A poem for those that love speed limits
Discussion
vonhosen said:Simply not so vh.
But it is the driver who is the limiting factor in most cases
That argument is dead in the water.
The driver was the limiting factor then though & the driver is invariably now also.
There's nothing to support what you say exept your opinion.
turbobloke said:
But it is the driver who is the limiting factor in most cases
That argument is dead in the water.
The driver was the limiting factor then though & the driver is invariably now also.
There's nothing to support what you say exept your opinion.
How many drivers on our roads can safely exploit the "full" potential of their cars in all circumstances ?
What makes one person able to travel safely quicker than another in the same circumstances ?
Most people don't even realise what is possible, because their eyes have never been opened to it. They lay in blissful ignorance, but they are still the limiting factor.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 16th April 09:42
vonhosen said:The leap forward in vehicle design and active / passive safety systems in modern cars does mitigate for equally low skill levels because in the first place they emulate the skill levels of superior drivers - ABS and cadence braking, electronic stability systems operating on the engine and individual wheels allow average drivers to 'control' a car up to the limit of the laws of physics without opposite lockery etc - and in the second place they mitigate the effects of mistakes when they occur through energy dissipation and driver / passenger / pedestrian protection as per NCAP tests. The modern car and driving environment is light years away from that when I started to drive, and if as you say driving standards aren't much better (I'd dispute that too) general safety levels are infinitely better which renders many archaic elements of today's driving restrictions baseless.
But it is the driver who is the limiting factor in most cases. The average standard of driver has not made the leap forward that technology in vehicles has.
It is still our judgements actions/inactions that take something from being safe to dangerous or vice versa. It is our limitations that are the important ones around all of this. The safety system can only try to help our clumsiness & is next to no good if people have no understanding of them anyway.
The safety systems are as much of the problem as the cure. They make people only *think* they are better/safer than they are.
There are certain cars I love training in, because they are not cosseting, they are not easy to set up for bends, *you* have to show the effort & skill. If you do it right they reward you, if you don't they punish you. Drivers can't hide behind the nature of a cosseting car that merely serves to hide their inherent flaws, flaws that will only then come to the fore in a moment of weaakness. You can tell them they are doing it wrong, but they don't really believe it until they feel it for themselves.
Ever seen anyone run into the back of something & say it was brake failure that caused the collision (then go on to describe pedal feel for ABS kicking in ?) Was it the ABS that caused the collision or their lack of OAP, or not being able to stop within the distance they can see to be clear ?
It is still mistakes & flaws in drivers that lead to collisions not the cars or the conditions.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 16th April 10:16
The safety systems are as much of the problem as the cure. They make people only *think* they are better/safer than they are.
There are certain cars I love training in, because they are not cosseting, they are not easy to set up for bends, *you* have to show the effort & skill. If you do it right they reward you, if you don't they punish you. Drivers can't hide behind the nature of a cosseting car that merely serves to hide their inherent flaws, flaws that will only then come to the fore in a moment of weaakness. You can tell them they are doing it wrong, but they don't really believe it until they feel it for themselves.
Ever seen anyone run into the back of something & say it was brake failure that caused the collision (then go on to describe pedal feel for ABS kicking in ?) Was it the ABS that caused the collision or their lack of OAP, or not being able to stop within the distance they can see to be clear ?
It is still mistakes & flaws in drivers that lead to collisions not the cars or the conditions.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 16th April 10:16
Von you're getting nowhere on this. Further posts re-stating the obivous points that refute your arguments are likely to be pointless but others may wish to try. You are, once again, reasoning by assertion, and ingoring a large body of evidence that counters your position.
I'm sure you've convinced yourself by now, so, if it's possible in the ostrich position, enjoy your chocolate eggs
I'm sure you've convinced yourself by now, so, if it's possible in the ostrich position, enjoy your chocolate eggs
GreenV8S said:
How many drivers on our roads can safely exploit the "full" potential of their cars in all circumstances ?
That is irrelevent unless you think that drivers are, or should be, racing on public roads.
I agree.
But what I am saying is that because the vehicle isn't being used at it's fullest potential, the limiting factor in any problems that happen is not the car, but the driver.
