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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Velvet wrote:
You very carefully say 'its not there to stop you quicker', I say in a given circumstance it will. We aren't talking about the same thing, and I know it, and I think you know it too. Possibly. I guess it's like the difference between "my helmet saved my life" and "helmets save lives". I dislike generalisations, and the 'ABS wont make you stop faster' is just such a generalisation. It's become abundantly clear you're only interested in the generalisation though. I am indeed. The generalisation is what people will be thinking about as they consume the safety benefit of ABS as a performance benefit. "I can stop quicker thanks to ABS" therefore "I don't need to leave as much space". I'll continue to prefer a car with ABS. [...] *I'd* rather have something that increases the safety. If you don't mind. I am extremely unlikely ever to buy another car without ABS. I do not dispute that it improves my safety should an emergency situation is reached, by allowing control under braking and by compensating for my indifferent braking technique. Overall, the evidence is that I will subconsciously undo that safety benefit by worse driving, but that's risk compensation for you. Lucky you. Not having managed to get the ABS to even cut in on a dry road, it doesn't do that for me. I've explained it doesn't HAVE to cut in on a dry road to reduce my stopping distance, please see above and try to understand, I'm explaining it as clearly as I can! Yes, you've given an example of compensating behaviour. I don't dispute it. But it hasn't changed the capabiliites of the car, which is my point. Like the two old women exchanging words across the Shambles, we are arguing from different premises. -- Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:55:07 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote (more or less): Velvet wrote: You very carefully say 'its not there to stop you quicker', I say in a given circumstance it will. We aren't talking about the same thing, and I know it, and I think you know it too. Possibly. I guess it's like the difference between "my helmet saved my life" and "helmets save lives". I dislike generalisations, and the 'ABS wont make you stop faster' is just such a generalisation. It's become abundantly clear you're only interested in the generalisation though. I am indeed. The generalisation is what people will be thinking about as they consume the safety benefit of ABS as a performance benefit. "I can stop quicker thanks to ABS" therefore "I don't need to leave as much space". .... Like the two old women exchanging words across the Shambles, we are arguing from different premises. .... But Velvet's generalisation is more generaly true that your generalisation, Guy. You say Guy 'ABS is not there to shorten braking distances'. In fact it does. /Generally/ by a lot for unskilled brakers who will lock up the tyres. (This was its original selling point. Unlocked wheels stop faster than locked wheels). /Generally/ by a bit for highly skilled brakers who can keep their wheels from locking up, but only by using the lowest common non-locking braking force on all four wheels It also will /generally/ extend braking distances on loose surfaces where locked wheels may create wedges in front of the themselves. Your main objection seems to be that if folk think of ABS as a way of braking faster, they'll consume this as a performance benefit. This is likely true. But saying ABS does not provide braking distance benefits (in general) is untrue, even if I agree with you that we should be trying to stop drivers consuming all safety benefits in the form of increased performance. -- 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 |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:39:18 +0100, Gawnsoft
wrote in message : But Velvet's generalisation is more generaly true that your generalisation, Guy. You say Guy 'ABS is not there to shorten braking distances'. In fact it does. Actually we are both right. That's not what it's for, but as a side effect it can. Your main objection seems to be that if folk think of ABS as a way of braking faster, they'll consume this as a performance benefit. They do indeed. It's like telling people a helmet will save their life. It could conceivably happen, but that's not what it's designed for and you shouldn't rely on it. 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 |
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 |