Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong - Page 2

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:22:59 +0100, "Paul Dicken"
<g1pcd@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
<pBkBc.428$mM2.154@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net>:

>Mention of Mayer Hillman reminded me of a view he expressed
>in a meeting I attended. He suggested all car bumpers
>should be made of glass and drivers seated on them. His
>view was that standards of driving will go up immediately.
>Seeing how Volvo drivers seem to have total disregard for
>their and all other road users' safety, I suspect the
>safety cocoon they have purchased has lulled them into a
>sense of false security - at least for the rest of us!

For varying values of Volvo drivers.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/.../Documents/GPV

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

Paul Dicken wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com>
> wrote in message
> news:83n6d01cf92qmt1hhh6f4lcmq9o6ba6ef0@4ax.com...
>>> Mind-blowing article about the European and Chinese
>>> challenges to the received wisdom on traffic planning
>>> and calming, arguing that the separation of peds and
>>> cars leads to less-safe streets:
>>
>> Now that really /is/ new. Unless you've read JS Dean's
>> 1946 book "Murder Most Foul". Or Bob Davis' "Death On The
>> Streets". Or Mayer Hillman's "One False Move".
>>
>> Guy
>
> Mention of Mayer Hillman reminded me of a view he
> expressed in a meeting I attended. He suggested all car
> bumpers should be made of glass and drivers seated on
> them. His view was that standards of driving will go up
> immediately.

... because people driving in a vulnerable vehicle would
drive more safely? That idea didn't seem to work before seat
belts were invented, when occupants used to die by being
ejected through the windscreen. Indeed it still happens.
We've all read stories of late-night crashes where a carful
of young people were killed or injured after they were
thrown from their car, presumably because they were too
drunk or high to remember to put on their seat belts.
--
Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:08:54 GMT, "Richard J."
<rjnews@blueukder.co.yon> wrote in message
<q9mBc.1219$L_6.10764499@news-text.cableinet.net>:

>... because people driving in a vulnerable vehicle
>would drive more safely? That idea didn't seem to work
>before seat belts were invented, when occupants used to
>die by being ejected through the windscreen. Indeed it
>still happens.

On the other hand, they drive less carefully when protected
by airbags, abs and seatbelts.

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

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:08:54 GMT, "Richard J."
> <rjnews@blueukder.co.yon> wrote in message <q9mBc.1219$L_6.10764499@news-
> text.cableinet.net>:
>
>
>>... because people driving in a vulnerable vehicle would
>>drive more safely? That idea didn't seem to work before
>>seat belts were invented, when occupants used to die by
>>being ejected through the windscreen. Indeed it still
>>happens.
>
>
> On the other hand, they drive less carefully when
> protected by airbags, abs and seatbelts.
>
> Guy

Not all of them do, ta :-) 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... so my driving hasn't changed in that
respect. Seatbelts - always worn one, always will, so can't
comment on how I'd drive without one. Airbags? I'd rather it
didn't go off, ta, so it's another incentive to not have an
accident that'll make it explode in front of me.

Airbags have been implicated in some rather nasty accidents
that might have been less nasty had the airbag not gone off,
so I have very mixed feelings about being in a car equipped
with several of the things.

Yes it might stop me cracking my head open on the steering
wheel, but on hte other hand I'd rather not have massive
chest injuries caused by it..

So it's not quite as clear cut that all the extra safety
stuff makes people drive less carefully :-)

--

Velvet

Velvet <velvet@not.a.valid.domain> wrote:

<Snipped Text>
> > On the other hand, they drive less carefully when
> > protected by airbags, abs and seatbelts.
> >
> > Guy
>
> Not all of them do, ta :-) 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... so my driving hasn't changed
> in that respect. Seatbelts - always worn one, always
> will, so can't comment on how I'd drive without one.
> Airbags? I'd rather it didn't go off, ta, so it's
> another incentive to not have an accident that'll make
> it explode in front of me.
>
> Airbags have been implicated in some rather nasty
> accidents that might have been less nasty had the airbag
> not gone off, so I have very mixed feelings about being in
> a car equipped with several of the things.