Generally the only way the car becomes the limiting factor first, is when it is safe to go faster than the car can.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 16th April 10:23
vonhosen said:But you're mixing up steady state and exceptional conditions - in steady state conditions it doesn't matter that the vehicle's potential isn't being exploited, that simply relates to a wider safety margin than previously was possible and argues against your point.
But what I am saying is that because the vehicle isn't being used at it's fullest potential, the limiting factor in any problems that happen is not the car, but the driver.
In exceptional circumstances the safety systems and driver safety aids do operate at their limit which makes for vastly improved safety even when the same average driver is at the wheel.
And to take one of your earlier 'exceptional circumstance' issues, there are safety systems that detect emergency levels of braking and continue to apply perssure to keep ABS activated even when the driver lifts.
The limiting factor now is not the driver because modern cars convey higher skill levels to the driving independent of the driver. You need to invoke serious and prolonged road racing as Green V8S did, or wilful reckless endangerment that deliberately override modern safety aids, for your point to be remotely valid. In any meaningful way it's not valid.
Technological advances have reduced the skill necessary to exploit the full potential of the car under emergency conditions - emergency stops, swerving to avoid an obstacle etc. This may have lead to a reduction in car control skills in the average driver. This doesn't mean the average driver is less safe - it means the opposite.
The actions of the driver make a huge difference to the likelihood of the emergency occuring, and the technological advance haven't made much difference to that yet. They have made *some* difference though; I would argue that a car which is quiet and comfortable with good all round vision and well placed mirrors will be easier to drive safely than a noisey rattly unstable old jallopy under the same circumstances.
The actions of the driver make a huge difference to the likelihood of the emergency occuring, and the technological advance haven't made much difference to that yet. They have made *some* difference though; I would argue that a car which is quiet and comfortable with good all round vision and well placed mirrors will be easier to drive safely than a noisey rattly unstable old jallopy under the same circumstances.
turbobloke said:
But what I am saying is that because the vehicle isn't being used at it's fullest potential, the limiting factor in any problems that happen is not the car, but the driver.
In exceptional circumstances the safety systems and driver safety aids do operate at their limit which makes for vastly improved safety even when the same average driver is at the wheel.
And to take one of your earlier 'exceptional circumstance' issues, there are safety systems that detect emergency levels of braking and continue to apply perssure to keep ABS activated even when the driver lifts.
The limiting factor now is not the driver because modern cars convey higher skill levels to the driving independent of the driver. You need to invoke serious and prolonged road racing as Green V8S did, or wilful reckless endangerment that deliberately override modern safety aids, for your point to be remotely valid. In any meaningful way it's not valid.
No you don't. All you need to do is not see & act in sufficient time, which is what drivers fall foul of. There are very few collisions caused by unforseen catastrophic component failure. They are down to the drivers actions/inactions.
The limit of the car is defined by what the single best driver could achieve with it, anything below that is a compromise limited by the ability of the current driver.
If not everyone would have a collision in the same car/conditions then it is down to the driver.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 16th April 10:53
A non-exhaustive list just typed out 'as it comes':
Improved chassis design for stability
Pedestrian protection features re. frontal impact
Crumple zones
Side impact bars
Engine bay contents downward deflection on frontal impact
Pedal retraction
Seat belts
Seat belt tensioners
Seat design (whiplash protection)
Airbags for driver, passenger, side impact
Disc brakes
ABS
Assisted ABS
Power steering
Engine response and power
Radial tyres
Run flat tyres
Variable four wheel drive
Torque distribution
Yaw control
Electronic stability controls (engine, individual wheel effects)
High grip road surface
Road design and layout
DC central barrier design
To say that all of these (and the many others a few more moments of thought would generate) must all be active all the time in everyday driving in order to make a difference is nonsense.
To say that these do not operate to make an 'average' driver of the same skill level safer today in 2006 than in 1966 is nonsensical. They allow drivers to drive faster and stop quicker, corner more safely, and protect him or her should the worst happen, to such an obvious extent that it's clear the skill level of an average driver is NOT the limiting factor in normal everyday driving.
