who are either too poor or too old to drive cars – and that’s only in theory, since the tram is too expensive for even poor people to use too often.

The vast majority of the rest of the population – motorists – can go hang, as far as the Council is concerned.

At the time of writing, Aspley Lane has been turned into a nightmare by the removal of a roundabout. All the signs are that the Crown Island is going, too. Three roundabouts have been removed in Clifton because of the tram. The Council has sanctioned traffic light replacement at several sites – most notably in Mapperley, where there are lane restrictions.Also in Mapperley are temporary lights just before the Spring Lane roundabout. Work is on-going on Middleton Boulevard (the shit hasn’t hit the fan yet, but it will). And a big, flashy sign proclaims impending work at the Forest Road roundabout at the junction with Mansfield Road.

Nottingham City Council is trying very hard – and succeeding – in destroying this place.

Oh, yes. And on my way through Beeston I noticed a billboard which carried a big photo of the tram and the banner, declaring “Thanks for bearing with us during the tram works”.

No one had any choice – including those who have gone out of business (or who will do) as a result of the tram.

The Two Second Rule

Driving: The Essential Skills (TES) is the official DVSA guide to driving. Under the heading “Separation Distance”, it says the following:

The two-second rule

In good dry conditions an alert driver, who is driving a vehicle with first class tyres and brakes, needs to be at least two seconds behind the vehicle in front.

In bad conditions, double the safety gap to at least four seconds or even more.

The Highway Code (HC) says the following:

126

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should

  • leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances diagram, shown below)
  • allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front on roads carrying faster-moving traffic and in tunnels where visibility is reduced. The gap should be at least doubled on wet roads and increased still further on icy roads

You will note the use of the words “at least” and “or even more”. Neither publication (nor the DSA) is advising people to drive at precisely two seconds behind the driver in front all of the time.

On lessons, it is common for pupils to get too close to the vehicle in front at some stage of their training. It is also common for them – when asked how big a gap they should leave – to answer “two car lengths”. They do not mean that: it is just an answer with the number “two” in it, and if they actually thought about it (which some do) they would realise that two car lengths is a ridiculously short distance. The bottom line is that they have some vague recollection of the two-second rule, but not enough to recall it correctly.

As an aside, they also often give a nonsense answer when you ask them how far ahead they should be able to see before using their fog lights. Answers of “two metres” or “ten metres” are common (at which point I usually comment that I wouldn’t even walk outside, let alone drive, if visibility was that bad). They also commonly give nonsense answers to the tyre tread depth show-me-tell-me question based on a vague memory of having read it while studying for their Theory Test.

The simple fact is that the Theory Test is complementary to their lessons. It is the ADI’s job to help them apply the theory to the practicalities of being out on the road.

Instructors should be careful about making up their own rules about separation distances, especially if they don’t understand the topic as well as they think they do. Trying to leave too large a gap could easily lead to a candidate driving too slowly, and apart from the obvious problems this can cause in terms of the outcome of the test, it is guaranteed to encourage other drivers to overtake in frustration. TES and HC say you should leave “at least” two seconds in good weather. This does not automatically mean that ten or twenty seconds would be OK in free moving traffic (unless it is icy), because people would overtake and drop into the gap, and the learner would then have to slow down even more to open up the artificially large gap again. A “two-second rule” sized gap discourages all but the biggest arseholes (i.e. Audi drivers) from cutting in because the driver applying it is driving sensibly.

A confident and well-trained driver should be able to maintain a safe distance using the two-second rule without resorting to complicated additional rules. I stress again that when we say “two-second rule” it encompasses the principles of “at least” or “even more” mentioned in TES and the HC.

Measuring the gap is easy. As the car in front passes a sign, a lamp post, or some other feature, just say in a normal voice “only a fool breaks the two-second rule”. If you get to the sign or whatever before you finish saying it then you’re too close. And with a little driving experience under your belt you will know automatically if you’re too close without having to keep doing it.

Why is it measured in seconds and not car lengths?

Referring to overall stopping distances for a moment, if you have to brake suddenly the stopping distance varies depending on how fast you were travelling. At 20mph you can stop in about 12 metres, whereas at 70mph it will take 96 metres – or eight times further. In other words, it is a different number of car lengths for every single speed. Learners have enough trouble learning stopping distances as it is.

Leaving a gap of at least two seconds applies at any speed. It is much easier to apply than individual numbers of car lengths.

Why two seconds?

