Attention gone gone?
Discussion
Sorry to re-post this but gone seems to have missed it and I'm interested to hear his response.
Let's extend your illustration a bit.
Let's say numpty driver in the car at the junction pulls out 2s before the arrival of the vehicle on the main road, and stalls.
Driver A, at 60mph reacts in the standard 0.75s so has 1.25s braking time reducing his impact speed to ~35mph.
Driver B, at 75mph reacts in the standard 0.75s so has 1.25s braking time reducing his impact speed to ~50mph.
Fair enough - if we stop there. That illustrates your point. 35mph side impact is enough to do a lot of damage (perhaps kill) but 50mph would be worse.
Now suppose Driver A is a very speed obedient type because he's on 9 points and fears for his licence. He happens to glance in his mirror at the critical time to see if that camera placed just before the junction has flashed (it does happen) so loses 0.5s braking time. Now he only has 0.75s braking time and his impact speed is ~45mph.
Now suppose that Driver B is more than averagely alert and is covering the brake when he sees numpty start to pull out. His reaction time is reduced to 0.25s so has 1.75s braking time reducing his speed to ~40mph.
Now further suppose that we have another Driver C who is not just more than averagely alert but has some advanced driver skills. He observes numpty waiting at the junction and, although travelling at 75mph up to that point, realises the potential for danger so reduces speed to 50mph and is covering the brake. He also has 1.75s braking time so reduces his impact speed to ~15mph.
Which type of drivers do we want. Type A - that's probably the majority and growing, thanks to dumb enforcement. Or type B - better, and we could get more of them by sending the right road safety messages. Or type C - better still and we could get more of them if we wake up and try and improve driving standards. Oh - and if we do that, probably numpty won't pull out in the first place, so there will be no crash at all.
gone in another thread said:
A car travelling at 75mph on a straight road restricted to 60mph when someone else pulls out in front of it without giving the driver time to react will result in serious injury or death. Speed is not a contributory factor to the collision itself but it is a hige factor in the amount of damage or injury caused. The main contributory factor in that collision will be some other human element but certainly not the speed.
Let's extend your illustration a bit.
Let's say numpty driver in the car at the junction pulls out 2s before the arrival of the vehicle on the main road, and stalls.
Driver A, at 60mph reacts in the standard 0.75s so has 1.25s braking time reducing his impact speed to ~35mph.
Driver B, at 75mph reacts in the standard 0.75s so has 1.25s braking time reducing his impact speed to ~50mph.
Fair enough - if we stop there. That illustrates your point. 35mph side impact is enough to do a lot of damage (perhaps kill) but 50mph would be worse.
Now suppose Driver A is a very speed obedient type because he's on 9 points and fears for his licence. He happens to glance in his mirror at the critical time to see if that camera placed just before the junction has flashed (it does happen) so loses 0.5s braking time. Now he only has 0.75s braking time and his impact speed is ~45mph.
Now suppose that Driver B is more than averagely alert and is covering the brake when he sees numpty start to pull out. His reaction time is reduced to 0.25s so has 1.75s braking time reducing his speed to ~40mph.
Now further suppose that we have another Driver C who is not just more than averagely alert but has some advanced driver skills. He observes numpty waiting at the junction and, although travelling at 75mph up to that point, realises the potential for danger so reduces speed to 50mph and is covering the brake. He also has 1.75s braking time so reduces his impact speed to ~15mph.
Which type of drivers do we want. Type A - that's probably the majority and growing, thanks to dumb enforcement. Or type B - better, and we could get more of them by sending the right road safety messages. Or type C - better still and we could get more of them if we wake up and try and improve driving standards. Oh - and if we do that, probably numpty won't pull out in the first place, so there will be no crash at all.
Devil`s Advocate here.....
How about Driver D. Making progress down dead straight road at 75mph. Observes junction imminent because of roadsigns, gaps in hedge, dropped kerb etc etc (basically reading the road) and slows to a speed which would allow him to stop if a car emerges?
Steve
How about Driver D. Making progress down dead straight road at 75mph. Observes junction imminent because of roadsigns, gaps in hedge, dropped kerb etc etc (basically reading the road) and slows to a speed which would allow him to stop if a car emerges?
Steve
towman said:
Devil`s Advocate here.....
How about Driver D. Making progress down dead straight road at 75mph. Observes junction imminent because of roadsigns, gaps in hedge, dropped kerb etc etc (basically reading the road) and slows to a speed which would allow him to stop if a car emerges?
Steve
Indeed - but I was trying not to over-egg the pudding.
OBSERVER said:
Sorry to re-post this but gone seems to have missed it and I'm interested to hear his response.
gone in another thread said:
A car travelling at 75mph on a straight road restricted to 60mph when someone else pulls out in front of it without giving the driver time to react will result in serious injury or death. Speed is not a contributory factor to the collision itself but it is a hige factor in the amount of damage or injury caused. The main contributory factor in that collision will be some other human element but certainly not the speed.
