Reconcile this garbage.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Ferrer

So, if you drive a rubbish car it is ok that you are a rubbish driver? I think that those cars are as capable of aquaplanning or losing grip unexpectedly due to surface changes as are BMWs. I would even argue that if you car's dynamic abilities are less polished you should even be more interested in knowing what to do if things get hairy or how to avoid those situations. And in any case those cars are capable of speeds that exceed comfrotable the speed limits, as well.

you have a point there, but, in a way the people in the cars I mentioned will be hardly confronted with hairy situations where they will have to react quickly to avoid problems. They may have caused the hairy situation by strange movements or changing traffic lanes without paying proper attention, but the people who then need to be able to control their vehicle are the ones that approach at high(er) speeds.

[crisis]

Originally Posted by MilesR

I freely acknowledge that more capable drivers would be better able to handle higher speed limits. However, along with those who have both good skills and an accurate knowledge of their own skills, there are also those with skills, but who lack the judgement to drive safely, there are those without the skills and who are aware of their limitations, and then there are the considerable number who lack both skill and judgement. If left to their own devices, only the smallest two of those groups are likely to make appropriate choices.

Even if one's own skill is judged adequate to maintain control and appropriate responses at higher speeds, does that judgement take into account the sometimes bizarre risks created by the incompetent?

People on average do take about 2 seconds to respond. That takes into account the time between the hazard emerging, the eye perceiving the hazard, the brain interpreting the hazard, appropriate action being chosen, and action actually being taken. Racing drivers act faster, because their decisions are normally made quite a while before the action is taken, and they are more often prepared for the hazard to be there. Even they can be caught out by the unexpected, as demonstrated by the occasional but regular rear-end accidents, when someone fails to launch on the start grid. Normal motorists do not expect to be responding to hazards, and so the response takes longer.

Then they should except hazards. Your approach is to make driving simple enough for the most useless of drivers rather than addressing problems with the roads themselves and targeting the drivers “who lack the judgment to drive safely" or "those without the skills and who are aware of their limitations”. This really comes back to my point that driving 5 or so ks over a posted limit in some circumstances is of 0 consequence to drivers who are attentive (which the law requires), have good judgment and adequate skills. The government instead takes the easy option which also happens to reap millions of dollars in revenue each year.

Originally Posted by MilesR

The reason why there are so few crashes is that most people follow most of the rules most of the time, introducing enough of a safety margin for a 2 second response time to be adequate to avoid most hazards.

There is no “the” reason. In fact one of the main reasons there are so "few" crashes (rather a subjective claim) is that people are often just plain lucky. I see plenty of inattentive people each day, plenty exceeding the speed limit and plenty doing idiotic things (ie not "following the rules"). Most of them get home in one piece. Only one category run the risk of ending up being penalized with a fine however.

[Matra et Alpine]

oh and to further fuel the debate on "speed" accidents.
Many of the UK statistics have been discredited as speed has been in as a contriobutory factor on an accident the anti-car lobby jump on that and ignore that other contriobutory was drugs or alcohol !!
BUT as is pointed out, you can check speed with a camera. The other two require actual police to make actual stops.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

oh and to further fuel the debate on "speed" accidents.
Many of the UK statistics have been discredited as speed has been in as a contriobutory factor on an accident the anti-car lobby jump on that and ignore that other contriobutory was drugs or alcohol !!
BUT as is pointed out, you can check speed with a camera. The other two require actual police to make actual stops.

I take notice of the implication that you consider people who advocate speed limits pn public roads as belonging to the anti-car lobby. Why am I here?

[Matra et Alpine]

wrong shape of Venn diagram assumed Pieter

No not inteneded implication. What is implied is that EXTREMIST anti-speed will abuse the statistics and try to influence the silent majority. I am in the "appropriate speed" body. If I'm on an empty motorway in perfect visibility why shoudl I not chose to go 100mph ? Because a tonw speeed limit says 30 does NOT mean everyone shodul be allowed to drive past parked cars when kids are playing the streets "at the speed limit". BUT as I was saying, to do the right thing requires much better training, individual responsibility and policing whereas a camera can earn them lots of money and not actually reduce accident rates !!

[MilesR]

Originally Posted by crisis

What weight is this stationery object?

