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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

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

"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....

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