You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I have driven hire cars with this system.( that you can switch off) Been available for 10 plus years.
Interesting, how did it work? Apple maps is not always accurate with speed limits and sometimes don't even know what the speed limit is so presumably the car was reading signs? 10 years ago?
I can't see any system currently available being accurate enough for variable speed control let alone 10yrs ago, signage is often obscured & also conflicting speed limits of roads running parallel or under each other would doubtless cause problems with geolocate.
How did it work? Black magic.
Innacuracies in maps can easily be dealt with. The tech is available to do this.
I'm in! It's a lot more fun driving a slow car quickly than a quick car slowly...
Surely such a system is supplemental to the driver doing the same thing that the driver has always had to do? So it doesn't need to be 100% reliable. We're not talking self-driving cars here.
Except we're drifting , Quite contentedly, to having the car do everything for us. The idiot behind the wheel just has to point...
One thing i am surprised by is that black boxes and dashcams have not become more common. Both would improve driving standards and make it easier to prisecute lawbreakers.
I expected this to be forced by insurance companies by offering discouts or loading those without but it doesn't seem to be happening.
Except we’re drifting , Quite contentedly, to having the car do everything for us.
It's much more complicated than that. The car is doing what it CAN to augment the driver, but there's a massive gap between braking when it detects you're going to hit something and doing "everything". Not least because liability shifts from the driver to the manufacturer, and manufacturers REALLY don't want to take that on until they are absolutely sure it's going to work. And it's not, not for a long time, except on motorways.
The huge leap will be when the driver doesn't have to watch what they are doing, and we're a long way from that especially in the UK.
@tjagain I would estimate at least 50% of the cars in my street have dashcams.
I expected this to be forced by insurance companies by offering discounts or loading those without but it doesn’t seem to be happening.
A good few modern cars have them built in Tesla's do. My car has 4 cameras on it, and it wouldn't have taken much for the manufacturer to have added that capability. However at the same time a camera shouldnt make your insurance cheaper. They are not a preventative step, all they do is show who was at fault they dont stop an accident from happening. In fact I bet insurance companies use them a lot to turn down claims of their numpty drivers.
When I see cars with wired in dash cams I always give them a wide birth as inevitably they appear to be the people with the lowest driving standards.
Car insurance is definitely cheaper on cars that have all these 'driver aids' though
"It’s much more complicated than that. The car is doing what it CAN to augment the driver, but there’s a massive gap between braking when it detects you’re going to hit something and doing “everything”. Not least because liability shifts from the driver to the manufacturer, and manufacturers REALLY don’t want to take that on until they are absolutely sure it’s going to work. And it’s not, not for a long time, except on motorways.
The huge leap will be when the driver doesn’t have to watch what they are doing, and we’re a long way from that especially in the UK."
I rest my case...
I rest my case…
You should probably wake your case back up again cos I have no idea what you are on about.
However at the same time a camera shouldnt make your insurance cheaper. They are not a preventative step, all they do is show who was at fault
They should make your premiums cheaper because they make the insurance company's job a lot easier. Remember, premiums are the cost of the company providing a service, not a judgement on driving skill or how worthy you are. Lower costs to insure you come from you being a lower risk, but also fewer complex legal cases to fight.
Except we’re drifting ,
Which, ironically, doesn't necessitate breaking the speed limit.
When I see cars with wired in dash cams I always give them a wide birth as inevitably they appear to be the people with the lowest driving standards.
What a load of ****ing shite.
How can you see a dash cam from either the front or back of the car? Unless they have it right in the middle of the screen you would never know it's there.
Actually don't bother answering, it's clearly got to the point where the righteous have taken over and reason has long departed.
The huge leap will be when the driver doesn’t have to watch what they are doing, and we’re a long way from that especially in the UK.”
I dont think we are in certain circumstance.
On a major busy motorway I feel that my car can drive more safely than I can. It can see when traffic is slowing up ahead way before I can and starts to slow the car. I think it does this because some of the sensors are mounted high up in the windscreen and it uses live traffic data.
It also stops me missing anything in the blind spots and will only change lanes when it is safe to do so
@squirrel_king
fair enough, I know those maps are crap but it seems a bit of a wasted opportunity that I have a camera, a GPS and an on board modem and none of them talk to each other to provide live updates to the system.