It’s only a rough rule. At 1mph, a car will be travelling 0.447 metres per second. Therefore, at 20mph it will cover about 18m in two seconds. At 30mph it’ll travel 27m, at 40mph nearly 36m, at 50mph about 45m, at 60mph about 54m, and at 70mph it’s about 62m.

These distances are not the same as stopping distances, and they aren’t supposed to be. Stopping distances are about stopping dead. The two-second rule is really aimed at giving the driver time to react to vehicles in front slowing down. It’s two separate – but related – things.

Does it have to be exactly two seconds?

No. Less than two seconds is dangerous and is almost guaranteed to get you a fail if you do it on your test. If you are closer than two seconds away from the car in front then you are what people refer to as a “tailgater”. But within reason, more than two seconds is fine.

Is it always two seconds?

No. TES and the HC both refer to doubling the gap in wet weather – so it becomes four seconds. Likewise, they mention that in icy weather it can take ten times the normal distance to stop (which seems vague, but skidding on ice is vague. Believe me).

There’s nothing wrong with a gap of, say, three seconds in good conditions. Four seconds is perhaps beginning to raise the question of adequate progress if traffic is flowing freely. Any more than that in free-moving traffic and other problems – such as people overtaking – becomes an issue. Just use common sense.

Contact Lens Monitors Glucose Levels

This story on the Beeb reports that Google is testing a “smart” contact lens which can help detect glucose levels in tear fluid.

If left at that, it sounds like a good idea. But the report adds:

The firm said it is also working on integrating tiny LED lights that could light up to indicate that glucose levels have crossed certain thresholds.

Google really can’t help itself, sometimes. I guess we should be grateful that technology isn’t yet advanced enough for the things to contain a camera – though I will lay odds that Google is already looking to integrate this with Google Glass, which would mean it DOES have a camera capability. I can also think of at least one crackpot in America who will be at the front of the queue to be a beta tester.

I wonder how long it will be before your contact lenses start sending you spam based on what you’ve been looking at?

Fridge Caught Sending Spam

The headline of this one made me smile. More and more appliances are being built so they can connect to the internet, and although I’m as techy as they come, I have never been able to fathom why you’d want something like a toaster, a kettle… or a fridge to be able to connect to the web.

I mean, why on earth does a fridge need to have that feature? TVs have this dubious capability these days, and although in the case of these there is a half a good reason to be able to do it (downloading firmware updates, and maybe downloading content), the fact that the damned things can autonomously connect and start pumping data out without your knowledge is of far more benefit to others than it is to the owner. LG, for example, has been coming over all Google and has been caught harvesting data it really shouldn’t have. Apple has been doing it for ages. And I won’t even try and list the numerous separate occasions on which Google has been caught spying on people – sending you emails about things you’ve looked at is just the tip of the iceberg, and most people will remember the Google Maps cars harvesting private Wi-Fi signals.

But the idea of a fridge sending out spam is as funny as it is sinister.

Google Glass – And So It Continues

Last November I mentioned a news item whereby a woman in America – Cecilia Abadie – had been pulled over for speeding, and then cited for wearing Google Glasses behind the wheel. For anyone still living in the Dark Ages when it comes to technology, Google Glass is a wearable computer with a small display in front of your eye. It also has a camera, which – given that Google is involved – has kicked up a stink about privacy from numerous angles At the moment, Google Glass costs around £1,000!Google Glass in the car?

As I mentioned at the time, in her Google+ profile she describes herself thus:

Geek, Google Glass Pioneer, Self-Quantifier, Transhumanist, Blogger, Speaker, currently playing with fun new ways to a better self…

She has profiles on all the social networks, and finds time to post copiously on all of them – and that’s on top of her blogs. She has a full time job, and she’s married. She likes (and uses) phrases like “paradigm shift” alongside words like “evolution” (anyone who has read a little and knows what a “paradigm shift” is might raise an eyebrow at that. Abadie has taken some sort of vow – honestly, she has – to wear Google Glass 24 hours a day. She is evangelising it beyond the point of obsession, arguing that Google Glass should be taken up by doctors and the agricultural industry.

But cutting through all that, she was caught speeding. She was driving at 80mph in a 65mph zone. – and then found to be wearing Google Glass behind the wheel. She absolutely and definitely broke the Law relating to speed. She is arguing that the Laws relating to distracted driving do not apply to Google Glass.