Let's extend your illustration a bit.
Let's say numpty driver in the car at the junction pulls out 2s before the arrival of the vehicle on the main road, and stalls.
Driver A, at 60mph reacts in the standard 0.75s so has 1.25s braking time reducing his impact speed to ~35mph.
Driver B, at 75mph reacts in the standard 0.75s so has 1.25s braking time reducing his impact speed to ~50mph.
Fair enough - if we stop there. That illustrates your point. 35mph side impact is enough to do a lot of damage (perhaps kill) but 50mph would be worse.
Now suppose Driver A is a very speed obedient type because he's on 9 points and fears for his licence. He happens to glance in his mirror at the critical time to see if that camera placed just before the junction has flashed (it does happen) so loses 0.5s braking time. Now he only has 0.75s braking time and his impact speed is ~45mph.
Now suppose that Driver B is more than averagely alert and is covering the brake when he sees numpty start to pull out. His reaction time is reduced to 0.25s so has 1.75s braking time reducing his speed to ~40mph.
Now further suppose that we have another Driver C who is not just more than averagely alert but has some advanced driver skills. He observes numpty waiting at the junction and, although travelling at 75mph up to that point, realises the potential for danger so reduces speed to 50mph and is covering the brake. He also has 1.75s braking time so reduces his impact speed to ~15mph.
Which type of drivers do we want. Type A - that's probably the majority and growing, thanks to dumb enforcement. Or type B - better, and we could get more of them by sending the right road safety messages. Or type C - better still and we could get more of them if we wake up and try and improve driving standards. Oh - and if we do that, probably numpty won't pull out in the first place, so there will be no crash at all.
I dont see what your getting at Gone stated the driver pulled out"without giving the driver time to react "
So all your assumptions are pointless, zero time to react cant be reduced any further
Pies said:
I dont see what your getting at
Sorry - I thought PHers would be type Bs and Cs.
The road safety choice is this. We can accept driving standards as they are and pull the speed lever alone to try and bring about improvements in road safety or we can look to improve driving standards generally. The latter will improve road safety and reduce the need for speed enforcement. Which makes more sense?
Speed is a single component. In order to improve road safety by pulling the speed lever, there's only one target to aim at (speed) and one way of doing it (reduce speed).
On the other hand, advanced driving comprises many different components - concentration, observation, anticipation, hazard awareness, car control, attitude to name some. Improvements in any one of those will improve road safety, maybe by a small margin but improvement nonetheless. Improvements in a number of those components, spread across a wide section of the driver population, could improve road safety very substantially.
Geddit?
Pies said:
Gone stated the driver pulled out"without giving the driver time to react "
Crashes where reaction time is zero are very rare.
I agree with Observer. Here's an example...
One worst things about the current obsession with speed enforcement is the fact that many drivers will quite happily sail past junctions at the speed limit when they should have perhaps slowed down - especially if there's a vehicle waiting to turn out.
An example is the A46 just north of Leicester - part of the old Fosse Way. Nice fast straight road with grade separated junctions. There is however one at-level junction with gaps where a C class road crosses the A46. I slow down to a fair way under the 70 limit, more so if there's vehicles waiting to turn out/go across the junction.
Many people quite happily sail on at a perfectly legal 70mph seemingly without even batting an eyelid! I suppose in their own minds they think they're safe because that's what the system tells them.!
>> Edited by tim.tonal on Friday 11th March 18:53
>> Edited by tim.tonal on Friday 11th March 18:54
One worst things about the current obsession with speed enforcement is the fact that many drivers will quite happily sail past junctions at the speed limit when they should have perhaps slowed down - especially if there's a vehicle waiting to turn out.
An example is the A46 just north of Leicester - part of the old Fosse Way. Nice fast straight road with grade separated junctions. There is however one at-level junction with gaps where a C class road crosses the A46. I slow down to a fair way under the 70 limit, more so if there's vehicles waiting to turn out/go across the junction.
Many people quite happily sail on at a perfectly legal 70mph seemingly without even batting an eyelid! I suppose in their own minds they think they're safe because that's what the system tells them.!
>> Edited by tim.tonal on Friday 11th March 18:53
>> Edited by tim.tonal on Friday 11th March 18:54
OBSERVER said:
Sorry to re-post this but gone seems to have missed it and I'm interested to hear his response.
gone in another thread said:
A car travelling at 75mph on a straight road restricted to 60mph when someone else pulls out in front of it without giving the driver time to react will result in serious injury or death. Speed is not a contributory factor to the collision itself but it is a hige factor in the amount of damage or injury caused. The main contributory factor in that collision will be some other human element but certainly not the speed.
Let's extend your illustration a bit.
Let's say numpty driver in the car at the junction pulls out 2s before the arrival of the vehicle on the main road, and stalls.
Driver A, at 60mph reacts in the standard 0.75s so has 1.25s braking time reducing his impact speed to ~35mph.
Driver B, at 75mph reacts in the standard 0.75s so has 1.25s braking time reducing his impact speed to ~50mph.