It's the difference between an old school architecture where each device is bought in and the comms between them are run over a very simple CANbus, so the only place they all come together is a screen so the driver can see what's going on, interaction between systems is limited, simple and prone to errors. Hence the speed limit sign reading stuff talking to the ACC has been limited and quite often inaccurate. But flashing a speed limit change up on the DIM is easy and no one much cares if it's wrong for 5% of the customers 10% of the time.
Once you get the cameras and the onboard GPS in the car all talking to each other and referring to online live mapping *all the time* the car knows which road it's on, because it's been on it for 500m, so it'll ignore the parallel service road because earlier GPS signals indicate it couldn't have been on it then, so it can't be now, because no ones turned the steering wheel. It'll also use it's own camera data, the official mapped speed limit change and for some cars, those maps will include temporary speed limits that other similarly equipped cars will have seen and reported. So the whole thing checks it's own errors based on real time data.
I even get notifications of slippery roads when other cars with the same system have ABS or Traction control warnings. Rapidly slowing cars ahead will change the colour of the road ahead on my map, Stationary traffic will also change the mapping (and may divert me) and it's not done by someone reporting an accident or any sort of manual input, it's just cars reporting that they've slowed down a lot or stopped. It works very well in the region as we have thousands of similarly equipped cars driving round.
Can't do this well on cars that are more than a couple of years old, because the systems aren't integrated, which is one reason it's easy to hack them, it's a simple network. Newer cars have far more integration, with a lot more data and onboard/offboard processing. There's also a move to new cybersecurity standards, which means that hacking the cars will become a lot more complex. (Though, to be honest, calling what a lot of car hackers do "hacking" is pushing it. It's more like going in and just switching random things on and off and seeing what happens, then writing it down for next time. And we can see that you've done it too.)
Big sharp spike on the steering wheel instead of an airbag? That would reduce the number of RTCs.
It'd would reduce the number of repeat RTCs by vastly increasing the number of fatalities. A price worth paying?
One issue with driver aids is risk compensation. This was seen with ABS. Drivers of cars with ABS were driving faster in poor conditions and leaving less braking distance.
But, drivers of cars with ABS need less braking distance. 😁 Would you rather do 40 in a Tesla or 30 in a Ford Anglia?
I'm not convinced by this argument, unless maybe it's a subconscious thing? If you're up the arse of the car in front, you're not thinking "I'm golden, I've got anti-lock brakes," you're thinking "come on, get your toe down, get out of the way."
Except we’re drifting , Quite contentedly, to having the car do everything for us.
Weird really, isn't it.
"I can't wait for self-driving cars!"
"Driving aids are making drivers lazy!"
Well, pick one.
One thing i am surprised by is that black boxes and dashcams have not become more common.
There's a very obvious problem with mandating black boxes. Actually, two. The pushback against it would be massive and (once more with feeling) those most in need of being monitored would disable it.
Dashcams though, I don't understand why this isn't a standard feature. I already have a rear camera, I've had one in like the last half dozen cars I've owned. It'd surely be trivial for an OEM to link it up to a recording device.
Cougar
It is subconscious and its a long known about psychological phenomenon seen in all sorts of ways.
The spike on the steering wheel is a joke but how carefully would you drive if you car was like this ie you know you will die in a crash ?
You'd drive more carefully but you'd be more likely to die in a crash - net result would probably be the same.
When cars were actually more dangerous, deaths were higher, so clearly the safety increases aren't being cancelled out.
Consider the level of driving in countries where most vehicles are deathtraps...
It is subconscious and its a long known about psychological phenomenon seen in all sorts of ways.
I see you, Jeremy. This is your 'cycling helmet' argument in different pants. 😁
The spike on the steering wheel is a joke but
"I'm not racist but..."?
But, it's not a joke, is it. It's a serious suggestion to remove safety features in order to make people more cautious. Remove railings from balconies, no-one would fall off if we taught them to keep away from the edge. Throw children under cotton mills, they'll soon learn. History is littered with people who have overridden guards on things like bandsaws and then lopped their fingers off.
