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.

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

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 07:08:11 GMT, "Orienteer"
wrote (more or less):
....
Bit of a myth that ABS enables a vehicle to stop quicker, in fact it can
have the opposite effect.

Only on loose surfaces like snow or gravel.

On clean dry surfaces a car with independent ABS per wheel can stop
faster than a non-abs car (which will likely skid under extreme
braking), and gains the controllability advantage of cadence-braking
without having to stop braking all four wheels, which a non-abs car
has to do to effect cadence braking.

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.

A skid also results in longer braking distances.





--
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 Mon, 21 Jun 2004 07:08:11 GMT,
Orienteer wrote:

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.

I don't have any figures for it but I suspect that when braking hard
from high speeds (70mph+) ABS may well enable a car to stop quicker.

Some (10+?) years ago there was an artical in SciAm about emergency
stops in cars at motorway speeds and it was suggested that the best bet
for the cars of the time might well be to deliberately skid.

IIRC stopping distances from these sorts of speeds when skidding were
about 20% further than the perfect stop. However, without ABS the
braking is split in a fixed percentage between back and front wheels.
The weight transfer to the front wheels can cause the rear wheels to
lock putting the car into a spin. By deliberately locking all the
wheels the car will stay pretty much in a straight line (motorways
don't tend to have enough camber to be likely to put a skidding car
into a spin.)

ABS eliminates this problem and allows maximum braking on the front
wheels.

But ABS doesn't have to be a good thing. The one time I have skidded
on the motorway I was very grateful for the noise. Picture the scene -
me on empty motorway, slip lane joining. Slow lorry almost at end of
slip lane that would be joining shortly after I had passed. Another
car on sliplane that would be joining about the same time as the
lorry. So I moved from lane 1 to lane 3 in order to give both vehicles
joining room to join without having to adjust their speeds. But the
car doesn't move into lane 2 to pass the lorry but continues into lane
3. Now I should have anticipated this but by the time I realised he
wasn't going to stay in lane 2 I was about level with his rear door
and going maybe 10mph faster. I didn't have time for the horn but my
squealing tyres meant he only came about 2 feet into lane 3.
(Skidding from 70mph to about 45mph leaves a big cloud of smoke!)

Tim.


--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/