One thing I know from experience – both as a driver, and as a driver trainer – is that when your mind wanders then you cannot control your speed. It’s quite simple: if you are fiddling with your phone, the radio, the satnav, trying to read directions on a sheet of paper, or any number of other things, then you are distracted. Even if you are looking out of the front window you are not actually seeing things properly because your mind is elsewhere. So your speed can either fall or increase – it depends on the driver and the situation. One thing it is unlikely to do is remain fixed.

If you have a computer-cum-smartphone stuck on your face, and one which in Abadie’s case is likely to be incandescent with incoming texts, tweets, and various other inane communications, you WILL be distracted. And then some. And then some more.

At the time of Abadie’s original ticket, no mention was made (including on her Facebook page, which she delighted in keeping up to date) that her Google Glass wasn’t switched on. Her mantra about technology versus the World was all that mattered. However, now her case has come to court it would appear that all the bravado about challenging the Law – one which bans motorists from watching TV behind the wheel, and therefore a law which doesn’t apply to a computer monitor – is being muddied somewhat by her claim that Google Glass wasn’t switched on at the time. One can only wonder why she was wearing the damned thing if it was turned off.

The worrying thing is that there is every possibility that the judge will end up agreeing with Abadie that the Law in question doesn’t apply to Google Glass, even though it is obvious that it should. And that comes on top of the fact that the DfT over here might be “reconsidering” its original prospective ban on using Google Glass behind the wheel. I love the part where the DfT says:

We have met with Google to discuss the implications of the current law for Google Glass. Google are anxious their products do not pose a road safety risk and are currently considering options to allow the technology to be used in accordance with the law.

What they mean is that Google is anxious not to lose any revenue from sales of Glass. When it comes to money versus safety, Google knows where its priorities lie.

Update: As expected, she managed to get off. True to form, the American judge decided that there was no proof she had them switched on, so there was no case to answer. It isn’t clear if she was still prosecuted for the crime she DID commit of speeding. The chances are she wasn’t.

Abadie will no doubt claim this as some sort of “paradigm”. It isn’t. If it COULD be shown she had them switched on, she would still have been in trouble – or at the very least, the judge would have had to engage a couple more brain cells before letting her off. As it is, the issue of wearing them whilst driving has become moot thanks to this particular judge. The matter has not been furthered or resolved one way or another.

And she was pulled over for speeding, remember. The Google Glass thing has become a smokescreen.

JML Turbo Brush

Some time ago I wrote about the JML PediPaws nail trimmer for cats and dogs. At the time, it must have rated as the stupidest product ever – though plenty of Westie owners were clearly enthralled enough to buy it in spite of the obvious drawbacks, judging from the Amazon user reviews.

More recently, there was the JML PediPro. I didn’t write about this – I thought I had, but I can’t find it if I did. It’s like an electric razor for feet – human feet, this time – and the TV ad shows it grinding about a kilo of dead skin off some woman’s foot (I was having my dinner the first time they showed it). The reviews on Amazon reveal that it is a low-quality product that doesn’t appear to either do the job it says it does much of the time, or do it for very long before breaking.

And now, we have the JML Turbo Brush. You can call me old-fashioned, but to my mind a tool like this would – if it actually worked – come with a safety warning. Any footage of it working would see it producing sparks as it contacted a hard surface, and flinging bits of baked-on grease around the room. You see, the Laws of Physics absolutely dictate that it would do all these things if it was anywhere near powerful enough to do what it claims to be able to. And it wouldn’t run off four AA batteries. There’d be a generator out back.

As an aside, many years ago there was a TV advert for Spry Crisp’n’dry cooking oil. The ad showed chips (French fries to American readers) being cooked in the stuff and then – the point being that food was especially crispy when cooked in Spry – one was broken in half on camera. The chip in question was clearly the softest and least crispy of its kind, but that didn’t stop the sound effects crew dumping a hefty “snick” sound over the top. If you shut your eyes, it sounded like someone had snapped a pencil.

Well, the Turbo Brush must come courtesy of the same ad people. The blurb on JML’s website says:

Zap! Wham! Doktor Power Turbo Brush uses sonic power to make dirt and grime vanish in a flash. This heavy-duty scrubber generates over 12,000 oscillating scrubs per minute and is perfect for cleaning in awkward, hard to reach areas.

So, the four AA batteries make it vibrate. That seems pretty clear. But “scrubs”? That suggests to me that the brush head moves several centimetres either way – which it doesn’t. Mind you, the video seems to imply that the head oscillates – though most of the work appears to come from moving your hand around. And could those stains be any more phoney?

