|
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/06/18/everything_we_know_a.html Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong Mind-blowing article about the European and Chinese challenges to the received wisdom on traffic planning and calming, arguing that the separation of peds and cars leads to less-safe streets: "The more you post the evidence of legislative control, such as traffic signs, the less the driver is trying to use his or her own senses," says Hamilton-Baillie, noting he has a habit of walking randomly across roads -- much to his wife's consternation. "So the less you can advertise the presence of the state in terms of authority, the more effective this approach can be." This, of course, is the exact opposite of the "Triple E" traffic-calming approach, which seeks to control the driver through the use of speed bumps, photo radar, crosswalks and other engineering and enforcement mechanisms. The "self-reading street" has its roots in the Dutch "woonerf" design principles that emerged in the 1970s. Blurring the boundary between street and sidewalk, woonerfs combine innovative paving, landscaping and other urban designs to allow for the integration of multiple functions in a single street, so that pedestrians, cyclists and children playing share the road with slow-moving cars. The pilot projects were so successful in fostering better urban environments that the ideas spread rapidly to Belgium, France, Denmark and Germany. In 1998, the British government adopted a "Home Zones" initiative -- the woonerf equivalent -- as part of its national transportation policy. "What the early woonerf principles realized," says Hamilton-Baillie, "was that there was a two-way interaction between people and traffic. It was a vicious or, rather, a virtuous circle: The busier the streets are, the safer they become. So once you drive people off the street, they become less safe." Salon Link (Reg/Ads Req'd) (via Kottke) http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/05/20/traffic_design/ Why don't we do it in the road? A new school of traffic design says we should get rid of stop signs and red lights and let cars, bikes and people mingle together. It sounds insane, but it works. May 20, 2004 | It's rush hour, and I am standing at the corner of Zhuhui and Renmin Road, a four-lane intersection in Suzhou, China. Ignoring the red light, a couple of taxis and a dozen bicycles are headed straight for a huge mass of cyclists, cars, pedicabs and mopeds that are turning left in front of me. Cringing, I anticipate a collision. Like a flock of migrating birds, however, the mass changes formation. A space opens up, the taxis and bicycles move in, and hundreds of commuters continue down the street, unperturbed and fatality free. In Suzhou, the traffic rules are simple. "There are no rules," as one local told me. A city of 2.2 million people, Suzhou has 500,000 cars and 900,000 bicycles, not to mention hundreds of pedicabs, mopeds and assorted, quainter forms of transportation. Drivers of all modes pay little attention to the few traffic signals and weave wildly from one side of the street to another. Defying survival instincts, pedestrians have to barge between oncoming cars to cross the roads. But here's the catch: During the 10 days I spent in Suzhou last fall, I didn't see a single accident. Really, not a single one. Nor was there any of the road rage one might expect given the anarchy that passes for traffic policy. And despite the obvious advantages that accrue to cars because of their size, no single transportation mode dominates the streets. On the contrary, the urban arterials are a communal mix of automobiles, cyclists, pedestrians, and small businesses such as inner-tube repairmen that set up shop directly in the right-of-way. [...] |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:29:44 +0100, Marc Brett
wrote in message : Mind-blowing article about the European and Chinese challenges to the received wisdom on traffic planning and calming, arguing that the separation of peds and cars leads to less-safe streets: Now that really /is/ new. Unless you've read JS Dean's 1946 book "Murder Most Foul". Or Bob Davis' "Death On The Streets". Or Mayer Hillman's "One False Move". 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 |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
Marc Brett wrote:
The pilot projects were so successful in fostering better urban environments that the ideas spread rapidly to Belgium, France France? Traffic Calming... I guess the author has never been to France. |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
David Off wrote:
France? Traffic Calming... I guess the author has never been to France. They calm their drivers with a bottle of vin rouge ;-) Tony |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
"Tony Raven" wrote in message ... David Off wrote: France? Traffic Calming... I guess the author has never been to France. They calm their drivers with a bottle of vin rouge ;-) Tony This reminds me of something I saw on the Discovery channel once. Bascially, they took one one driver, and tested him on a private track. They found him to be aggressive, selfish, and unwill to acknowledge his limitations They then gave him a joint to smoke, and repeated the test. His driving improved - the theory being that the cannabis, whilst limiting his ability to drive, made him more relaxed and made him more aware of his limitations. Obviously (and as was pointed out in the programme), this doesn't mean driving while stoned should be legal, but it was an interesting, if unexpected result - and certainly worthy of more investigation. Thought I'd just throw that in for the sake of conversation :-) |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
"Marc Brett" wrote in message
... http://www.boingboing.net/2004/06/18/everything_we_know_a.html Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong Mind-blowing article about the European and Chinese challenges to the received wisdom on traffic planning and calming, arguing that the separation of peds and cars leads to less-safe streets: snipped Recently in Orkney, did some driving around the main street of Stromness. Very narrow, 2-way traffic and pedestrians mingling, standing in doorways to let cars past, etc. I paid a lot of attention and initially found it daunting to drive, but soon realised it was one of the safest non-pedestrianised "main streets" I ever experienced. Locals found it second nature to look both ways before stepping out of shop doorways. Likewise drivers patiently waited for pedestrians to go about their business. It all seemed to work quite well. The only "traffic control" measures there were single yellow lines to discourage long-term obstructions. In short, because of higher perceived danger levels, much more caution is exercised, and a street ends up being safer. .................................................. ............... Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access at http://www.TitanNews.com -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=- |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
