"Richard J." wrote in news:q9mBc.1219$L_
:

... 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?"
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

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:08:54 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote (more or less):

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?

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" 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.

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:37:33 GMT, Velvet
wrote in message :

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

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


Er, actually ABS doesn't really affect stopping distances.

Yes it does.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca...99-01-1287.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"

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)

Gawnsoft wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:08:54 GMT, "Richard J."
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)