Track this, monitor that, ring fence the other, film everything - Minority Report anyone?
May as well take children's DNA at birth and stick a tracker in them - it's for everyone's best interests in the end - they'll only turn out to be wrong 'uns and it'll make it easier to find and eliminate them.
Molgrips. More car drivers might die but less cyclists and pedestrians
Safer cars lead to more risky behaviours by car drivers
“I can’t wait for self-driving cars!”
“Driving aids are making drivers lazy!”Well, pick one.
Or maybe lazy drivers want self driving cars and can't way for them whereas 'active' drivers don't want them as they feel something will be taken away from driving for them.
More car drivers might die but less cyclists and pedestrians
It won't be long before you're physically unable to run over a pedestrian because it will slam the brakes on for you.
Track this, monitor that, ring fence the other, film everything – Minority Report anyone?
May as well take children’s DNA at birth and stick a tracker in them – it’s for everyone’s best interests in the end – they’ll only turn out to be wrong ‘uns and it’ll make it easier to find and eliminate them.
Well if it's a bit too much big brother-ish for you, you could always consider not driving 😉
"These days, you say you're a driver, they come and lock you up".
Sod it... Restrict everything to 50 mph.
Driving through rural France is such a pleasant experience as they've reduced speed limits to 80kmh. OK, it's pleasant because the roads are relatively empty, but it's so relaxing. Stuck behind a truck... Meh. So what.
I avoid motorways as I don't like driving at speed. It's stressful. Overtaking, being overtaken. Dick moves. When I do use motorways I drive with the aim of keeping up with the trucks out of respect for them. They've got deadlines and schedules to keep. Me, I'm cruising around for my own entertainment.
Track this, monitor that, ring fence the other, film everything – Minority Report anyone
A chap that used to work for us got trackers fitted to all our vans. I had mine disabled within 20mins.
I say disabled, I randomly disabled it to see how closely the **** was watching it. Whilst it was enabled i got the passenger to give it a random shake to cause an alarm.
I then fitted a cctv camera pointing at his desk. (Not really but I threatened to).
Unnecessary? Because everyone’s such a great driver they don’t need any aids?
Seriously?
Yes, seriously, because many of these ‘aids’ are nothing of the sort, they’re just manufacturers getting carried away with all the whizzy new electronics and fancy selling points to try to flog new cars. All of the really important safety aids are already built into pretty much every modern car, everything else is just sparkly glitz. Nobody needs every control to be on a touchscreen. Mobile phones are banned while driving a car; tell me how it’s then safe for every function in a car to be on what is effectively a smartphone.
It’s ok, I’ve got plenty of time, I can wait.
More car drivers might die but less cyclists and pedestrians
It won’t be long before you’re physically unable to run over a pedestrian because it will slam the brakes on for you.
The number of pedestrians killed by cyclists will be higher than those killed by cars, though. Most Saturdays I sit outside a small cafe in town, which is busy with pedestrians, especially as there is an RSPCA charity shop next door, and every day, I see probably half a dozen people on bikes come past me at high speed, by which I mean at least 10mph, some well over that, between 15-20. On a public footpath heavily used by all ages. It’s only a matter of time before one of these assholes goes full tilt into an elderly person getting out of a car, or walking out of the charity shop, which has a recessed frontage, so the door is set back from the path.
Oh, and directly in front of where I sit are two disabled parking spaces, along with regular parking spaces in front of the rest of the shops.
Personally, your obsession with cars doing more than 70 on a main road would be far better directed at cyclists who ride in such a stupid, reckless and downright dangerous ****ing manner!
Cougar
Risk compensation is real
Of course it is. But killing off the non-conforming in order to thin the herd isn't really the answer now, is it. I'm unconvinced that that's what Darwin had in mind.
Mobile phones are banned while driving a car; tell me how it’s then safe for every function in a car to be on what is effectively a smartphone.
It isn't, it's garbage.
Personally, your obsession with cars doing more than 70 on a main road would be far better directed at cyclists who ride in such a stupid, reckless and downright dangerous **** manner!