I am assuming an immobile object. Mature trees and wooden power poles can often withstand the impact from a car (based upon observation). That is how Peter Brock died. Concrete barriers and South Australian poles yield fairly minimally, while steel barriers and poles can yield to a similar extent that the car does. Yes, the Commodore was moving fast when it hit the tree, but the point was just that an unremarkable-sized tree did not yield to the impact of a large, fast-moving car.

Even apart from deformation of the stationary object, the kinetic energy difference still counts against the single car at 100km/h, relative to a two-car head-on at 50km/h. Yes, the specifics of accidents will vary, but an impact with an object that does not yield has inherently more potential for causing damage than impact with something soft. ANCAP/EuroNCAP tests reproduce a city scenario, where the impact is likely with another (possibly stationary) car, travelling at city speeds, as a result of one party moving out of their lane (hence the 40% offset, deformable barrier), or rear-ending the car in front. The damage and injury measured by these tests does not translate to rural speeds and single-vehicle conditions. I still maintain that 100km/h into a tree, due to inattention, can easily be lethal.

The skills taught by advanced driving courses can be very valuable, but like airbags and ESC, they can have the perverse effect of creating a false sense of security, as in the case of my friend. It also emphasises that the training is of benefit to safety only if the driver employs the techniques taught, when necessary. Again, in the case of my friend, it did not work like this. I also doubt that advanced driver training would address the attitude problems of bored inattention or impatience.

My example of control loss due to drifting out of your lane, or off the edge of the road, was intended as a response to Badsight's contention that it is nearly impossible to lose control at 100km/h. It was an example of how a few seconds of inattention at that speed can result in a situation that many drivers would probably fail to handle well. I do not think that particular allowance should be made for this eventuality, nor that the speed limit should be lowered to address it. I don't think it should happen at all, but there are plenty of drivers who will dedicate a few seconds to reading or sending an SMS, adjusting the stereo, or trying to find the chocolate that they left on the back seat (which actually did result in the driver in question driving up the kerb and hitting a light pole, at city speeds, before eventually finding the chocolate).

This takes us back to the behavioural problem of how to make people pay attention, and drive properly. Yes, they should anticipate the hazards, they should respond quickly and appropriately, they should be able to assess the conditions and determine their speed accordingly. They should not be drunk, stoned or on the telephone. They should not need road rules at all, because with the right training and judgement, their assessment of the conditions should lead them to demonstrate effectively the same behaviours as the rules specify. This is the ideal. Reality is not like this. My ideal would have no road rules, but my attitude towards reality is that the rules are necessary, because many people do not show this judgement. Furthermore, safety is only assured if everyone follows the rules and behaves predictably. Therefore, for the sake of everyone who uses the roads, no-one should consider themselves entitled to break the rules, on the basis of their self-opinion, or selfish interests.

I know that rules will get broken. I, too, am subject to lapses in concentration, and variations in speed. When I find that I am driving below my own standards, I make a conscious effort to do better, and if I am booked for an infringement, I would not be happy, but I would not blame the police for booking me. I am not sure how many people are aware of their own mistakes or bad habits, and I resent those who think that they have more important things to worry about than the threat that they pose to my safety. If my safety is to be risked, I will do it myself, on my own terms. I try to extend the same courtesy to everyone else who drives.

Originally Posted by crisis

There is no “the” reason. In fact one of the main reasons there are so "few" crashes (rather a subjective claim) is that people are often just plain lucky.

This is partly true, but consider the consequences if one person in every thousand decided to ignore the rule regarding the side of the road that they should be driving on. Similarly, if some people completely ignored the rules about following distances, speed limits, right-of-way and traffic lights, the roads would become undriveable. It is because everyone drives on the same side of the road, at roughly the same speed, and in a broadly predictable manner, based on the same rules, that luck and slow human reflexes can usually save drivers from each other. Consider it from a statistical point of view. Every day, a large city will have hundreds of thousands of cars travelling in opposite directions, sometimes fast and less than 1m apart, along intersecting roads, from many origins to many destinations. Consider how many cars you would pass in the opposing lanes, and at intersections, in one day. Despite the huge numbers of intersecting and opposing routes, and close encounters between cars, only a few each day result in contact between cars. That is pretty good, considering the claimed shortcomings of the roads, the rules, and the fallible homonins at the controls.

