Today's Forum Topics
Set as homepage
|
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
 |
|
|||||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
21-06.-2004, 07:15 PM
|
#31 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
"Richard J." <rjnews@blueukder.co.yon> wrote in news:b5yBc.1632
$Yh4.13908125@news-text.cableinet.net: > Overall, driving with belts is safer than it used to be, > i.e. it kills fewer people. > That's not what the research that the government did showed. Then again, they don't tend to shout about that research too much for obvious reasons. Graeme |
|
|
|
21-06.-2004, 07:15 PM
|
#32 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:53:47 +0100, John Laird
<nospam@laird-towers.org.uk> wrote in message <bfbdd0p3g5aq770emfgti4f0onbm38am64@4ax.com>: >>It is, though. The taxi driver ABS trial was a near- >>perfect double-blind study and it showed that those >>driving ABS equipped cars accelerated harder, braked >>harder, drove faster and followed closer. >What particular form of psychic capability was reckoned to >account for this, then ? As soon as any driver realised his >vehicle had ABS, the trial failed the double-blind test, >which demands that those taking part and the observers are >both ignorant of the conditions. The condition being tested was "driver knowingly driving ABS equipped car". The drivers did not know which cars were fitted with measuring devices, and the observers did not know which measuring devices werefitted to cars with ABS. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
|
|
|
21-06.-2004, 07:15 PM
|
#33 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:42:13 +0100, "Grant Mason" <news@mason.sh>
wrote in message <1087810951.27481.0@nnrp-t71-01.news.uk.clara.net>: >> Er, actually ABS doesn't really affect stopping >> distances. >Yes it does. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca/capubs/sae1999-01- >1287.pdf "For most stopping maneuvers, made on most test >surfaces, ABS-assisted panic stops were found to be shorter >than those made with best effort or full pedal applications >with the ABS disabled" Because people don't know how to brake. But the statement was overly simplistic, of course. ABS does not increase the power of the brakes, and does not increase the coefficient of friction. All it does is make it less likely that the driver will lock the wheels. Which, to a first approximation, is the same thing as "doesn't stop you quicker" - letting people believe that ABS stops you quicker is Not Smart in my view because in the end it doesn't affect the two main factors in stopping you. Actually the grip on my current car is so good that I haven't managed to trigger the ABS yet, even when I've tried. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
|
|
|
21-06.-2004, 07:30 PM
|
#34 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 at 23:15:30, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote: >On the other hand, they drive less carefully when protected >by airbags, abs and seatbelts. > When I tried, abortively, to learn to drive many years ago now, my father commented that one should always remember that *every* other car on the road was driven by a murderer. A lesson which I passed on to my daughter when she learnt to drive. -- Annabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 6 June 2004 |
|
|
|
21-06.-2004, 07:30 PM
|
#35 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:06:34 GMT, Graeme
<graeme@gpdods.removethis.com> wrote in message <Xns950FB83C33C9Dgraemegpdodsremoveth@203.2.194.51>: >That's not what the research that the government did >showed. Then again, they don't tend to shout about that >research too much for obvious reasons. Quite. You'll find the Isles Report in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard" - you'll need a ladder and a flashlight thobut ;-) Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
|
|
|
21-06.-2004, 08:02 PM
|
#36 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:01:08 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote: >On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:53:47 +0100, John Laird <nospam@laird- >towers.org.uk> wrote in message ><bfbdd0p3g5aq770emfgti4f0onbm38am64@4ax.com>: > > >>>It is, though. The taxi driver ABS trial was a near- >>>perfect double-blind study and it showed that those >>>driving ABS equipped cars accelerated harder, braked >>>harder, drove faster and followed closer. > >>What particular form of psychic capability was reckoned to >>account for this, then ? As soon as any driver realised >>his vehicle had ABS, the trial failed the double-blind >>test, which demands that those taking part and the >>observers are both ignorant of the conditions. > >The condition being tested was "driver knowingly driving >ABS equipped car". The drivers did not know which cars were >fitted with measuring devices, and the observers did not >know which measuring devices werefitted to cars with ABS. That makes more sense, thanks. Of course, testing taxi drivers is highly dubious in itself ;-) -- Just a fake guitar player in the Monkees of life. Mail john rather than nospam... |
|
|
|
21-06.-2004, 09:01 PM
|
#37 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in
news:4pddd01qn0moh3tdvd7og2ai3fkdp77khk@4ax.com: > Quite. You'll find the Isles Report in a locked filing > cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door > saying "beware of the leopard" - you'll need a ladder and > a flashlight thobut ;-) > For some reason the first thought that popped into my head after reading that was "Hmm... must do my tax return." Now if anyone can explain the thought process behind that I would be very grateful. Graeme |
|
|
|
21-06.-2004, 10:02 PM
|
#38 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:43:35 GMT someone who may be "Richard J."
