Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gawnsoft wrote:
In other words, yes and no, but for practical purposes no, unless the wheels would be locking up. Which they generally don't. You don't drive in the wet much, do you Guy? I don't drive much at all these days. And I don't generally drive close enough to the car in front that I need to brake sharply in the wet or in the dry. And, as stated, "the important capability of ABS is control." -- Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Gawnsoft wrote: In other words, yes and no, but for practical purposes no, unless the wheels would be locking up. Which they generally don't. You don't drive in the wet much, do you Guy? I don't drive much at all these days. And I don't generally drive close enough to the car in front that I need to brake sharply in the wet or in the dry. And, as stated, "the important capability of ABS is control." It's not just about driving too close to the car in front, there's always the idiot that swerves into your path as an oncoming, or the one that pulls out right in front from the side junction *despite* the fact that you saw him look at (or was it *through* you)... A whole host of other circumstances where stopping sharply can be necessary and not always (or even often) predicted in advance. At the end of the day if ABS adds to safety in some situations and doesn't detract from it in others (risk compensation excluded) then it's worth it. If we go down the road of saying risk compensation nullifies the safety aspects, then that has to be applied to absolutely everything else. Builders shouldn't wear hard hats, cos, obviously, they'll take less care than if they do. That'll save lots of lives, oh yes. Oh, and we'd better not let climbers wear ropes/harnesses either, cos they might not be so careful about not falling off if they have them. And come to think of it, why bother having training and procedures in place before you handle toxic waste - cos the risk of contamination is obviously greater if you bother with those measures, right? Going back to the traffic calming though - if you can put in place (or remove) measures that make people *think* more about the situation rather than putting their faith in the fact that the lines on the road mean they must be able to fit their vehicle down it regardless - AND that can be proven to result in a safer environment all around, then it's worth doing. You're taught (or at least I was) that roads with centre lines are at least x wide. Roads without centre lines are invariably narrow, and signify the fact that two vehicles may (though almost always may not) be able to pass safely, and that reduction in speed is almost certainly going to be necessary in that situation. It's not a reaction to the lack of lines, it's having learnt what the lines and lack of signify. By removing all signage and lines, I'm sure there would be a lot of drivers who would feel too confused and intimidated to drive ever again. This could be good, but consider that those who stick it out and succeed in driving successfully in that sort of environment will be those who already have a tendancy to intimidate other drivers into giving way to them, letting them pass, and taking any other sort of action to avoid an accident that would otherwise result. Do you really want roads full of people driving like that? I know I wouldn't. -- Velvet |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Velvet wrote:
It's not just about driving too close to the car in front, there's always the idiot that swerves into your path as an oncoming, or the one that pulls out right in front from the side junction *despite* the fact that you saw him look at (or was it *through* you)... Oh really, I didn't know that, only having had a driving licence for 20 years... Different premises. What ABS is designed to do is prevent the wheels locking, allowing you to maintain control when braking. As an aside it also helps to ensure that hammering the brakes doesn't end up in a skid. So, we can either say "ABS allows you to maintain control when braking", which is useful, or we can say "ABS lets you stop quicker" which is a dangerous oversimplification of a secondary benefit and risks causing precisely the kind of risk copensation observed in those German taxi drivers. If we go down the road of saying risk compensation nullifies the safety aspects, then that has to be applied to absolutely everything else. It depends on the extent of the compensatry behaviour. A key part of minimising that is sending out the right messages about the capabilities of the device. You really do need to read Risk. Going back to the traffic calming though - if you can put in place (or remove) measures that make people *think* more about the situation rather than putting their faith in the fact that the lines on the road mean they must be able to fit their vehicle down it regardless - AND that can be proven to result in a safer environment all around, then it's worth doing. Undoubtedly. By removing all signage and lines, I'm sure there would be a lot of drivers who would feel too confused and intimidated to drive ever again. This could be good, but consider that those who stick it out and succeed in driving successfully in that sort of environment will be those who already have a tendancy to intimidate other drivers into giving way to them, letting them pass, and taking any other sort of action to avoid an accident that would otherwise result. I wonder why, then, when this has been tried, the result has been a reduction in speeds and a substantial reduction in crashes? -- Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Velvet wrote: It's not just about driving too close to the car in front, there's always the idiot that swerves into your path as an oncoming, or the one that pulls out right in front from the side junction *despite* the fact that you saw him look at (or was it *through* you)... Oh really, I didn't know that, only having had a driving licence for 20 years... Different premises. What ABS is designed to do is prevent the wheels locking, allowing you to maintain control when braking. As an aside it also helps to ensure that hammering the brakes doesn't end up in a skid. So, we can either say "ABS allows you to maintain control when braking", which is useful, or we can say "ABS lets you stop quicker" which