PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Modernising the TRO process
emanresu
post Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 10:32
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,077
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



Government and partners are looking at how TRO's can become digital. See here if you need to comment

https://www.geoplace.co.uk/trodiscovery

If they were digital, hoovering up the motorists' cash becomes more effective (a.k.a. profitable).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 13)
Advertisement
post Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 10:32
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 12:58
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,513
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Pardon the pun but isn't it a two way street in terms of transparency? Although the 'private sector' part always worries me.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 17:27
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,462
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



To be honest if we could quickly and easily look up the TRO behind every council PCN, without having to navigate the TPT library or waiting for councils to provide them, it would make things a lot easier. It would be awesome if we could right click on a map and pull up all the TROs in force for that road.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 20:51
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,908
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Sounds sensible to me and will be the future - just like trains it makes increasingly little sense to be spending huge amounts of money on roadside signage when it can just be mapped and displayed inside the vehicle.

There is a road near me with tight bends. It's a surprise to go past and find all the bend chevron signs are in place. There is a certain folly about spending lots of money to keep putting up heavy poles for people to crash into.

Speed limits signs are the same. Why pay for repeaters when you can just display the limit to the driver all the time?


--------------------
No longer posting - please do not PM for advice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 21:43
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,462
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Given you can still drive this on the road:



I don't road signs being made redundant, well not in the next 100 years or so anyway.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
typefish
post Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 01:03
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,221
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
From: Corby
Member No.: 69,758



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 17:27) *
To be honest if we could quickly and easily look up the TRO behind every council PCN, without having to navigate the TPT library or waiting for councils to provide them, it would make things a lot easier. It would be awesome if we could right click on a map and pull up all the TROs in force for that road.


Now, that sounds like an invitation to charge someone some money!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 22:54
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,908
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 21:43) *
Given you can still drive this on the road:

I don't road signs being made redundant, well not in the next 100 years or so anyway.

Yes but self driving cars are a game changer because for the first time every human error accident - which is almost all of them - will be preventable. People won't have the choice to drive if public opinion turns against it.

People become highly irrational after a car accident. About fifteen years when I was at secondary school some kids were messing about and a kid ended up getting run over by a bus, although not seriously hurt. The bus driver wasn't at fault.

Well, the hysteria was unimaginable. Everyone always knew that road was dangerous, everyone always knew people drove too fast, people shouldn't be using the road past the school as a through route, it was dangerous to park there, if the parked cars hadn't been there, the accident wouldn't have happened.

DYLs and paking bays were painted,, police started issuing parking tickets, all because of an accident where the driver couldn't have done anything. Just imagine what would happen if a driver was at fault when self driving cars are the majority of vehicles.


--------------------
No longer posting - please do not PM for advice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 23:15
Post #8


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,416
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 22:54) *
Yes but self driving cars are a game changer because for the first time every human error accident - which is almost all of them - will be preventable.

The problem being that while that's the promise, it's unachievable in the foreseeable future. Some of the people working on autonomous vehicles, specifically Waymo, have started to realise the limitations of current machine learning approaches (which are necessary because rules-based approaches can't ever work with our far-less than perfect real world road conditions) and are now trying to introduce random errors into their training data - necessary, ironically, because existing training data is derived from human-driven vehicles, and the humans are just too damned good to significantly expose the algorithms to unexpected situations they're going to have to cope with for real! This problem is enormously more difficult than autonomous vehicle advocates are in general prepared to admit.




--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 07:52
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,359
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



We have a team at work who are developing autonomous technology, 5 years ago full self driving was considered 10 years off, after 5 years of very intensive work it’s now considered to be...... ten years off.

GM (considered through their cruise spin off to be in a close second behind Waymo) have set up a degree course to train their autonomous development engineers, that tells you it’s over 5 years off otherwise there would be no point.

Anyone who’s bought the Tesla full self drive option should be asking for a refund, Tesla is in at best 6th place in the race, and the cars sold won’t be FSD capable (if ever as the hardware is locked in and may not be capable) until most are scrap.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 07:53


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 17:40
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,462
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Fredd @ Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 23:15) *
This problem is enormously more difficult than autonomous vehicle advocates are in general prepared to admit.

This is what I've suspected for a while (good luck deploying a self driving car rounds the streets of Rome, where every driver is a law unto themselves, or the unpaved roads of Eastern Europe, where the boundary between the road and the adjacent field is somewhat imaginary), quite aside from the fact that I find the idea of a self-driving vehicle intrinsically unappealing. Next thing they'll announce someone's invented a device that can autonomously f**k your girlfriend, without the need for you to do so any more.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Fri, 4 Jan 2019 - 08:31
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,077
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



About that Santler Malvernia.... wonder if it has been clocked.

Estimated mileage here

https://cazana.com/uk/car/AB171
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 01:08
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,908
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (Fredd @ Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 23:15) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 22:54) *
Yes but self driving cars are a game changer because for the first time every human error accident - which is almost all of them - will be preventable.

The problem being that while that's the promise, it's unachievable in the foreseeable future. Some of the people working on autonomous vehicles, specifically Waymo, have started to realise the limitations of current machine learning approaches (which are necessary because rules-based approaches can't ever work with our far-less than perfect real world road conditions) and are now trying to introduce random errors into their training data - necessary, ironically, because existing training data is derived from human-driven vehicles, and the humans are just too damned good to significantly expose the algorithms to unexpected situations they're going to have to cope with for real! This problem is enormously more difficult than autonomous vehicle advocates are in general prepared to admit.

I would disagree. Driving is a task that machine learning is perfect for because humans learn exactly the same way - you're given a flimsy book of rules, a couple of dozen hours of tuition, and bam - you're on your own sunshine.

My understanding at the moment is that when driving, humans assess and take risks. Almost all of those risks pay off. Sometimes - mainly due to inexperience - they don't.

Self driving cars are in the situation where they have the.skills of an advanced driver, but no programmer wants to program the 0.0001% chance of killing a pedestrian. Instead, they hope that eventually the technology will be perfect and eliminate the risk.

They are running into the age old problem of sacrificing the very good for the perfect. However, most human drivers are not very good.


--------------------
No longer posting - please do not PM for advice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 11:35
Post #13


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,416
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 01:08) *
I would disagree.

Did you even read my post? If you did, you didn't understand it, nor apparently look into why Waymo are saying that.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phantomcrusader
post Sat, 2 Feb 2019 - 17:43
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 95
Joined: 27 Sep 2008
Member No.: 22,840



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 17:27) *
To be honest if we could quickly and easily look up the TRO behind every council PCN, without having to navigate the TPT library or waiting for councils to provide them, it would make things a lot easier. It would be awesome if we could right click on a map and pull up all the TROs in force for that road.


Things are moving in that direction. More and more councils guide the public to Traffweb which is a GIS. Leeds & Bournemouth councils are two examples. Click on a restriction to bring up view documents.

https://www.leedstraffweb.co.uk/main.html

https://www.bournemouthtraffweb.co.uk/main.html

If you google Traffweb it will probably guide you to other councils that plot their restrictions on it and make it available for public viewing.

Some London Boroughs give direct access to TMO's too by zooming in to a restriction and clicking on it to view docs.

https://www.hackneytraffweb.co.uk/main.html
https://www.barnettraffweb.co.uk/main.html


This post has been edited by phantomcrusader: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 - 18:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 22nd May 2019 - 05:52
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.