<rjnews@blueukder.co.yon> wrote this:- >My point was that before seat belts were introduced, there >were very many disastrous accidents because many people >*didn't* drive safely enough to avoid being thrown through >the windscreen. Overall, driving with belts is safer than >it used to be, i.e. it kills fewer people. In theory you are correct. However, practice is rather different to theory. Of course the people not being killed as much are those inside cars, while those being killed more are outside cars. If one has a road "safety" policy that is only concerned with the former then one can present this as a "success". See the Isles Report and the Durbin/Harvey Report. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000. |
|
|
|
21-06.-2004, 10:30 PM
|
#39 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in
news:4pddd01qn0moh3tdvd7og2ai3fkdp77khk@4ax.com: > You'll find the Isles Report in a locked filing cabinet in > a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware > of the leopard" - you'll need a ladder and a flashlight > thobut ;-) > And on a related subject http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/index_new.shtml Bloody excellent! Now if only I can sort out timed recordings so I don't have to get up at 2am! :-) -0 And I can imagine Guy's reaction :{) Graeme |
|
|
|
21-06.-2004, 10:48 PM
|
#40 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
Graeme <graeme@gpdods.removethis.com> wrote in
news:Xns950FDA3C1A84Cgraemegpdodsremoveth@203.2.194.51: > And I can imagine Guy's reaction :{) > That's meant to be a 'tached smile BTW ;-) |
|
|
|
22-06.-2004, 02:32 AM
|
#41 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
[ ... ] > ...actually ABS doesn't really affect stopping distances. > It allows you to steer while braking. I think it does - it certainly helps prevent skidding in wet weather, even if that is all it does. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti- virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 18/06/04 |
|
|
|
22-06.-2004, 02:32 AM
|
#42 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:37:33 GMT, Velvet > <velvet@not.a.valid.domain> wrote in message <NkoBc.1363$CT7.11757742@news- > text.cableinet.net>: > > >>>On the other hand, they drive less carefully when >>>protected by airbags, abs and seatbelts. > > >>Not all of them do, ta :-) > > > I don't think anyone is immune to risk compensation, > although some people have a more realistic view of the > merits of various safety aids than others. The comment > refers to research done on drivers with and without ABS > and seatbelts, which showed that they drove faster and > less safely when using those devices. > > See Risk by John Adams. > > >>I don't rely on ABS to stop me quicker - I use it to even >>out the fact that the car in front probably has it and >>will stop quicker than I can if I don't have it... > > > Er, actually ABS doesn't really affect stopping distances. > It allows you to steer while braking. Not convinced by this :-) > > >>So it's not quite as clear cut that all the extra safety >>stuff makes people drive less carefully :-) > > > It is, though. The taxi driver ABS trial was a near- > perfect double-blind study and it showed that those > driving ABS equipped cars accelerated harder, braked > harder, drove faster and followed closer. > > Guy But I'm not a taxi driver! -- Velvet |
|
|
|
22-06.-2004, 02:32 AM
|
#43 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
Mark Tranchant wrote:
> Velvet wrote: > >> So in my experience (and I do speak from experience) when >> you avoid a skid in a non-abs car and the one in front >> does have it, you end up braking slower, with obvious >> consequences if you're close enough... > > > You mean "too close". > Indeed ;-) -- Velvet |
|
|
|
22-06.-2004, 02:49 AM
|
#44 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > I don't think anyone is immune to risk compensation, > although some people have a more realistic view of the > merits of various safety aids than others. The comment > refers to research done on drivers with and without ABS > and seatbelts, which showed that they drove faster and > less safely when using those devices. > > See Risk by John Adams. > Interesting piece on Radio 4 Today this morning about "childproof containers". There are 25,000 incidents a year involving children. The person interviewed said the problem was people thought them childproof when in fact they are only child resistant. Consequence is they keep "childproof" bottles of bleach etc in places which are convenient but accessible to children rather than put away. The perception of "childproofness" has therefore increased the risk to children over ordinary containers which most people would put somewhere safe with children around. Tony |
|
|
|
22-06.-2004, 02:49 AM
|
#45 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
Velvet wrote:
>> Er, actually ABS doesn't really affect stopping >> distances. It allows you to steer while braking. > Not convinced by this :-) It is simplistic, of course; the reality is that given perfect braking technique a driver can stop at least as quickly in a non-ABS car; ABS makes no difference to the grip of the tyres or the power of the brakes. A really expert driver can theoretically stop shorter in a non-ABS car, because ABS senses wheel slip, while a really expert driver won't allow that to happen. In practice few drivers have perfect braking technique, but as previously posted, on a dry road it is close to impossible to get the ABS even to cut in on my car - it grips too well. So, ABS prevents some skids due to poor braking technique, and allows steering while braking with less risk of loss of control, but it doesn't really improve the braking performance of the car. It's also a mistake to rely on it in ice or on gravel. If all wheels lock, the ABS thinks you've stopped and cuts out. Don't try this at home! So, it's important not to think (or to allow people to think) "ABS stops you quicker", because (a) technically it doesn't and (b) relying on that for safety margin is a Very Bad Idea. >> The taxi driver ABS trial was a near-perfect double-blind >> study and it showed that those driving ABS equipped cars >> accelerated harder, braked harder, drove faster and >> followed closer. > But I'm not a taxi driver! Similar studies have been done on a wide range of drivers and a wide range of safety devices, the conclusion is always the same. Think: "Nobody believes in risk compensation, that's why it happens." -- Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk |
|
|
Linear Mode