A[part from cyclist very rarely kill anyone. Car drivers do most days. Look at the stats
Yes, seriously, because many of these ‘aids’ are nothing of the sort, they’re just manufacturers getting carried away with all the whizzy new electronics and fancy selling points to try to flog new cars. All of the really important safety aids are already built into pretty much every modern car, everything else is just sparkly glitz.
Just because you drove some cars to Cornwall for your job (I think you might have mentioned it once or twice), doesn’t qualify you as an expert in vehicle and system design. The newer aids might not provide the step change in safety that existing aids such as ABS, ESP, airbags, etc did, but they make incremental improvements to safety which all add up. Existing systems such as ABS and ESP are also improving all the time, partly aided by the better system integration - aka whizzy electronics. There is a lot more to making a car function than a touchscreen
they’re just manufacturers getting carried away with all the whizzy new electronics and fancy selling points to try to flog new cars.
Ok boomer.
Safety features have nothing whatsoever to do with the touchscreen trend, by the way.
Ok Boomer - LOLz
Ruddy millennials
The number of pedestrians killed by cyclists will be higher than those killed by cars, though
"Screw your statistics, i'm going with my gut feelings on this"
Cyclists kill a person every few years, statistically so insignificant that you can *almost* but not quite say they they kill no one, motorists kill 5 a day, which includes those killed by riders of illegally modified, throttle controlled "bikes" aka, electric motorbikes.
Yes, seriously, because many of these ‘aids’ are nothing of the sort, they’re just manufacturers getting carried away with all the whizzy new electronics and fancy selling points to try to flog new cars.
There is shit loads of data out there about numbers of accidents avoided/mitigated against and those where the severity has been reduced by vehicle systems. Obviously the data about accidents that didn't happen is the least reliable. But you can see (on the vehicle data logs) where the various systems cut in and either amplified what the driver wasn't doing enough of, or did something the driver didn't even think to do.
The number of pedestrians killed by cyclists will be higher than those killed by cars, though.
You what?
But you can see (on the vehicle data logs) where the various systems cut in and either amplified what the driver wasn’t doing enough of, or did something the driver didn’t even think to do.
So engineers actually engineer things rather than must make something up on the spur of the moment or after reading a few webpages? Wow, who'd have thought it?
There is shit loads of data out there about numbers of accidents avoided/mitigated against and those where the severity has been reduced by vehicle systems. Obviously the data about accidents that didn’t happen is the least reliable. But you can see (on the vehicle data logs) where the various systems cut in and either amplified what the driver wasn’t doing enough of, or did something the driver didn’t even think to do.
I've never driven a car with any of these driver aids but there seem to be quite a few reports of cars slamming on the brakes with nothing to avoid, following the original lane lines in roadworks, steering cars back into lane when there's not enough room eg. Country lanes.
Are these statistically insignificant, bullshit or just ignored in the research?
Are there numerous instances when the driver prevents the car from causing an accident which are not recorded?
78% of all statistics are difficult for non-statisticians. There was a police awareness type advert outside where I used to work claiming something like "2 of 5 thefts from vehicles happen to unlocked cars." I thought great, I'm leaving my car unlocked in future then, that's far better odds!
The Ford Fiesta is, I believe, the most stolen car in the UK. So there must be a problem with it, right? Except, it's also the most common car in the UK. Comparing absolute numbers without context is often meaningless. It's self-evident that a pedestrian is likely to be better off being hit by a cyclist than a car, but if we're going to "look at the stats" then the first stat we need is the number of riders vs the number of drivers on the road or the figures are a nonsense.
(I haven't fact-checked the Fiesta thing, but if it's incorrect it doesn't really matter, it's just an example.)
I’ve never driven a car with any of these driver aids but there seem to be quite a few reports of cars slamming on the brakes with nothing to avoid, following the original lane lines in roadworks, steering cars back into lane when there’s not enough room eg. Country lanes.
Are these statistically insignificant, bullshit or just ignored in the research?
What are you driving, a Hillman Hunter?
The thing is, you're quite correct, these systems are fallible. I once had the adaptive cruise control stand the car on its nose because it detected a hazard up ahead. The hazard it locked on for was an empty crisp packet blowing about.
But, we're getting there I think. It's probably still a net gain.
