Jumping the red light
Discussion
Twister - thread as promised (started afresh, 'cos the other is getting yawning!).
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=236751
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=236751
Seconded.
So taking another tack.
As someone on the other thread pointed out there is a definite change in almost all driver behaviour when faced with a TLC junction with inop lights. All except for the nutters, see other-other thread.
That must be because, again as pointed out, the situation is clearly dodgy so people take care.
Now I put it to the PH masses that we, as a society should learn something from this.
Many years ago, first day on advanced course, I was told that councils don't spend money unless it is really needed to be spent. Yes I can hear the ironic sniggering at the back. However in those days yes it was more intuitive, more white paint and signs was definitely a signal of increased hazards, still somewhat true today but much diluted I wager.
Maybe we really do have information overload , too much white and coloured paint, too many signs about this and that.
So much so is it now becoming difficult to weed out the warning signs and really pick up on the
WARNING SIGN!!!!!
For one I think we cannot continue as we are. In my view the ideal way forward would be to increase driver capability by whatever means, and reduce the degree of information only to that which is really needed.
The behaviour at a inoperative TL junction says to me, that if you give drivers a realy strong message, "Watch out this place here is blooming dangerous!" they will take care.
On the other hand the problem is with that logic is that it is obvious it is dangerous to the drivers, and we need to figure out the mesaage when the risk is actually not with the driver but vulnerable road users.
Now obviously I guess my ideal way, ie improve drivers and only sign at real problems is too extreme, so where is the happy medium?
I don't know the answer, just some thoughts.
Now off shopping with ill-begotten teenage daughter,
deep joy!
FiF
edited to correct formatting
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Saturday 4th March 11:10
So taking another tack.
As someone on the other thread pointed out there is a definite change in almost all driver behaviour when faced with a TLC junction with inop lights. All except for the nutters, see other-other thread.
That must be because, again as pointed out, the situation is clearly dodgy so people take care.
Now I put it to the PH masses that we, as a society should learn something from this.
Many years ago, first day on advanced course, I was told that councils don't spend money unless it is really needed to be spent. Yes I can hear the ironic sniggering at the back. However in those days yes it was more intuitive, more white paint and signs was definitely a signal of increased hazards, still somewhat true today but much diluted I wager.
Maybe we really do have information overload , too much white and coloured paint, too many signs about this and that.
So much so is it now becoming difficult to weed out the warning signs and really pick up on the
WARNING SIGN!!!!!
For one I think we cannot continue as we are. In my view the ideal way forward would be to increase driver capability by whatever means, and reduce the degree of information only to that which is really needed.
The behaviour at a inoperative TL junction says to me, that if you give drivers a realy strong message, "Watch out this place here is blooming dangerous!" they will take care.
On the other hand the problem is with that logic is that it is obvious it is dangerous to the drivers, and we need to figure out the mesaage when the risk is actually not with the driver but vulnerable road users.
Now obviously I guess my ideal way, ie improve drivers and only sign at real problems is too extreme, so where is the happy medium?
I don't know the answer, just some thoughts.
Now off shopping with ill-begotten teenage daughter,
deep joy! FiF
edited to correct formatting
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Saturday 4th March 11:10
Flat in Fifth said:
The behaviour at a inoperative TL junction says to me, that if you give drivers a realy strong message, "Watch out this place here is blooming dangerous!" they will take care.
This is misleading, I suspect, FiF. Most drivers will behave sensibly at the inoperative ATS junction, but there will be a few for whom it is genuinely more dangerous than one with operating lights.
I believe we would see an increase in collisions if we turned off all the lights. We'd probably see a lot more cautious driving through the junction, but for the one or two who weren't capable, they would be a higher chance of accidents. But that's just conjecture, and most other things will be anecdote, so I'm not sure the answer is that clear...
Overall what I'm saying is that I don't believe that making the road more dangerous is a good way of making it safer.
This is a bit of a side step from the topic so feel free to ignore if you wish ...
... as I was contemplating the bottom of my mug this morning and wondering whether I should have another marlboro an item came on the news about the new 'driver aided' Civic.
How this car will track the lanes for you ... how it will brake ... nudge you back on course ... avoid other cars. The (female) reporter was enthusing about the car. While I was thinking of all the numpties who will sit in there thinking they can pay even less attention to everything around the because the car will make sure they're OK. Only the last few seconds of the report were given over to the RAC or AA rep who was as worried as I about the impact (pun intended) that this would have on people's driving.
I just hope they mark these cars clearly as comething else I have to avoid on motorways.
... as I was contemplating the bottom of my mug this morning and wondering whether I should have another marlboro an item came on the news about the new 'driver aided' Civic.
How this car will track the lanes for you ... how it will brake ... nudge you back on course ... avoid other cars. The (female) reporter was enthusing about the car. While I was thinking of all the numpties who will sit in there thinking they can pay even less attention to everything around the because the car will make sure they're OK. Only the last few seconds of the report were given over to the RAC or AA rep who was as worried as I about the impact (pun intended) that this would have on people's driving.
I just hope they mark these cars clearly as comething else I have to avoid on motorways.
J1mmyD said:
This is a bit of a side step from the topic so feel free to ignore if you wish ...
... as I was contemplating the bottom of my mug this morning and wondering whether I should have another marlboro an item came on the news about the new 'driver aided' Civic.
How this car will track the lanes for you ... how it will brake ... nudge you back on course ... avoid other cars. The (female) reporter was enthusing about the car. While I was thinking of all the numpties who will sit in there thinking they can pay even less attention to everything around the because the car will make sure they're OK. Only the last few seconds of the report were given over to the RAC or AA rep who was as worried as I about the impact (pun intended) that this would have on people's driving.
I just hope they mark these cars clearly as comething else I have to avoid on motorways.
I watched the same program.
Looks dangerous to me. This will encorage people to pay even less attention when driving.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff