"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
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. 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!

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:22:59 +0100, "Paul Dicken"
wrote in message
:

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

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 19:26:54 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote (more or less):

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:22:59 +0100, "Paul Dicken"
wrote in message
:

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

Paul Dicken wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in
message ...
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."
wrote in message
:

... 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."
wrote in message
:


... 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 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

"Velvet" wrote in message
...
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:08:54 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote in message
:


... 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" wrote in message
...

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:


On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:08:54 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote in message
:



... 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.