Agreed, although not because of what they do, I know how
reliable they are(n't).

> Yes it might stop me cracking my head open on the steering
> wheel, but on hte other hand I'd rather not have massive
> chest injuries caused by it..

Actually it's wearing a seat belt that causes the chest
injuries. An air bag only causes friction burns on your
arms. All an air bag is designed to do is to stop whiplash
injuries by absorbing your forward momentum. The bag is
actually deflating as you hit it. If you don't wear a seat
belt your face hits the steering wheel as the bag is
deployed. This is where injuries occur - usually fatally.
Hence the term 'Supplementary Restraint System'.

> So it's not quite as clear cut that all the extra safety
> stuff makes people drive less carefully :-)

It is, there are always a few exceptions. Unfortunately you
can't easily measure it, but observations suggest that
having the safety devices does indeed 'encourage' more
aggressive driving.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS Honda
Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online

"Richard J." <rjnews@blueukder.co.yon> wrote in news:q9mBc.1219$L_
6.10764499@news-text.cableinet.net:

> ... because people driving in a vulnerable vehicle would
> drive more safely? That idea didn't seem to work before
> seat belts were invented, when occupants used to die by
> being ejected through the windscreen.

"more safely" not "safely". The introduction of seat belts
didn't result in less accidents, just people driving a
little more carelessly.

Graeme

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 19:26:54 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote (more or less):

>On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:22:59 +0100, "Paul Dicken"
><g1pcd@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message <pBkBc.428$mM2.154@newsfe3-
>win.server.ntli.net>:
>
>>Mention of Mayer Hillman reminded me of a view he
>>expressed in a meeting I attended. He suggested all car
>>bumpers should be made of glass and drivers seated on
>>them. His view was that standards of driving will go up
>>immediately. Seeing how Volvo drivers seem to have total
>>disregard for their and all other road users' safety, I
>>suspect the safety cocoon they have purchased has lulled
>>them into a sense of false security - at least for the
>>rest of us!
>
>For varying values of Volvo drivers.

Up to point, Lord Copper... ;-)
--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:08:54 GMT, "Richard J."
<rjnews@blueukder.co.yon> wrote (more or less):

>Paul Dicken wrote:
>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com>
>> wrote in message
>> news:83n6d01cf92qmt1hhh6f4lcmq9o6ba6ef0@4ax.com...
>>>> Mind-blowing article about the European and Chinese
>>>> challenges to the received wisdom on traffic planning
>>>> and calming, arguing that the separation of peds and
>>>> cars leads to less-safe streets:
>>>
>>> Now that really /is/ new. Unless you've read JS Dean's
>>> 1946 book "Murder Most Foul". Or Bob Davis' "Death On
>>> The Streets". Or Mayer Hillman's "One False Move".
>>>
>>> Guy
>>
>> Mention of Mayer Hillman reminded me of a view he
>> expressed in a meeting I attended. He suggested all car
>> bumpers should be made of glass and drivers seated on
>> them. His view was that standards of driving will go up
>> immediately.
>
>... because people driving in a vulnerable vehicle would
>drive more safely?

There is a big difference between 'more safely' and
'absolutely safely'.

People drive less safely with seatbelts than they do
without seatbelts
== People drive more safely without seatbelts than they
== do with
seatbelts. <> people never have accidents when driving
without a seatbelt.

>That idea didn't seem to work before seat belts were
>invented, when occupants used to die by being ejected
>through the windscreen. Indeed it still happens. We've all
>read stories of late-night crashes where a carful of young
>people were killed or injured after they were thrown from
>their car, presumably because they were too drunk or high
>to remember to put on their seat belts.