Are there numerous instances when the driver prevents the car from causing an accident which are not recorded?
Back in *handwave* the late 90s, my manager of the day asked me to make a list of everything I hadn't thought of. This question reminds me of that day.
I’ve never driven a car with any of these driver aids but there seem to be quite a few reports of cars slamming on the brakes with nothing to avoid, following the original lane lines in roadworks, steering cars back into lane when there’s not enough room eg. Country lanes.
For the first, my collision alert really doesn't like cars turning in front of me, it's never flung the brakes on though, that's presumably after it's figured out whether the collision is going to happen or not.
Second, they only follow white lines so that's entirely possible and why the driver is there to make a decision.
Lastly, my lane guidance switches off below 40 mph (I think, maybe 30) which is about where I'd be driving on such a small lane. Regardless, mine requires a line on both sides to function which most country lanes I've ever seen lack.
Are there numerous instances when the driver prevents the car from causing an accident which are not recorded?
Near misses?
When was the last time you reported one in any context? I'd imagine they could be captured from on-board telemetry but unless there was a function to flag a near miss nobody is going to know about it. More likely is actual road testing would be used for that, statistics used to extrapolate the results and decisions made to mitigate. Like my lane guidance not working in slow speed situations (like navigating urban areas).
following the original lane lines in roadworks, steering cars back into lane when there’s not enough room eg. Country lanes.
With lane assist, the car does not steer itself. It nudges the wheel, but you can easily override it, it's not that strong. You're in control.
Actual autonomous driving is a different matter, and that's where stuff like old lines on roads would be an issue. My car does pick up phantom lines sometimes but like I say, just keep on your current line and you're fine.
Phantom emergency braking could be an issue though as that will override your input completely.
What are you driving, a Hillman Hunter?
I’ve never driven a vehicle that stops itself or has lane assist. I get a new work van every couple of years.
It’s a decent spec Connect at the mo, with ABS, traction control and maybe ESP? Oh and reversing sensors.
Possibly it has brake assist, I’ve not needed to stop it that quickly yet.
It doesn’t even have a passenger airbag.
It does have an eight speed auto, alloy wheels, air con, cruise control and hill start. Heated mirrors, seats and screen Those aren’t really active safety features
It does have the Ford connectivity location thing. Which is switched off.
With lane assist, the car does not steer itself.
As above - I drove a car that certainly did. It would turn the steering to keep you in the lane. You could over ride it but it certainly turned the car
You could over ride it
That's what I mean. It's making strong suggestions, but it is not in charge.
And override means just steering in the direction you want to go against a slight resistance isn't it? It's not like you need to fumble through the menu options to turn it off when you try to overtake or shift lanes.
Yes. It turns the wheel a bit, but if you're holding onto it it isn't at all difficult to override it. It's just disconcerting at first. I have got used to it pretty quickly. I leave it on because it might save my life some day, or someine else's.
It's a bit like the old Force Feedback on game controllers.
I turned it off because, as I said earlier, its choice of lane position was crap so it was constantly wibbling away to itself when I was trying to drive in a straight line.
Or your choice of line was crap.
Mine doesn't bother me on the motorway unless I really do drift towards the edge of the lane. It does get confused by sliproads sometimes if the lines are scrubbed off.
I've been driving since 1990 and I was taught in-lane positioning on an advanced driving session. I'm reasonably confident that I know where I should be within a lane.
Apparently so 🙂 but why do you think your car doesn't? Isn't doing something other than keeping you in the middle of the lane?
Is the middle of the lane the right place to be? At all times?
You've just answered your own question.
Apparently so 🙂 but why do you think your car doesn’t?
I'm guessing his car has a shit system. Funnily enough not all are made equally.
Whilst there is the very rare occasion where the ability to speed up is useful to get you out of trouble, those occasions are vastly outnumbered by times when going faster gets you into trouble.
Police Officer chum, who did a lot of Traffic, told me that he had never attended an RTA where going faster would have helped.
It would if you were there before the accident, so weren’t involved. Steady 140mph should solve that.
Police Officer chum, who did a lot of Traffic, told me that he had never attended an RTA where going faster would have helped.