is a dangerous oversimplification of a secondary benefit and risks causing precisely the kind of risk copensation observed in those German taxi drivers. If we go down the road of saying risk compensation nullifies the safety aspects, then that has to be applied to absolutely everything else. It depends on the extent of the compensatry behaviour. A key part of minimising that is sending out the right messages about the capabilities of the device. You really do need to read Risk. Going back to the traffic calming though - if you can put in place (or remove) measures that make people *think* more about the situation rather than putting their faith in the fact that the lines on the road mean they must be able to fit their vehicle down it regardless - AND that can be proven to result in a safer environment all around, then it's worth doing. Undoubtedly. By removing all signage and lines, I'm sure there would be a lot of drivers who would feel too confused and intimidated to drive ever again. This could be good, but consider that those who stick it out and succeed in driving successfully in that sort of environment will be those who already have a tendancy to intimidate other drivers into giving way to them, letting them pass, and taking any other sort of action to avoid an accident that would otherwise result. I wonder why, then, when this has been tried, the result has been a reduction in speeds and a substantial reduction in crashes? -- Velvet |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
By removing all signage and lines, I'm sure there would be a lot of drivers who would feel too confused and intimidated to drive ever again. This could be good, but consider that those who stick it out and succeed in driving successfully in that sort of environment will be those who already have a tendancy to intimidate other drivers into giving way to them, letting them pass, and taking any other sort of action to avoid an accident that would otherwise result. I wonder why, then, when this has been tried, the result has been a reduction in speeds and a substantial reduction in crashes? Oops, mis-post on the one before :-) I'd hazard a guess that it's because of unfamiliarity. How long was it left in place for, and to what extent were signs and markings removed? -- Velvet |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Velvet wrote:
By removing all signage and lines, I'm sure there would be a lot of drivers who would feel too confused and intimidated to drive ever again. This could be good, but consider that those who stick it out and succeed in driving successfully in that sort of environment will be those who already have a tendancy to intimidate other drivers into giving way to them, letting them pass, and taking any other sort of action to avoid an accident that would otherwise result. I wonder why, then, when this has been tried, the result has been a reduction in speeds and a substantial reduction in crashes? I'd hazard a guess that it's because of unfamiliarity. How long was it left in place for, and to what extent were signs and markings removed? Unfamiliarity and the fact that greater concentration is necessary. Nor is that a new thing - JS Dean commented on in in 1946! The signs and markings were expunged pretty much completely, as I recall; certainly centrelines and give way markings, and in some cases they've tried removing traffic lights as well. Years ago a set of lights was demolishedby a truck in St Albans (King Harry if anyone knows it). The lead time on a new controller was months, so the council sent a man with a pot of paint and they made it a double mini roundabout. Traffic flow improved immediately, and the lights were never reinstated. -- Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Unfamiliarity and the fact that greater concentration is necessary. Nor is that a new thing - JS Dean commented on in in 1946! The signs and markings were expunged pretty much completely, as I recall; certainly centrelines and give way markings, and in some cases they've tried removing traffic lights as well. So do you think the roads would be, overall, safer, if all signs (say except direction signs) and lining schemes were removed? -- http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "Banning things others enjoy is the only pleasure some people get." |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:31:22 +0100, "PeterE"
wrote in message : So do you think the roads would be, overall, safer, if all signs (say except direction signs) and lining schemes were removed? Probably depends on the location. Some roads have been made safer by doing just that. Certianly the experience where roads have been treated with lots of paint and signage has often been that drivers simply speed up and the crash rate remains unchanged. 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 |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"PeterE" wrote in message
... So do you think the roads would be, overall, safer, if all signs (say except direction signs) and lining schemes were removed? and height restrictions, width restrictions, weight restrictions, parking restrictions, level crossing warnings and lights.... |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 22/6/04 1:19 pm, in article
, "Velvet" wrote: By removing all signage and lines, I'm sure there would be a lot of drivers who would feel too confused and intimidated to drive ever again. This could be good, but consider that those who stick it out and succeed in driving successfully in that sort of environment will be those who already have a tendancy to intimidate other drivers into giving way to them, letting them pass, and taking any other sort of action to avoid an accident that would otherwise result. I wonder why, then, when this has been tried, the result has been a reduction in speeds and a substantial reduction in crashes? I'd hazard a guess that it's because of unfamiliarity. How long was it left in place for, and to what extent were signs and markings removed? I'd hazard a different guess. As these areas tend to be residential, the concept is then that rather than having 'my space' and 'your space' where it is your fault for encroaching my space, the concept is 'our space' and all may be using it. Whatever it is, it works. ...d |
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 |