You’ve got to be realistic about this. You’re not going to be able to remove really caked-on dirt with something that runs off four small batteries any faster than you would be able to using a toothbrush and some elbow grease. And unless it was built specifically to withstand a nuclear strike, it isn’t going to last long if you use it a lot (indeed, some of the Amazon reviews make exactly that point).

Alexandra Bastedo Dies At 67

Alexandra BastedoOne of my favourite TV shows as a child was The Champions. I remember that I had a schoolboy crush on Alexandra Bastedo, who was one of the stars.

Well, I just saw on the BBC website that she has died at the age of 67 after a long illness.

In her younger years she was considered one of the most beautiful women on the planet. She starred with Peter Sellers in Casino Royale, and was romantically linked with various Hollywood superstars. I didn’t realise quite how much other work she had done.

Apparently, she’d had two bouts of breast cancer and recovered, but from what I can gather it was cancer that killed her.

Two-tone Lobsters

I came in from work tonight and switched on the TV. BBC 2 was showing Nature’s Weirdest Events – some stuff about dolphins swimming with whales, cats raising ducks and hedgehogs, walking catfish, weird noises in the sky in Canada, and so on. But the part that really piqued my interest was the trailer for next week. It showed a lobster which was two different colours either side of a perfect line right down the middle of its body.

I just had to look that one up, and I came across this article. You’ll note how this lobster was caught in Felix Cove, Newfoundland and is a distinct blue one side, and reddish brown the other. It is classed as “extremely rare”. Other than explaining that it is a gynandromorph – both male and female – the article is only about 35 words long and not very informative.Bi-coloured Lobsters

To try and get more information, I found another article. This one was caught in Dyer’s Bay, Maine, and is black on one side, and orange on the other. The article says the odds of finding one are 50 million to 1. Maybe you can see where I’m going with this. A local oceanarium said it has only seen three such bi-coloured lobsters in 35 years. No mention is made of it being a gynandromorph – this time it is explained that each half of a lobster develops separately and this specimen is missing blue pigmentation on one side.

The two articles obviously referred to different lobsters (they’re different sizes), so I searched some more. I then found this one which was pulled up in Digby County, off Nova Scotia. It’s a similar colour to the second example, though not the same one if the locations, dates, and names are anything to go by. Nova Scotia isn’t that far from Maine in fishing terms.

Then there was this one – different date, similar colour – pulled up off the New England coast (of which Maine is part). In fact, there are loads of examples. There’s even a 1959 book/research paper which discusses the phenomenon.

So, not quite as rare or unusual as is suggested either by the BBC or some of the finders or article writers.

Council Car Parking Scam

This story in the news today suggests that councils are using car park fines as a “cash cow”. Did anyone ever think that they weren’t?

Last year, I parked in one of the West Bridgford car parks. The ticket machines there used to just print out a ticket when you paid your money, and since Parking Tickets on a caryou got 2 hours for 50p (later, £1) people were passing them on to each other if they had excess time left. The council didn’t like this one bit, and it introduced new machines where you have to type in the numerical digits of your car’s registration plate just to prevent tickets being transferred.

Anyway, on this particular occasion I accidentally typed “61” instead of “62” when buying my ticket. The fact that the warden had actually seen me pay – I even smiled at him as I passed him (but I won’t be doing that again) – meant nothing. Nor did the fact that I was only away from the car at the bank for about 6 minutes. I was slapped with a ticket which the council refused to overturn on appeal, and which they refused to discuss further (i.e. by ignoring me completely). Even the people who you appeal to after that didn’t respond.

More recently I parked in a council car park in Leeds (just before Christmas when I went to see Status Quo). The park was ANPR-controlled, meaning that they scan your registration as you enter, and confirm it in full at the ticket machine when you pay. I paid using my debit card and was charged £8.50 – the only option available. I was there for just over 4 hours. My bank account was debited two days later. You’d think that would have been the end of it, but no.

Just after Christmas I got a letter informing me of a PCN for “insufficient fee paid”. Since I’m not the registered keeper (I lease the car) the lease agent paid the fine immediately. I am now embroiled in trying to appeal against the fine and get a refund.

What makes this recent case all the more interesting is that on the night of the concert – before I knew any of this was happening – my friend in Leeds told me that his wife had had the exact same fraudulent claim made against her a few weeks earlier in the same car park while she was Christmas shopping. She kicked up a stink and they dropped the claim.

