I've often wondered, in busy traffic, whether automatic cars contribute to the jams that have no apparent cause. In the normal way of things, if a driver lifts off, his cars will start to slow down by virture of engine braking. The driver behind will realise he is gaining on the car in front and also lift off, and so on down the line (exclude the effect of people driving too close for the moment). An automatic car in this situation will gain on the car in front much faster due to the freewheel effect of the transmission, so driver applies brakes just for a moment to correct his speed. Result: drivers behind instinctivly hit their brakes for no good reason, and this passes down the line until in extreme cases, traffic stops.

Is this a likely happening, of is it always that everybody drives too close? Except me of course!

Phil. Read more

The following seems quite sensible really, depending on the speed they're set to, of course.

M.



A NEW generation of "intelligent" road humps, capable of collapsing to give the responsible motorist an unhindered drive, is set to be introduced throughout Britain.

Tests with the rubber hump, which deflates to allow motorists obeying the speed limit to pass without a jolt, have proved so successful that 400 local authorities, supermarkets, colleges and private estates are considering installing it.

And a second new hump has been patented which contains a tiny digital camera to record the number plates of drivers going too fast.

The new "sleeping policemen" are not only seen as being gentler on law-abiding motorists, but also as a response to complaints that humps increase pollution. A three-year study by the Transport Research Laboratory concluded earlier this month that humps can lead to a 60% rise in exhaust emissions as cars slow down, speed up and slow down again.

The inflatable hump has a valve instead of an airhole and uses a pressure gauge to determine the speed of an approaching vehicle. If it is obeying the speed limit, the hump deflates from 3.9in high.

A seven-month trial of the Transcalm in the City of London ends next month. The humps cost about £4,000 each - much the same as a traditional hump - and last between three and five years.

A spokesman for the City of London Corporation said: "The inflatable humps have been a raging success. We have had ringing endorsements from taxi and delivery drivers."

Councils in Bristol, Peterborough, Portsmouth, Leeds, Greater Manchester and Sheffield have all expressed interest in installing them, and Cambridge and Bath universities are in talks about using the Transcalm on their campuses.

The hump was invented by Graham Heeks, a former building services' engineer, who came up with the idea after studying his baby daughter, Saskia, play with a squeaky toy.

He attached the toy, with an airhole in one side, to her hand to track her movements as she crawled around shops. She soon learnt to turn the toy round so that air was retained and it did not squeak.

Heeks, from Cheshire, has now gone into partnership with Dunlop, the tyre manufacturer, to produce the Transcalm in a venture that could make him a millionaire.

However, a potential rival hump has been invented by Graham Assinder at Roke Manor Research, part of the German-owned Siemens group. It contains a digital camera, a row of powerful light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and a battery recharged by solar power. The camera uses a radio transmitter to send a picture back to a control base.

It is already employed at the entrance to the firm's offices in Romsey, Hampshire, using number-plate recognition to operate a barrier. A spokesman for the firm said it was also designed as a speed hump.

So which hump would motorists choose? "It is like saying do you prefer being whipped or caned," said Rod Lewis, a London cabbie for 46 years and editor of Taxi Globe newspaper. Read more

I have a Ford Galaxy fitted with reversing sensors. The problem is the sensors are 'seeing' the tow bar and cycle carrier bracket that are fitted. Does anyone know if they can be reset or adjusted. Read more

I left my lights on (for a few days - oops! - I'm student scum) which resulted in a call out to RAC. They reckoned my 7 mile drive would be enough to charge battery up again, but it wasn't, and I needed a jump start at the other end.

On my way back I stopped halfway, cut the engine (on a downhill in case bumpstart needed) and it restarted fine. Today, the battery is almost completely dead.

Have I killed the battery, or does it just take a very long drive to charge up when completely dead?

Cheers

Allie Read more

A police sergeant has been fined after his patrol car hit an eight-year-old boy on a zebra crossing as he responded to a 999 call.

Paul Beazer, 36, pleaded guilty at Eastbourne Magistrates' Court to careless driving.

The court heard Beazer was responding to a report that two men were fighting with sticks on June 19 last year.

He had the Toyota Avensis's blue lights and sirens on and slowed down to around 30mph as he reached the zebra crossing in London Road, St Leonards.

The court heard his path across the crossing was blocked for a few moments until a car pulled over to allow him through.

Beazer said: "As I pulled out to go across the crossing I noticed the child and we made eye contact.

"He got to the edge of the pavement and stopped. As he had seen me I felt it was safe to proceed to cross."

The court heard the boy suddenly started sprinting.

Witness Elizabeth Harvey said: "As soon as the boy took his first step from the kerb I started swearing because I knew that he wouldn't be able to make it across."

Beazer said he braked lightly and steered to avoid the youngster but could not avoid hitting him at about 20mph.

At first Beazer, based at Bexhill, thought he had missed the boy until he looked in his rear-view mirror and saw him sprawled on the crossing.

Adrian Turner, prosecuting, said Beazer should have slowed down to take account of the risks.

Mr Turner said: "One has sympathy for him and others involved but one has to say that a risk could have been recognised."

Father-of-four Beazer, an officer for six years who was poised to join the Special Operations Unit, said he was "distraught" by the incident, which left him needing counselling.

He said: "I think I did everything I could at that time to be safe but, in hindsight, stopping and allowing the boy to cross would have been the only way to be fully safe."

Grant Vanstone, defending, said his client faced being disciplined by his force, before adding: "His career has been considerably affected by this."

The youngster, who was unaccompanied, had since made a full recovery.

Beazer was fined £100 and ordered to pay £35 costs. His licence will not be endorsed.

HIS LICENCE WILL NOT BE ENDORSED ? Read more