Of course he did, that was his job. How many near misses did he attend?
I've had this situation happen, more than once. Some pillock comes steaming out of a side street or running a red light at a crossroads. They're on a collision course with my rear quarter. Do I:
a) do nothing and get my back end taken out,
b) stand on the brakes and get t-boned instead,
c) attempt to swerve out of the way, throwing myself into oncoming traffic,
d) stand on the loud pedal to get out of harm's way?
It's a rare scenario for sure. But it can happen and sometimes acceleration is the best answer.
I am guessing that temporarily accelerating to avoid an accident is not what the Police Officer chum was implying when he said "going faster" as they would have be referring to overall speed.
In your scenario above you could also accelerate out of that accident straight into another where cars ahead of you were not expecting you to suddenly accelerate, i.e. speed has not helped after all.
Question - If all cars had a max speed of 20mph how many serious accidents would there be?
I am going to say pretty much zero meaning speed is a big aspect in serious accidents.
In your scenario above you could also accelerate out of that accident straight into another where cars ahead of you were not expecting you to suddenly accelerate, i.e. speed has not helped after all.
I could.
I could've done many things that didn't happen.
Question – If all cars had a max speed of 20mph how many serious accidents would there be?
I am going to say pretty much zero meaning speed is a big aspect in serious accidents.
Great, limit all vehicles to 20mph. Job jobbed.
I am going to say pretty much zero meaning speed is a big aspect in serious accidents.
Speed is a compounding factor, the biggest aspect is the driver(s). If you reduced poor drivers by 20% then you'd see a greater reduction in collisions than by a 20% reduction in speed
Well the only factor is the driver in that case (maybe not the only factor but I'd bet that accidents where mechanical failure or something similar is a factor are very low). It's like saying guns don't kill people. People kill people. I do agree though that the test needs to be a lot tougher.
What are you driving a Hillman Hunter?
Lol. A 2016 Ford CMax, it has ABS, Traction Control and Rear Parking Sensors but no automatic lane or braking capabilities.
More likely is actual road testing would be used for that, statistics used to extrapolate the results and decisions made to mitigate.
That's what I was meaning.
There seems to be a lot of conflating 2 different aspects of collisions ( not accidents - actual accidents where no one is to blame are very rare)
1) the severity of a crash where speed is clearly a huge factor and indeed the main one
2) the likelihood of a crash where speed is one of many factors
The accelerate to above the speed limit to avoid a crash is a very rare / highly unlikely situation and even if real the extra accidents and injuries caused by being unable to accelerate would be far less than the accidents avoided or minimized by the inability to speed
Greatest good of greatest number
Let's look at the statistics. Driver aids are you, traffic is way up, anecdotally aggression is up, but deaths are down.
, but deaths are down.
Deaths of car drivers and passengers but not of pedestrians and cyclists
Its that pesky risk compensation again
stand on the loud pedal to get out of harm’s way?
Oh god this is one of those threads where everyone is an awesome platinum elite driver who engages turbo thrust to speed around the dangerous amateurs...instead of being some dreary IT manager from Cleethorpes driving a secondhand mini-MPV
If you reduced poor drivers by 20% then you’d see a greater reduction in collisions than by a 20% reduction in speed
I'm curious as to how you might reduce poor drivers, a couple of pages back speed limiters were apparently an unenforceable concept (despite already existing). I presume there's a set of criteria to ID these individuals and then have them culled?
And aren't 'poor drivers' (at least in part) prone to speeding? excess speed reduces their (already limited) ability to react, perhaps we could mitigate the effects of this 20% of wronguns by, you know, forcing their vehicles to obey speed limits for them?
You know, while you come up with some way to magically skim off the worst 20%...
Oh god this is one of those threads where everyone is an awesome platinum elite driver who engages turbo thrust to speed around the dangerous amateurs…instead of being some dreary IT manager from Cleethorpes driving a secondhand mini-MPV
Did you not attended the Knight industries school of advanced motoring? Everyone know moar speed will save you when...