Only in extreme conditions is a driver operating at or beyond their skill level, and in those circumstances the relevant safety systems above come into play to full effect automatically and emulate the skill level of a superior driver. This emulation was not available before and makes driving safer even with the same driver skill level.
Archaic driving restrictions are baseless.
Improved chassis design for stability
Pedestrian protection features re. frontal impact
Crumple zones
Side impact bars
Engine bay contents downward deflection on frontal impact
Pedal retraction
Seat belts
Seat belt tensioners
Seat design (whiplash protection)
Airbags for driver, passenger, side impact
Disc brakes
ABS
Assisted ABS
Power steering
Engine response and power
Radial tyres
Run flat tyres
Variable four wheel drive
Torque distribution
Yaw control
Electronic stability controls (engine, individual wheel effects)
High grip road surface
Road design and layout
DC central barrier design
To say that all of these (and the many others a few more moments of thought would generate) must all be active all the time in everyday driving in order to make a difference is nonsense.
To say that these do not operate to make an 'average' driver of the same skill level safer today in 2006 than in 1966 is nonsensical. They allow drivers to drive faster and stop quicker, corner more safely, and protect him or her should the worst happen, to such an obvious extent that it's clear the skill level of an average driver is NOT the limiting factor in normal everyday driving.
Only in extreme conditions is a driver operating at or beyond their skill level, and in those circumstances the relevant safety systems above come into play to full effect automatically and emulate the skill level of a superior driver. This emulation was not available before and makes driving safer even with the same driver skill level.
Archaic driving restrictions are baseless.
vonhosen said:
It is still our judgements actions/inactions that take something from being safe to dangerous or vice versa. It is our limitations that are the important ones around all of this. The safety system can only try to help our clumsiness & is next to no good if people have no understanding of them anyway.
The safety systems are as much of the problem as the cure. They make people only *think* they are better/safer than they are.
There are certain cars I love training in, because they are not cosseting, they are not easy to set up for bends, *you* have to show the effort & skill. If you do it right they reward you, if you don't they punish you. Drivers can't hide behind the nature of a cosseting car that merely serves to hide their inherent flaws, flaws that will only then come to the fore in a moment of weaakness. You can tell them they are doing it wrong, but they don't really believe it until they feel it for themselves.
Ever seen anyone run into the back of something & say it was brake failure that caused the collision (then go on to describe pedal feel for ABS kicking in ?) Was it the ABS that caused the collision or their lack of OAP, or not being able to stop within the distance they can see to be clear ?
Probably your best post so far IMO VH, you actually demonstrate an understanding of advanced driving, something I am now certain you understand.
Earlier we touched on training, and that was the mindset behind mine. We were taught to make good and safe progress once we met with the NSL. If an overtake existed and we were hesitant, we were marked down, but if we failed to anticipate a forseeable hazard, we were marked down even harder.
Speeds were high, but safe. The one thing we were taught above and beyond everything else was judgement. You will make mistakes, but learning from them before they bite is the basis of learning a system of driving that will keep you out of trouble. How to watch the apex closing and opening using the kerbstones, what the occupant of the vehicle, and even it's type can tell you. What the usual hazards are for any given road type. How to read the white line correctly. What the roadside buildings can tell you about expected levels of grip.
These are just some of the things that are truly important and take safe driving beyond blind limit compliance. If your role is as I suspect then you posess the mindset to impart the type of information that will aid in keeping drivers safe. Why not use this window of opportunity to pass some of that information on.
Discussing limits isn't going to assist anyone in avoiding potential accidents, discussing advanced driving techniques just may.
vonhosen said:
If not everyone would have a collision in the same car/conditions then it is down to the driver.
It is not that simple. The ability for the car and driver to cope with a given situation depends on the car and the driver, and to a certain extent it depends on luck. Nobody is perfect so nobody will cope optimally with all possible situations. Improved technology can reduce the dependency on driver skill, and luck. Improved driver skill can reduce the dependency on technology, and luck. Failure to cope with a situation that could theoretically have been coped with doesn't mean that the driver is fundamentally at fault (except in the unhelpfull sense that they put themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time). It may be that an improvement in either technology or driver skill would have enabled the driver to cope. It may be that the situation should have been prevented by other means. To blame the driver for being imperfect just doesn't seem constructive.
turbobloke said:
A non-exhaustive list just typed out 'as it comes':
Improved chassis design for stability
Pedestrian protection features re. frontal impact
Crumple zones
Side impact bars
Engine bay contents downward deflection on frontal impact
Pedal retraction
Seat belts
Seat belt tensioners
Seat design (whiplash protection)
Airbags for driver, passenger, side impact
Disc brakes
ABS
Assisted ABS
Power steering
Engine response and power
Radial tyres
Run flat tyres
Variable four wheel drive
Torque distribution
Yaw control
Electronic stability controls (engine, individual wheel effects)
High grip road surface
Road design and layout
DC central barrier design
To say that all of these (and the many others a few more moments of thought would generate) must all be active all the time in everyday driving in order to make a difference is nonsense.
To say that these do not operate to make an 'average' driver of the same skill level safer today in 2006 than in 1966 is nonsensical. They allow drivers to drive faster and stop quicker, corner more safely, and protect him or her should the worst happen, to such an obvious extent that it's clear the skill level of an average driver is NOT the limiting factor in normal everyday driving.
Only in extreme conditions is a driver operating at or beyond their skill level, and in those circumstances the relevant safety systems above come into play to full effect automatically and emulate the skill level of a superior driver. This emulation was not available before and makes driving safer even with the same driver skill level.
Archaic driving restrictions are baseless.
But the collisions still happen when the driver goes beyond their limits, not the cars. That makes the driver, still the limiting factor in safe driving.
GreenV8S said:
If not everyone would have a collision in the same car/conditions then it is down to the driver.
It is not that simple. The ability for the car and driver to cope with a given situation depends on the car and the driver, and to a certain extent it depends on luck. Nobody is perfect so nobody will cope optimally with all possible situations. Improved technology can reduce the dependency on driver skill, and luck. Improved driver skill can reduce the dependency on technology, and luck. Failure to cope with a situation that could theoretically have been coped with doesn't mean that the driver is fundamentally at fault (except in the unhelpfull sense that they put themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time). It may be that an improvement in either technology or driver skill would have enabled the driver to cope. It may be that the situation should have been prevented by other means. To blame the driver for being imperfect just doesn't seem constructive.
But the limiting factor is still the driver, fair to balme or not. That is what we are talking about.
Why is train and track design for faster speeds plus safe cornering and stopping making the progress that it is, if it is inherently unsafe due to the driver? Why has passenger air travel progressed from blimps to supersonic speeds safely if the pilot is the limiting factor in everyday flying?
There will be a variation in skill level in train drivers and pilots as there is in motorists who carry passengers and coach drivers who carry more, but all who are allowed to operate each of these are deemed to have met a certain minimum level, which will vary from sector to sector.
Alternative transport modes show that as safety systems improve, sanctioned speeds and performance criteria are extended correspondingly, except for road transport which is subject to archaic and anal levels of safety totalitarianism.
The reason why trains and planes are generally safer while operating at generally higher speeds is also pertinent. It relates to the reason why our motorways are our safest roads - pedestrians and cyclists are banned from train tracks as well as motorways, and there are competency tests for everyone (and their machinery) who takes to the skies and the tracks.
As vehicle and environmental safety systems for motoring have improved, there is no justification in safety terms for archaic restrictions to be kept in place.
There's more good advice from these alternative transport modes. Pilots are objecting on safety grounds to the highest levels of automation, as this is seen to lower pilot concentration levels, dumb down piloting, and go beyond the peak of the curve for enhanced safety. Dumbing down drivers by mind numbingly slow speed limits and external vehicle control risks the same loss of safety.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 16th April 11:25
There will be a variation in skill level in train drivers and pilots as there is in motorists who carry passengers and coach drivers who carry more, but all who are allowed to operate each of these are deemed to have met a certain minimum level, which will vary from sector to sector.
Alternative transport modes show that as safety systems improve, sanctioned speeds and performance criteria are extended correspondingly, except for road transport which is subject to archaic and anal levels of safety totalitarianism.