I acknowledge the shortcomings of addressing only speed and red lights as risk factors based on convenience, but I still think that any measure that forces drivers to think about what they are doing, and pay attention to their driving, is likely to do more good than harm.

[crisis]

Originally Posted by MilesR

I am assuming an immobile object. Mature trees and wooden power poles can often withstand the impact from a car (based upon observation). That is how Peter Brock died. Concrete barriers and South Australian poles yield fairly minimally, while steel barriers and poles can yield to a similar extent that the car does.

Immoveable or not cars rarely hit any objects in such a way they stop immediately. So hitting a stationery object is in many was very similar to hitting another car. As similar as any two accidents ever resemble each other anyway.

Originally Posted by MilesR

Yes, the Commodore was moving fast when it hit the tree, but the point was just that an unremarkable-sized tree did not yield to the impact of a large, fast-moving car.

Exactly. So they should be removed for the side of roads where possible.

Originally Posted by MilesR

I still maintain that 100km/h into a tree, due to inattention, can easily be lethal.

No question. See my previous point.

Originally Posted by MilesR

The skills taught by advanced driving courses can be very valuable, but like airbags and ESC, they can have the perverse effect of creating a false sense of security, as in the case of my friend.

With all due respect that is anecdotal. I have done such a course, have airbags and ABS and take nothing for granted. How old is your friend?

Originally Posted by MilesR

It also emphasises that the training is of benefit to safety only if the driver employs the techniques taught, when necessary. Again, in the case of my friend, it did not work like this. I also doubt that advanced driver training would address the attitude problems of bored inattention or impatience.

My instructor made that very point. And the point that no matter what we learned he could not guarantee we would never have an accident. That’s fair really. I would rather have every possible tool at my disposal than adopt the attitude that the more I had the less I would care about not hitting something. You can’t seriously be suggesting advanced driver courses or the like are not desirable?

Originally Posted by MilesR

I don't think it should happen at all, but there are plenty of drivers who will dedicate a few seconds to reading or sending an SMS, adjusting the stereo, or trying to find the chocolate that they left on the back seat (which actually did result in the driver in question driving up the kerb and hitting a light pole, at city speeds, before eventually finding the chocolate).

Yes, too many. Hence my reference to brushing ones teeth.

Originally Posted by MilesR

This takes us back to the behavioural problem of how to make people pay attention, and drive properly. Yes, they should anticipate the hazards, they should respond quickly and appropriately, they should be able to assess the conditions and determine their speed accordingly. They should not be drunk, stoned or on the telephone. They should not need road rules at all, because with the right training and judgement, their assessment of the conditions should lead them to demonstrate effectively the same behaviours as the rules specify. This is the ideal. Reality is not like this. My ideal would have no road rules, but my attitude towards reality is that the rules are necessary, because many people do not show this judgement. Furthermore, safety is only assured if everyone follows the rules and behaves predictably. Therefore, for the sake of everyone who uses the roads, no-one should consider themselves entitled to break the rules, on the basis of their self-opinion, or selfish interests.

And I would have no issue of the rules were made sincerely and for the sole purpose of road safety. And the rules that were set were policed to the extent that their merit deserved in relation to road safety.

[quote=MilesR;984972]
I know that rules will get broken. I, too, am subject to lapses in concentration, and variations in speed. When I find that I am driving below my own standards, I make a conscious effort to do better, and if I am booked for an infringement, I would not be happy, but I would not blame the police for booking me. I am not sure how many people are aware of their own mistakes or bad habits, and I resent those who think that they have more important things to worry about than the threat that they pose to my safety. If my safety is to be risked, I will do it myself, on my own terms. I try to extend the same courtesy to everyone else who drives.

Originally Posted by MilesR

This is partly true, but consider the consequences if one person in every thousand decided to ignore the rule regarding the side of the road that they should be driving on. Similarly, if some people completely ignored the rules about following distances, speed limits, right-of-way and traffic lights, the roads would become undriveable. It is because everyone drives on the same side of the road, at roughly the same speed, and in a broadly predictable manner, based on the same rules, that luck and slow human reflexes can usually save drivers from each other.

That’s is a pretty obvious point. That is really more The Reason that we can drive at all.