Crossing a busy junction:
https://youtube.com/shorts/jPtjpScBD_o?feature=share
Dealing with tailgating:
https://youtube.com/shorts/DZl6_4kzaaE?feature=share
What we should do is keep the safety aids but remove all comfort. Windows, heating, air-con, entertainment, comfy seats, plush suspension. Get rid of the lot and make it unbelievably uncomfortable to go quickly. Nobody would be driving fast in inclement weather!
I’m curious as to how you might reduce poor drivers,
thats an easy one. Mandatory retesting every few years. Ramp up fines for traffic offenses significantly and use this to pay for more traffic police. Allow random breath testing, reduce the number of points needed for a ban. More traffic cameras. More enforcement of parking laws, More checks on vehicles
Deaths of car drivers and passengers but not of pedestrians and cyclists
Its that pesky risk compensation again
That's not risk compensation at all - if it were, you'd see car occupant deaths as flat or increasing.
It's just an obvious reflection if the fact that it's a lot easier to physically protect the occupants of a car (who are strapped into an airbag-filled steel cage) than it is to protect the people that the car hits. It's exactly why crash avoidance etc is so important - because it protects people outside the car.
All this toss about "drivers will become lazy with too much help, they need to be alert and awesome like me" is a waste of time. Drivers have always been useless and lazy, and we are all useless and lazy. We need all the help that we can get and, obviously, to collectively drive much less.
cookeaa
a couple of pages back speed limiters were apparently an unenforceable concept (despite already existing)
Yes - there are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of vehicles in this country that already have them. It's not witchcraft.
Great, limit all vehicles to 20mph. Job jobbed.
Well as well as bringing road deaths down to almost zero it would also mean less people would bother driving as they may ride their bikes (as now almost just as quick and nicer duet less cars and slower cars), take
But then nobody really wants bold solutions do they...
That’s not risk compensation at all – if it were, you’d see car occupant deaths as flat or increasing.
It is - they take more risks and thus we see pedestrian and cyclist deaths increasing. the extra protection for car occupants is greater than the risk increase from the riskier behaviour
this is all well researched stuff. Its not (generally) conscious behaviour
d) stand on the loud pedal to get out of harm’s way?
In 99.99% of cases (made up statistic warning) you wouldn't even realise until you'd actually been hit. Even if you notice them before the impact, the response time from Seeing-Reasoning-Reacting-Trying to accelerate-Waiting for the engine to sling you into hyperdrive would mean you'd also have been hit. And you'd now have your foot mashed to the floor. In a car that isn't pointing in the direction you want to go.
Best thing is to be more observant before the event.
thats an easy one. Mandatory retesting every few years. Ramp up fines for traffic offenses significantly and use this to pay for more traffic police. Allow random breath testing, reduce the number of points needed for a ban. More traffic cameras. More enforcement of parking laws, More checks on vehicles
Yeah I'd support that, not sure it would actually skim off the worst 20% but all sensible ideas. Unfortunately you've still got far more chance of getting speed limiters made mandatory than getting a government to implement that package of measures...
In 99.99% of cases (made up statistic warning) you wouldn’t even realise until you’d actually been hit.
Perhaps, but I've had it happen. Driving through a lights-controlled crossroad in Manchester, a driver coming from my left ran a red light.
Best thing is to be more observant before the event.
We are all of course perfect drivers the moment we pass our tests, which is why this thread hasn't run to eight pages.
The take-away I, erm, took away from that event was I never blindly trust a green light any more, I always check.
Thats the problem - the car lobby is so strong any attempts to curtail them is political suicide. The dutch managed it in the 70s by creating a moral panic about kids deaths on city streets but its hard to see an equivalent in the UK now.
A few roads around me that are small residential roads that are used as rat runs have been closed off - the noise folk make about it screaming how unfair it is they have to drive 300mfurther. Its actually really positive improving the environment and tonight there are literally hundreds of people out there enjoying it traffic free right now but to the car drivers its armageddon
We already have a huge issue in that car driving is seen as a right but many folk cannot afford it so we have huge numbers of unsafe and uninsured cars on the roads - but any clampdown? "war on the motorist"
If railways, planes and busses killed and injured so many folk there would be outcry
The take-away I, erm, took away from that event was I never blindly trust a green light any more, I always check.
As you always should - look both ways even if a green light. I was taught that in the 70s