Fair enough - if we stop there. That illustrates your point. 35mph side impact is enough to do a lot of damage (perhaps kill) but 50mph would be worse.
Now suppose Driver A is a very speed obedient type because he's on 9 points and fears for his licence. He happens to glance in his mirror at the critical time to see if that camera placed just before the junction has flashed (it does happen) so loses 0.5s braking time. Now he only has 0.75s braking time and his impact speed is ~45mph.
Now suppose that Driver B is more than averagely alert and is covering the brake when he sees numpty start to pull out. His reaction time is reduced to 0.25s so has 1.75s braking time reducing his speed to ~40mph.
Now further suppose that we have another Driver C who is not just more than averagely alert but has some advanced driver skills. He observes numpty waiting at the junction and, although travelling at 75mph up to that point, realises the potential for danger so reduces speed to 50mph and is covering the brake. He also has 1.75s braking time so reduces his impact speed to ~15mph.
Which type of drivers do we want. Type A - that's probably the majority and growing, thanks to dumb enforcement. Or type B - better, and we could get more of them by sending the right road safety messages. Or type C - better still and we could get more of them if we wake up and try and improve driving standards. Oh - and if we do that, probably numpty won't pull out in the first place, so there will be no crash at all.
I can't disagree that better training is desirable.
Better training costs money and will have a certain exclusionary affect on many people if standards are raised beyond what they can achieve to pass those higher standards. That will mean less properly qualified people because many will just not bother to try harder and drive anyway!
Believe me when I say I am not happy with the current standard training given to new drivers. It is woefully inadequate!
Whether I am happy or not is immaterial. The Govt don't care about individuals happiness!
I am in a position to do something within the remit of current law to help to punish those who do not meet the already inadequate standards. That is the only material factor in this sorry state of affairs.
OBSERVER said:
...advanced driving comprises many different components - concentration, observation, anticipation, hazard awareness, car control, attitude to name some. Improvements in any one of those will improve road safety, maybe by a small margin but improvement nonetheless. Improvements in a number of those components, spread across a wide section of the driver population, could improve road safety very substantially.
Yes, that makes good sense to me, not least the attitude element. If you get that right most of the other things will come right also.
Unfortunately there is the suspicion in some quarters* that I may have the wrong attitude, so I'm knackered from the start.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
*Slight dig at Steve again.
TripleS said:
...advanced driving comprises many different components - concentration, observation, anticipation, hazard awareness, car control, attitude to name some. Improvements in any one of those will improve road safety, maybe by a small margin but improvement nonetheless. Improvements in a number of those components, spread across a wide section of the driver population, could improve road safety very substantially.
Yes, that makes good sense to me, not least the attitude element. If you get that right most of the other things will come right also.
Unfortunately there is the suspicion in some quarters* that I may have the wrong attitude, so I'm knackered from the start.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
*Slight dig at Steve again.
This page from SafeSpeed is relevant:
www.safespeed.org.uk/problem2.html
gone said:
I can't disagree that better training is desirable.
Better training costs money and will have a certain exclusionary affect on many people if standards are raised beyond what they can achieve to pass those higher standards. That will mean less properly qualified people because many will just not bother to try harder and drive anyway!
Believe me when I say I am not happy with the current standard training given to new drivers. It is woefully inadequate!
Whether I am happy or not is immaterial. The Govt don't care about individuals happiness!
I am in a position to do something within the remit of current law to help to punish those who do not meet the already inadequate standards. That is the only material factor in this sorry state of affairs.
That's one of the most human statements I've heard from you Gone - thanks!
The only point that can be debated is your second paragraph - if you raise standards more people won't bother. I'm not convinced, for a few reasons:-
1) The people who you suggest won't bother don't bother now anyway, so their driving ability will not change either way.
2) As a result, AVERAGE ability on the roads will go up, which can only be a good thing for road safety.
3) If the new standards are enforced, more of these people will be punished...which will ultimately either persuade them to improve, or get them off the roads.
I am not an elitist about driving...god knows if you saw my driving you'd find enough to criticise!!! But I don't think that "exclusion" is an argument against improving driver training...this is the sort of thing that elsewhere is successfully "dumbing-down" our society - we are afraid of offending the ignorant and incompetent!!!
And on the roads, that policy can only cost lives...although I would imagine you are more aware of that than me - I don't mean to patronise.
It does, and probably always will, come down to money - costs and revenues...I hope it doesn't cost too many lives!
I quite often see cars traveling along at 25mph in a 30 limit, very pleased with themselves because they know speed kills, they've been told so many times.
Then they go straight through a Zebra crossing that has a pedestrian stood at the side waiting to cross, blissfully unaware that the pedestrian was even there.
THINK : SLOW DOWN ! My Arse!!
Then they go straight through a Zebra crossing that has a pedestrian stood at the side waiting to cross, blissfully unaware that the pedestrian was even there.
THINK : SLOW DOWN ! My Arse!!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff