How Wireless EV Charging Works

[JohnW2]

Thanks, you have made my point for me.

i don't think I have ....

Rules cannot be switched on and off.

That depends upon what you mean, since rules can )and often are) certainly be qualified so as to render them sensible and not silly. In the case of the school speed limit, the 'rule' could at least be that the speed limit only applied during certain hours of the day. In the case we've been discussing, the 'rule' (and slogan) could at least say that one should move to the left after overtaking provided that there was a gap between vehicles in the lane to the left of at least 4 seconds into which one could safely move.

Lane hogging, is lane hogging, whether you do it in the middle of the day, or the middle of the night ....

So what? Driving faster than 20 mph past the school gates if driving faster than 20 mph past the school gates, but that doesn't make it any more sensible to penalise people for breaking that rule at 3 am, does it?

- though I doubt you would find a quiet motorway, in modern Britain, no matter what the time - to practice your lane hogging.

That's the point that I and others have been making. It's only fairly rarely that motorways are so quiet that there are gaps of at least 4 secs between vehicles in L1, facilitating safe movement into that lane (whether to 'comply with the slogan'or whatever).

Are you perhaps one of those people who regard it as more important to 'obey the slogan' than to comply with what the Highway Code says about safe distances between vehicles?

 

[JohnW2]

Yes. We couldn't have that, could we. Imagine if people could face significant prison sentences if a policeman decided that in his opinion they were making too much noise during a demonstration.

Whether it's a police officer deciding whether an offence has been committed, an MOT inspector deciding whether run on a brake pipe, or play in a joint, is 'excessive, or an EICR inspector deciding whether a fault is 'potentially dangerous' to the extent of requiring ;urgent remedial action' or whatever, it's always a little worrying when the decision is totally reliant on the (not necessarily correct, or even sensible) judgement and discretion (often with little or no explicit guidance).of a single human being.

 

[morqthana]

In the case of the school speed limit, the 'rule' could at least be that the speed limit only applied during certain hours of the day.

It could be.

But if it isn't?

In the case we've been discussing, the 'rule' (and slogan) could at least say that one should move to the left after overtaking provided that there was a gap between vehicles in the lane to the left of at least 4 seconds into which one could safely move.

Plus enough length to remain there for a "reasonable" time before having to move out again.

So what? Driving faster than 20 mph past the school gates if driving faster than 20 mph past the school gates, but that doesn't make it any more sensible to penalise people for breaking that rule at 3 am, does it?

Breaking the speed limit is breaking the speed limit.

You could argue that the whole concept of restricted roads could have a time factor in it, on the grounds that the 30mph limit in built-up areas is pointless at 3AM because there's nobody about, but until the law is changed to reflect that good luck trying that argument in court.

That's the point that I and others have been making. It's only fairly rarely that motorways are so quiet that there are gaps of at least 4 secs between vehicles in L1, facilitating safe movement into that lane (whether to 'comply with the slogan'or whatever).

And the point I've been making is that it's a gap of at least 4 seconds for the speed of the traffic in that lane plus the distance the vehicle moving in will close on the vehicle at the front of the gap before he moves out again. The time that he spends in the lane he moved into could be limited by what is "reasonable", or it could be limited by what is possible given the traffic now to his right.

In the case of the string of 56mph limited HGVs, that 4s gap (104m) could quite conceivably need to be nearly 350m.

 

[morqthana]

I only started reading this topic because I was interested to find out about wireless EV charging.

 

[morqthana]

Whether it's a police officer deciding whether an offence has been committed, an MOT inspector deciding whether run on a brake pipe, or play in a joint, is 'excessive, or an EICR inspector deciding whether a fault is 'potentially dangerous' to the extent of requiring ;urgent remedial action' or whatever, it's always a little worrying when the decision is totally reliant on the (not necessarily correct, or even sensible) judgement and discretion (often with little or no explicit guidance).of a single human being.

Indeed.

But when a person's liberty is at stake.....

 

[JohnW2]

I only started reading this topic because I was interested to find out about wireless EV charging.

I presume that';s true of most, or all, of us

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed. But when a person's liberty is at stake.....

I'm not sure why you've put that "but" there. In the case of, say, EICR or MOT inspectors, it could be said that, in some situations people's lives could be at stake on the basis of their judgement/discretion, couldn't it?

 

[JohnW2]

Breaking the speed limit is breaking the speed limit.

It is - as Mr Jobsworth knows very well.

You could argue that the whole concept of restricted roads could have a time factor in it, on the grounds that the 30mph limit in built-up areas is pointless at 3AM because there's nobody about ...

One could argue that - although, of course, many urban roads are such that it's often impossible to exceed the speed limit when the road is busy (when there are a lot of people "about")! The equivalent is, of course, already very common with parking restrictions and, although it would probably be very costly, we certainly have the technological means of making all speed limits "variable" ones.

Harry mentioned the nocturnal red traffic light. In some countries, many of the traffic lights adopt a configuration (usually flashing amber, I think) on all lights indicating that crossing the junction is at the driver's discretion - so even traffic lights can be 'qualified'.

, but until the law is changed to reflect that good luck trying that argument in court.

Indeed. Back to Mr Jobsworth. The law is the law.

 

[morqthana]

I'm not sure why you've put that "but" there. In the case of, say, EICR or MOT inspectors, it could be said that, in some situations people's lives could be at stake on the basis of their judgement/discretion, couldn't it?

I'd sort of got the impression that the context was one of excessive zeal, not lackadaisical "Ah, that'll be OK"...

although it would probably be very costly, we certainly have the technological means of making all speed limits "variable" ones.

Simple time-based variations wouldn't cost much.

But then the best way to make 20mph limits work is for people to just get used to driving at that speed, and making it part-time mitigates against that.

Harry mentioned the nocturnal red traffic light. In some countries, many of the traffic lights adopt a configuration (usually flashing amber, I think) on all lights indicating that crossing the junction is at the driver's discretion - so even traffic lights can be 'qualified'.

Yeah - seen that in the USA. Don't know what the accident statistics are. But then if you have to slow down, possibly even stop before crossing the junction, is it worth bothering with, assuming that 50% of the time you'd have to stop anyway, and frankly is remaining stopped for a short time at a red really so terrible?

Good tech would be beneficial where one road carries a lot more traffic. At night the busier road could have the lights green all the time, with detectors in the less busy ones only turning them red when actually necessary. At least then drivers would see that their stop was for a reason. I must admit I find roadwork lights galling when there's hardly any traffic - they can be at red for quite some time, a lot longer than junctions, especially if the controlled section is long, and if you've sat there for a while, and then they go green without one single vehicle coming the other way...

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Good tech would be beneficial where one road carries a lot more traffic.

Very many light controlled junctions do work like that.

I must admit I find roadwork lights galling when there's hardly any traffic - they can be at red for quite some time, a lot longer than junctions, especially if the controlled section is long, and if you've sat there for a while, and then they go green without one single vehicle coming the other way...

It is rare to find roadworks traffic lights these days, which do not include radar vehicle detectors, at each light position. It is also several years, since I last saw such lights linked by wires, or powered by a generator. Modern ones are LED, battery powered, linked by radio.

 

[JohnW2]

But then the best way to make 20mph limits work is for people to just get used to driving at that speed, and making it part-time mitigates against that.

I personally find 20 mph limits (which are increasingly common around where I live) to be quite 'dangerous', I suppose primarily because I'm not very used to them.

20 mph is so "unnaturally slow" (and requires one's foots constantly on the brake in some vehicles I drive) that the only way I can even try to adhere t them is by looking very frequently at the speedometer, with the result that I probably spend more time looking at the speedometer than at the road (i.e. 'where I am going'). Even at 20 mph, I could have driven over a child before my eyesre-focuss on the road! Hence, in the absence of a 'head up' speed display, I find them potentially dangerous.

Yeah - seen that in the USA. Don't know what the accident statistics are. But then if you have to slow down, possibly even stop before crossing the junction, is it worth bothering with, assuming that 50% of the time you'd have to stop anyway, and frankly is remaining stopped for a short time at a red really so terrible? Good tech would be beneficial where one road carries a lot more traffic. At night the busier road could have the lights green all the time, with detectors in the less busy ones only turning them red when actually necessary.

Indeed. Around where I live (pretty rural, and with pretty light traffic)), we have a couple of examples of the opposite, which works well, W have a coupleof places where, due to narrow ancient bridges, there is only one-way traffic allowed over the bridge (probably only about a 50 yard stretch), controlled by traffic lights. At night, all lights go red, but the appropriate one of them urns green immediately they sense a vehicle approaching.

 

[morqthana]

I personally find 20 mph limits (which are increasingly common around where I live) to be quite 'dangerous', I suppose primarily because I'm not very used to them.

But you can/will get used to them - hundreds of millions of drivers in other countries manage it.

20 mph is so "unnaturally slow" (and requires one's foots constantly on the brake in some vehicles I drive) that the only way I can even try to adhere t them is by looking very frequently at the speedometer, with the result that I probably spend more time looking at the speedometer than at the road (i.e. 'where I am going'). Even at 20 mph, I could have driven over a child before my eyesre-focuss on the road! Hence, in the absence of a 'head up' speed display, I find them potentially dangerous.

I'm not a fan of any arguments like that. Logically the same applies to any speed, so if you can manage to drive at 30mph without staring at the speedo you can do it at 20. And the more widespread 20mph limits become, more people will get used to it, and sooner. And even if you remain an outlier, if everyone around you is doing 20 all you have to do is to avoid running into the car in front of you. Simply changing the default for restricted roads from 30 to 20 nation-wide has a lot of merit.

And I must admit I'm unfamiliar with any cars which need constant braking like that. The implication is that you're having to bring the engine speed down below idle - do you get problems with it stalling?

 

[morqthana]

It is rare to find roadworks traffic lights these days, which do not include radar vehicle detectors, at each light position. It is also several years, since I last saw such lights linked by wires, or powered by a generator. Modern ones are LED, battery powered, linked by radio.

They may talk to each other via radio, but I'm not convinced that they talk about what any detectors are picking up. Even if detectors are a feature, I'd bet that it has to be, and isn't always, specifically enabled.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

20 mph is so "unnaturally slow" (and requires one's foots constantly on the brake in some vehicles I drive) that the only way I can even try to adhere t them is by looking very frequently at the speedometer, with the result that I probably spend more time looking at the speedometer than at the road (i.e. 'where I am going'). Even at 20 mph, I could have driven over a child before my eyesre-focuss on the road! Hence, in the absence of a 'head up' speed display, I find them potentially dangerous.

I don't find sticking to posted limits, much of an issue, the engine note, is enough to know my speed with reasonable accuracy. Failing that, I have some sort of built in speed alarm I could set to trigger, if I exceed it, and the always running - satnav nags me anyway..

 

[JohnW2]

I don't find sticking to posted limits, much of an issue, the engine note, is enough to know my speed with reasonable accuracy.

Good for you. I find it difficult with 20 mph.

Failing that, I have some sort of built in speed alarm I could set to trigger, if I exceed it, and the always running - satnav nags me anyway..

my 'trusty ' car pre-dates any such new-fangled technology, and I only rarely use satnav!