The reason why trains and planes are generally safer while operating at generally higher speeds is also pertinent. It relates to the reason why our motorways are our safest roads - pedestrians and cyclists are banned from train tracks as well as motorways, and there are competency tests for everyone (and their machinery) who takes to the skies and the tracks.
As vehicle and environmental safety systems for motoring have improved, there is no justification in safety terms for archaic restrictions to be kept in place.
There's more good advice from these alternative transport modes. Pilots are objecting on safety grounds to the highest levels of automation, as this is seen to lower pilot concentration levels, dumb down piloting, and go beyond the peak of the curve for enhanced safety. Dumbing down drivers by mind numbingly slow speed limits and external vehicle control risks the same loss of safety.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 16th April 11:25
BliarOut said:
It is still our judgements actions/inactions that take something from being safe to dangerous or vice versa. It is our limitations that are the important ones around all of this. The safety system can only try to help our clumsiness & is next to no good if people have no understanding of them anyway.
The safety systems are as much of the problem as the cure. They make people only *think* they are better/safer than they are.
There are certain cars I love training in, because they are not cosseting, they are not easy to set up for bends, *you* have to show the effort & skill. If you do it right they reward you, if you don't they punish you. Drivers can't hide behind the nature of a cosseting car that merely serves to hide their inherent flaws, flaws that will only then come to the fore in a moment of weaakness. You can tell them they are doing it wrong, but they don't really believe it until they feel it for themselves.
Ever seen anyone run into the back of something & say it was brake failure that caused the collision (then go on to describe pedal feel for ABS kicking in ?) Was it the ABS that caused the collision or their lack of OAP, or not being able to stop within the distance they can see to be clear ?
Probably your best post so far IMO VH, you actually demonstrate an understanding of advanced driving, something I am now certain you understand.
Earlier we touched on training, and that was the mindset behind mine. We were taught to make good and safe progress once we met with the NSL. If an overtake existed and we were hesitant, we were marked down, but if we failed to anticipate a forseeable hazard, we were marked down even harder.
Speeds were high, but safe. The one thing we were taught above and beyond everything else was judgement. You will make mistakes, but learning from them before they bite is the basis of learning a system of driving that will keep you out of trouble. How to watch the apex closing and opening using the kerbstones, what the occupant of the vehicle, and even it's type can tell you. What the usual hazards are for any given road type. How to read the white line correctly. What the roadside buildings can tell you about expected levels of grip.
These are just some of the things that are truly important and take safe driving beyond blind limit compliance. If your role is as I suspect then you posess the mindset to impart the type of information that will aid in keeping drivers safe. Why not use this window of opportunity to pass some of that information on.
Discussing limits isn't going to assist anyone in avoiding potential accidents, discussing advanced driving techniques just may.
This is SP&L.
If you want to talk advanced driving there is a section for that where I also post
I haven't started any threads in SP&L, I am merely commenting to posts by others with referrence to that subject matter.
turbobloke said:
As vehicle and environmental safety systems for motoring have improved, there is no justification in safety terms for archaic restrictions to be kept in place.
There's more good advice from these alternative transport modes. Pilots are objecting on safety grounds to the highest levels of automation, as this is seen to lower pilot concentration levels, dumb down piloting, and go beyond the peak of the curve for enhanced safety. Dumbing down drivers by mind numbingly slow speed limits and external vehicle control risks the same loss of safety.
Absoluteley agree
vonhosen said:
Or you can have
COAD
Concentration
Observation
Anticipation
Deliberation
That does not make a word
Ist part of one - coadunate ... But "deliberation" - ist another word for "plan" - it mean "lengthy, thoughtful/careful planned consideration or planning"
But my Onkel ((topper copper than lieber cousin
) who was part of the planners for DIS/Speed aware content had problem when asked to specifically define "Plan" What ist a "plan"?
I bet if you asked people - they would be vague - especially as most are ephemeral response to conditions which also have to include basic commons sense, human survival instinct und intellegence...
These people decided that based on what you considered/concentrated, observed und anticipated (including risk assess pof the hazard in question) - your plan includes allowing space (means adjusting speed accordingly und postion accordingly) und time - allowing the time to complete manoeuvre safely (it can also mean allowing enough time for journey in first place so you are not in an 'urry
)Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff