Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#51
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:01:34 +0100, JohnB wrote in
message : I thought it was BeHit who put 25000 children into containers. Tee-hee! :-) From the **** Happens department - BeHIT keep saying that cycling is a leading source of death and head injury in children, but: - over twice as many children die from congenital abnormalities as from cycling - more children die of leukaemia than from cycling - more children die following assault than a cycle crash - more children die from asthma and other respiratory diseases than from cycling - over twice as many children die of brain cancer than cycling head injuries. - as many children die of menigitis as of cycling head injuries. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBAS...eets/D8257.xls 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 |
#52
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:57:44 GMT, Velvet
wrote in message : I think we're kindof in agreement here. My point was that people aren't all that likely to be braking as well as ABS would if you apply it properly - people (myself included) either tend to overbrake (and skid if no abs) or underbrake (abs or no, they'll not stop as fast as if they overbraked with abs). Indeed. That was my point: what ABS is doing is compensating for poor technique, not helping you "stop quicker". I don't drive any closer (or further away, it has to be said) than pre-ABS. You think. But on average, people do. That's what risk compensation is about. It's pretty widespread - see Tony's comment re "childproof" containers above. Or read Risk - it's very interesting. 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 |
#53
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:43:35 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote (more or less): 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. And in different ways. On ice, it will prevent lock-up of each wheel, increasing braking efficiency across the four wheels, decreasing stopping distance compared to a manually-controlled wheel. On snow, locking up the wheels can have the beneficial effect of causing a wedge of snow to build up in front of the locked wheel, which decreases stopping distance on snow compared to an abs wheel. -- 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 |
#54
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:43:35 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote (more or less): 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. Are you suggesting that we should abandon seat belts in order that we should drive more safely? .... 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. And people drive /less/ safely than that now. It's just that a great deal of the risk has been transferred to others. Overall, driving with belts is safer than it used to be, i.e. it kills fewer people. Is, perhaps counter-intuitively to you, not true. I assume that means "not that"; please write in English. To be exact, it means 'is not equal to'. But your inference in context works perfectly well. I'll continue to use arithmetic and logic symbols in my posts. -- 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 |
#55
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#56
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:57:44 GMT, Velvet wrote in message : I think we're kindof in agreement here. My point was that people aren't all that likely to be braking as well as ABS would if you apply it properly - people (myself included) either tend to overbrake (and skid if no abs) or underbrake (abs or no, they'll not stop as fast as if they overbraked with abs). Indeed. That was my point: what ABS is doing is compensating for poor technique, not helping you "stop quicker". Whether it compensates for my technique or not is immaterial, in the same given circumstance, with ABS I will stop quicker, in a shorter distance, than without ABS. I don't drive any closer (or further away, it has to be said) than pre-ABS. You think. But on average, people do. That's what risk compensation is about. It's pretty widespread - see Tony's comment re "childproof" containers above. If I remembered I actually had ABS more than once a few months then I might believe I drive closer/faster. But given I don't, I doubt it has any affect. To be honest, since I've never been in a situation where tromping the brakes has actually activated the ABS, it seems likely that I'm not compensating for the percieved increase in safety. Or read Risk - it's very interesting. Guy I'm sure it's fascinating :-) -- Velvet |
#57
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/ |
#58
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:59:49 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
wrote in message : 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. I have only ever once managed to skid a car at 70, and that was a BX with no ABS where the same hydraulics work the brakes and the suspension. Weight transfer makes it quite hard to skid a car at 70. 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 |
#59
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:55:05 GMT, Velvet
wrote in message : Whether it compensates for my technique or not is immaterial, in the same given circumstance, with ABS I will stop quicker, in a shorter distance, than without ABS. If you want to continue believing that "ABS stops you quicker" then be my guest. But I refuse to indemnify you against any damage which may result. Angels dancing on the head of a pin notwithstanding, that is /not/ what it's designed for. Assuming that it is, will end in tears. As the studies prove. If I remembered I actually had ABS more than once a few months then I might believe I drive closer/faster. But given I don't, I doubt it has any affect. To be honest, since I've never been in a situation where tromping the brakes has actually activated the ABS, it seems likely that I'm not compensating for the percieved increase in safety. So you say - now... read Risk - it's very interesting. I'm sure it's fascinating :-) It is. Genuinely. 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 |
#60
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:55:05 GMT, Velvet wrote in message : Whether it compensates for my technique or not is immaterial, in the same given circumstance, with ABS I will stop quicker, in a shorter distance, than without ABS. If you want to continue believing that "ABS stops you quicker" then be my guest. But I refuse to indemnify you against any damage which may result. Look, I've explained how ABS could stop ME quicker, you'll note I've not said it'll stop EVERYONE quicker. Perhaps you overlooked that subtle point? Angels dancing on the head of a pin notwithstanding, that is /not/ what it's designed for. Assuming that it is, will end in tears. As the studies prove. If I ever have cause to test it in that sort of situation then I'll find out, won't I, one way or t'other. If I remembered I actually had ABS more than once a few months then I might believe I drive closer/faster. But given I don't, I doubt it has any affect. To be honest, since I've never been in a situation where tromping the brakes has actually activated the ABS, it seems likely that I'm not compensating for the percieved increase in safety. So you say - now... read Risk - it's very interesting. I'm sure it's fascinating :-) It is. Genuinely. Guy -- Velvet |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
have the time to do everything you want | London Transport | |||
traffic is better, but livingstone is thinking of more traffic zone? | London Transport | |||
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong | London Transport | |||
Traffic Calming in Islington | London Transport | |||
top up wrong Oyster (almost) | London Transport |