I’m not going to say too much while the appeal is on-going, but if you Google for UKCPS (Car Parking Solutions) a very gothic image starts to emerge of them. Suffice it to say, I only know two people who have used that car park in Leeds, and both have had the same scam pulled on them. So it doesn’t take too much imagination to picture a huge cash cow whereby hundreds of these “fines” are made each day on the premise that 1% of recipients won’t challenge them. And at £60 (going up to £100 if you pay late) a time, the titties on that cash cow up in Leeds must be bloody sore!

Is UKCPS a scam parking operator?

Well, me and my mate’s wife have direct experience of the kind of things they get up to. But take a look at these links:

These are a tiny sample. Try Googling for “UKCPS parking scam” or “UKCPS Ltd parking ticket” and see what you get. There are hundreds and hundreds of people like you who these cretins are trying to intimidate (including disabled people parking in disabled bays that these gutter trash operate). That Responsive link sums it up nicely by pointing out that UKCPS usually backs down at the first appeal – and that’s because they know that they can make money from those who don’t appeal. You don’t need to be a genius to work out if it’s a scam or not.

Is UKCPS a legitimate company?

Unfortunately, yes. However, their business practices appear to be far from legitimate, and councils such as Leeds City Council have washed their hands of the affair to the extent that they are sanctioning this dishonest behaviour.

Note: I eventually got the scumbags to refund the fine.

First Salt. Now Sugar

I’ve written before about how certain idiots in this country – many of them supposed medical experts – have ruined everything we eat by forcing Sugarcubesmanufacturers to either remove or reduce the salt content. This is in spite of research which shows salt isn’t as bad for you as the Consensus Action on Salt and Health (Cash) radical sect would have us believe.

Now, the same people have formed a new group – Action on Sugar – with the avowed intention of screwing up sweet stuff for us, too. This is based almost entirely on the fact that some people (and their parents) are too bloody stupid to be allowed out unsupervised, and who subsequently suffer from obesity and other health problems as result of drinking 6 litres of Coca Cola a day, and who eat nothing but chocolate and biscuits.

This newly-named bunch of activist idiots goes on to name a range of products and the amount of sugar contained in them. It’s worth reproducing it here to help us do a reality check:

    • Starbucks caramel frappuccino with whipped cream with skimmed milk (tall): 273kcal; 11 teaspoons of sugar
    • Coca Cola Original (330ml): 139kcal; 9 teaspoons of sugar
    • Muller Crunch Corner Strawberry Shortcake Yogurt (135g): 212kcal; 6 teaspoons of sugar
    • Yeo Valley Family Farm 0% Fat Vanilla Yogurt (150g): 120kcal; 5 teaspoons of sugar
    • Kellogg’s Frosties with semi-skimmed milk (30g): 4 teaspoons of sugar
    • Glaceau Vitamin Water, Defence (500ml): 4 teaspoons of sugar
    • Heinz Classic Tomato Soup (300g): 171kcals; 4 teaspoons of sugar
    • Ragu Tomato & Basil Pasta Sauce (200g): 80kcals; 3 teaspoons of sugar
    • Kellogg’s Nutri-Grain Crunchy Oat Granola Cinnamon Bars (40g): 186kcal; 2 teaspoons of sugar
    • Heinz Tomato Ketchup (15ml): 18kcal; 1 teaspoon of sugar

Out of that list, I would only ever eat or drink Coke (perhaps a small bottle or two on hot summer days), Ragu (once in a blue moon, though I’d choose Dolmio given the choice because it tastes better), and Heinz Ketchup (a tablespoon a couple of times a week). So, not every day, and not to excess. That’s because I’m not a prat who needs nannying. However, if I was one of those people who ate everything on that list every day, to excess, and who also fed it to my children, then I’d deserve to have them taken away from me and put into care.

The BBC story quotes a doctor (also a member of Action on Sugar):

Dr Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist and science director of Action on Sugar, said: “Added sugar has no nutritional value whatsoever and causes no feeling of satiety.

I may be missing something here, but I think Dr Malhotra is deliberately trying to mislead. You see, herbs and spices have no nutritional value either, but they are essential in making food taste nice. Dr Malhotra might also want to take a close look at the food his or her countrymen have been eating for centuries. Salt has been in use since before recorded history; oil has been used for almost as long; and likewise with sugar. Is he/she suggesting they stop?

The bottom line is that not one of those listed processed foods will do anyone any harm at all as long as they don’t stuff themselves with it all day, every day. The problem isn’t that foods contain sugar. The problem is that some people are complete morons.

And that doesn’t appear to be a bar to entering the medical profession.