Originally Posted by MilesR

I acknowledge the shortcomings of addressing only speed and red lights as risk factors based on convenience, but I still think that any measure that forces drivers to think about what they are doing, and pay attention to their driving, is likely to do more good than harm.

You will get no argument from me for red light cameras. Running red lights is far more potentially lethal than running 5ks over the speed limit.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by crisis

You will get no argument from me for red light cameras. Running red lights is far more potentially lethal than running 5ks over the speed limit.

just wondering how that works in Oz. Do you really drive 5 km over the limit, or do they give you some leeway, by applying a correction factor, of 2-3 km (as they do in Holland), so that in reality you have driven 8 km over the limit (which in a 50 km zone is almost 20% too fast...)

[clutch-monkey]

it's generally 10-13% leeway.
also subject to officer's discretion (i.e. the above leeway will never be applied in a school zone, but on a motorway no problem)
i hear in the southern states, especially victoria, it can be as little as 2-3km/h over in any situation!! ridiculous

[henk4]

Originally Posted by clutch-monkey

it's generally 10-13% leeway.
also subject to officer's discretion (i.e. the above leeway will never be applied in a school zone, but on a motorway no problem)
i hear in the southern states, especially victoria, it can be as little as 2-3km/h over in any situation!! ridiculous

what we are actually getting is not really a leeway but some kms off because of the (supposed) inaccuracy of the measuring devices. On top of that there could be a policy to give a waiver to violations of 2-3 km AFTER correction.

[MilesR]

Clutch is right. It is regulated by state, and I am led to believe that the most generous allowance for speedometer error is in the ACT, which allows something like 10%+2km/h. Victoria is the strictest, by reputation, with an allowance of only 2-3km/h. Of course, the police do not always reveal the allowances, otherwise many people would exploit them, so these numbers cannot be easily confirmed. It is, however, one reason for my limited tolerance for complaints about speed cameras. Most cars have speedometers calibrated to read slightly faster than the true speed, so in most states, drivers will not be booked unless their indicated speed is quite significantly above the limit.

Originally Posted by crisis

With all due respect that is anecdotal. I have done such a course, have airbags and ABS and take nothing for granted. How old is your friend?

Yes, it is anecdotal, but I know that it is representative of a wider trend. I forget the source for the following example, so I cannot immediately support it, but I think it came from Australian accident data. From what I remember, cars with ABS were involved in more accidents, but with a lower average severity, and were more likely to be at-fault. It was attributed to complacency, and the assumption by the driver that the car would save them. Of course it is not true of all drivers, but safety training and devices can cultivate complacency and over-confidence. This is true of workplace safety, as well as road safety, particularly when it is used as a substitute for competence or concentration.

I don't deny that the skills taught in an advanced driver course are valuable, or that a conscientious driver would benefit from them. What I doubt is that the drivers who need the training, in order to drive safely, are also likely to be the drivers who have the wrong attitude before the course. I would not expect those with a limited interest in their driving, or who think it unimportant, to have much enthusiasm for learning to do it better. In much the same way, if I took an advanced hair and beauty course, I doubt that I would suddenly develop an interest in cuticles, or bother to remember, on the spur of the moment, how to match eye-shadow colour to skin tone. In fact, I would probably not even enrol in the course. Many of the drivers who would enrol would be those who already value good driving. In short, I appreciate the value of advanced driver training, but I doubt its ability to make much difference to the problem of bad drivers.

[pimento]

Personally I'm not opposed to some advanced training being required for getting a license, or at least there being some benefit for people to undertake it. Maybe less time on P plates, or less restriction on the type of vehicles allowed to be driven.

[Matra et Alpine]

For the UK I say it repeatedly. EVERY car driver should be required to tak ea motorbike license and test. Teaches two things ... proper observation and planning AND as important .. to look out for bikers !!

[crisis]

Originally Posted by henk4

just wondering how that works in Oz. Do you really drive 5 km over the limit, or do they give you some leeway, by applying a correction factor, of 2-3 km (as they do in Holland), so that in reality you have driven 8 km over the limit (which in a 50 km zone is almost 20% too fast...)

In South Australia the current “road safety” campaigns highlight “Creepers” as though they are some kind of monsters. Literally. It pertains to people “creeping” over the speed limit as opposed to “speeding”. Various reports indicate that the radars are set to a 4kmh leeway but it is not a point conceded by the authorities. So you can’t be sure. I am pretty sure I have heard of people booked for speeds like 56 in a 50 zone. Maybe too fast but bear in mind all of these 50kmh zones were 60kmh 7 or so years ago with worse cars.

Advertisement just aired as we speak by the Motor Accident Commission. “Speed contributes to more than 30% of all road deaths”. So putting aside how much it contributes to them by this broad unsupported ambiguous “statistic” it could contribute to less than 69%. We should really then be concentrating on what contributes to the majority by the most?

Originally Posted by MilesR

Yes, it is anecdotal, but I know that it is representative of a wider trend. I forget the source for the following example, so I cannot immediately support it, but I think it came from Australian accident data. From what I remember, cars with ABS were involved in more accidents, but with a lower average severity, and were more likely to be at-fault. It was attributed to complacency, and the assumption by the driver that the car would save them. Of course it is not true of all drivers, but safety training and devices can cultivate complacency and over-confidence.

Well I am sorry but I have to shoot holes through this.
Firstly and with all due respect I would like to see this data. Secondly the presumption that the reason behind the increase in accidents involving cars with ABS ( which I simply cannot believe unless if it is because there are more cars on the road now with ABS) is complacency is unsupportable. I would contend that many people would not 1. Know they have it and/or 2. Know what it was and/or what it did. Therefore I doubt that they drive expecting the car to save them with such a cavalier attitude.

Originally Posted by MilesR

I don't deny that the skills taught in an advanced driver course are valuable, or that a conscientious driver would benefit from them. What I doubt is that the drivers who need the training, in order to drive safely, are also likely to be the drivers who have the wrong attitude before the course. I would not expect those with a limited interest in their driving, or who think it unimportant, to have much enthusiasm for learning to do it better. Many of the drivers who would enrol would be those who already value good driving. In short, I appreciate the value of advanced driver training, but I doubt its ability to make much difference to the problem of bad drivers.

I would suggest that you may be right without any evidence to support my conclusions. However I was sent by my employer as were the majority of participants on the day I was there. You should perhaps try it before you pass judgment.

[csl177]

Looks like Miles and crisis got far away from the original issue raised by crisis: minor speed differentials being the basis of a driver safety and ticketing campaign. Without a doubt, much better/consistent training would benefit everyone... but just as in our daily life, there are those that do well, learn and abide, those that can't and should be relegated to publc transportation, and those that willfully broach legal standards. Let's leave alcohol/electronic media/sociopathic distractions out of the mix for a moment.

As already discussed, speed itself isn't the problem. Most major highways are designed for speeds in excess of the posted limits. Secondary and surface roads are much different, and as Matra points out, posted limits can be compromised/impeded by schools, neighborhood density, and the like which SHOULD give the average driver pause... to slow down where and when advisable. Weather conditions cause the same situation for most of us. Most motorist will travel at a reasonable pace under any given set of conditions, within 10% plus or minus. It's a phenomenon used by traffic engineers to time stoplights, sign placement and intersection roundabouts.

Scofflaws are who the state should be targeting. Using a broad anti-speed campaign as in parts of Australia (and plenty of US locales do the same thing) doesn't address the REAL issue, but sure looks and sounds good as a public relations tool. It's also clearly a revenue generator, both for the state and insurance companies, as suggested in earlier posts.

Excessive speed differential CAN be a cause of crashes but it is when coupled to inattentiveness, impairment, and/or distraction by other influences that it more likely becomes lethal. No amount of advanced driver training will prevent those scenarios, but sure can make a difference for motorists in proximity to them. Removing repeat offenders from the roads should be a high priority... a license to drive is NOT A RIGHT and governments would do well to enforce that. But it's cultural... some countries are disciplined, others are not.

Interesting bit about Interstate 35 near Austin, which is quite congested. They built SR130 to relieve the traffic and set the limit at 85MPH, because that's what MOST people will drive. Read more here: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/0...8H7F4P20120607

Critics say higher speed limits will lead to more fatal accidents, but McDaniel said the safest roads are ones where all motorists are traveling the same speed.

Studies of drivers on that stretch of highway now show most are traveling about 85 mph, he said.

"The more people we can get to travel a uniform speed, the safer are the conditions that will exist," McDaniel said on Wednesday at the annual Texas Transportation Institute road safety conference in San Antonio.