You seem to be mixing up 'drive more safely' with 'never
have accidents at all', and conflating severity of accident
with risk-taking while driving.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

"Velvet" <velvet@not.a.valid.domain> wrote in message
news:NkoBc.1363$CT7.11757742@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:08:54 GMT, "Richard J."
> > <rjnews@blueukder.co.yon> wrote in message <q9mBc.1219$L_6.10764499@news-
> > text.cableinet.net>:
> >
> >
> >>... because people driving in a vulnerable vehicle would
> >>drive more safely? That idea didn't seem to work before
> >>seat belts were invented, when occupants used to die by
> >>being ejected through the windscreen. Indeed it still
> >>happens.
> >
> >
> > On the other hand, they drive less carefully when
> > protected by airbags, abs and seatbelts.
> >
> > Guy
>
> Not all of them do, ta :-) 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... so my driving hasn't
snipped

Bit of a myth that ABS enables a vehicle to stop quicker, in
fact it can have the opposite effect. It's purpose is to
enable the vehicle to be steered while braking hard, which
without ABS often results in a skid and loss of control.

Orienteer wrote:

> "Velvet" <velvet@not.a.valid.domain> wrote in message news:NkoBc.1363$CT7.11757742@news-
> text.cableinet.net...
>
>>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:08:54 GMT, "Richard J."
>>><rjnews@blueukder.co.yon> wrote in message <q9mBc.1219$L_6.10764499@news-
>>>text.cableinet.net>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>... because people driving in a vulnerable vehicle would
>>>>drive more safely? That idea didn't seem to work before
>>>>seat belts were invented, when occupants used to die by
>>>>being ejected through the windscreen. Indeed it still
>>>>happens.
>>>
>>>
>>>On the other hand, they drive less carefully when
>>>protected by airbags, abs and seatbelts.
>>>
>>>Guy
>>
>>Not all of them do, ta :-) 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... so my driving hasn't
>
> snipped
>
> Bit of a myth that ABS enables a vehicle to stop quicker,
> in fact it can have the opposite effect. It's purpose is
> to enable the vehicle to be steered while braking hard,
> which without ABS often results in a skid and loss of
> control.
>
>

However, in the situation where the vehicle in front has
ABS, and will brake it to the maximum without inducing a
skid (skidding leads to longer stopping times?) it means
that the following vehicle has to be able to control their
braking to the same fine degree to avoid starting the skid,
and many will either be too cautious or overcook and skid...

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...

--

Velvet

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".

--
Mark.

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.

>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
--
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

Gawnsoft wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:08:54 GMT, "Richard J."
> <rjnews@blueukder.co.yon> wrote (more or less):
>
>> Paul Dicken wrote:
>>> Mention of Mayer Hillman reminded me of a view he
>>> expressed in a meeting I attended. He suggested all car
>>> bumpers should be made of glass and drivers seated on
>>> them. His view was that standards of driving will go up
>>> immediately.
>>
>> ... because people driving in a vulnerable vehicle would
>> drive more safely?
>
> There is a big difference between 'more safely' and
> 'absolutely safely'.
>
> People drive less safely with seatbelts than they do
> without seatbelts == People drive more safely without
> seatbelts than they do with seatbelts. <> people never
> have accidents when driving without a seatbelt.

I assume that <> means "not that"; please write in English.
Are you suggesting that we should abandon seat belts in
order that we should drive more safely?

>> That idea didn't seem to work before seat belts were
>> invented, when occupants used to die by being ejected
>> through the windscreen. Indeed it still happens. We've
>> all read stories of late-night crashes where a carful of
>> young people were killed or injured after they were
>> thrown from their car, presumably because they were too
>> drunk or high to remember to put on their seat belts.
>
> You seem to be mixing up 'drive more safely' with 'never
> have accidents at all', and conflating severity of
> accident with risk-taking while driving.

Well, severity of accident is part of the safety equation.
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.

--
Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> 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...

If you are relying on ABS to stop you, you are driving too
close to the vehicle in front.

> Er, actually ABS doesn't really affect stopping distances.
> It allows you to steer while braking.

Er, have you driven on snow with and without ABS? It
certainly does affect stopping distance on ice or snow.
--
Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:29:58 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> 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>:
>>
>>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.

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.

(I don't have any problem with trials that show that drivers
fully aware of such features may "risk compensate" for them.
But claiming to have double-blind trial results smacks of
very dodgy science.)

--
He said: Smile, things could be worse! I did! They were!

Mail john rather than nospam...