Nathaniel Porter wrote:
"Tony Raven" wrote in message ... David Off wrote: France? Traffic Calming... I guess the author has never been to France. They calm their drivers with a bottle of vin rouge ;-) Tony This reminds me of something I saw on the Discovery channel once. Bascially, they took one one driver, and tested him on a private track. They found him to be aggressive, selfish, and unwill to acknowledge his limitations They then gave him a joint to smoke, and repeated the test. His driving improved - the theory being that the cannabis, whilst limiting his ability to drive, made him more relaxed and made him more aware of his limitations. Obviously (and as was pointed out in the programme), this doesn't mean driving while stoned should be legal, but it was an interesting, if unexpected result - and certainly worthy of more investigation. Thought I'd just throw that in for the sake of conversation :-) Dope messes with your perception of speed, smoke enough and try to drive and the cops will pull you over for doing 10 mph on a clear road. -- Andy Morris AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/ |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
AndyMorris wrote:
Dope messes with your perception of speed, smoke enough and try to drive and the cops will pull you over for doing 10 mph on a clear road. Sounds like that might have been personal experience there ;-) Tony |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
"AndyMorris" wrote in message ... Nathaniel Porter wrote: "Tony Raven" wrote in message ... David Off wrote: France? Traffic Calming... I guess the author has never been to France. They calm their drivers with a bottle of vin rouge ;-) Tony This reminds me of something I saw on the Discovery channel once. Bascially, they took one one driver, and tested him on a private track. They found him to be aggressive, selfish, and unwill to acknowledge his limitations They then gave him a joint to smoke, and repeated the test. His driving improved - the theory being that the cannabis, whilst limiting his ability to drive, made him more relaxed and made him more aware of his limitations. Obviously (and as was pointed out in the programme), this doesn't mean driving while stoned should be legal, but it was an interesting, if unexpected result - and certainly worthy of more investigation. Thought I'd just throw that in for the sake of conversation :-) Dope messes with your perception of speed, smoke enough and try to drive and the cops will pull you over for doing 10 mph on a clear road. Which is what you'd expect - but this didn't happen in the (obviously relatively unscientific) experiment shown above. What did happen was he drove slowly (but not that slowly), and was so paranoid about hitting anything or messing up (which is one of the effects of dope) that he actually drove carefully and did manage to spot all the hazards thrown at him, and he dealt with them well. Just to reiterate, I'm not meaning to say that driving while stoned should be legal - but as I say the results of this experiment were rather unexpected and most interesting :-) |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
Nathaniel Porter wrote:
Which is what you'd expect - but this didn't happen in the (obviously relatively unscientific) experiment shown above. What did happen was he drove slowly (but not that slowly), and was so paranoid about hitting anything or messing up (which is one of the effects of dope) that he actually drove carefully and did manage to spot all the hazards thrown at him, and he dealt with them well. Just to reiterate, I'm not meaning to say that driving while stoned should be legal - but as I say the results of this experiment were rather unexpected and most interesting :-) {Puff} Like yeah man {puff} Tony ;-) |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 at 23:41:20, David Off
wrote: Marc Brett wrote: The pilot projects were so successful in fostering better urban environments that the ideas spread rapidly to Belgium, France France? Traffic Calming... I guess the author has never been to France. That's why it doesn't work..... if you go to St-Omer from the Tunnel via the N road, not the motorway, you used to go through a village (now, happily, bypassed) which had no fewer than 9 pedestrian crossings, as advertised at the start of the speed limit signs. Never saw any pedestrians using them, though, or any traffic taking any notice. Some "passages cloutés" are raised up, though, making their own speed bumps. -- Annabel Smyth http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 6 June 2004 |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
Annabel Smyth wrote:
[ ... ] ..... if you go to St-Omer from the Tunnel via the N road, not the motorway, you used to go through a village (now, happily, bypassed) which had no fewer than 9 pedestrian crossings, as advertised at the start of the speed limit signs. Never saw any pedestrians using them, though, or any traffic taking any notice. I have stopped at such crossing-places (in France and Belgium) in the past, only to be met with bemused stares from the waiting pedestrians (who seem not prepared to cross until all the traffic is dissipated - thereby undoing the purpose of the the crossings) and blasts of the horn from following drivers. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.707 / Virus Database: 463 - Release Date: 15/06/04 |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 13:02:20 +0100, "JNugent"
wrote: Annabel Smyth wrote: [ ... ] ..... if you go to St-Omer from the Tunnel via the N road, not the motorway, you used to go through a village (now, happily, bypassed) which had no fewer than 9 pedestrian crossings, as advertised at the start of the speed limit signs. Never saw any pedestrians using them, though, or any traffic taking any notice. I have stopped at such crossing-places (in France and Belgium) in the past, only to be met with bemused stares from the waiting pedestrians (who seem not prepared to cross until all the traffic is dissipated - thereby undoing the purpose of the the crossings) and blasts of the horn from following drivers. Same happened to me when I was cycling in France; stopped at "zebra crossing" to allow waiting peds to cross. Result; peds continue to wait, I continue to wait and motorised traffic continues to flow. Bemused looks between cyclists and French people. |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
|
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... Mind-blowing article about the European and Chinese challenges to the received wisdom on traffic planning and calming, arguing that the separation of peds and cars leads to less-safe streets: Now that really /is/ new. Unless you've read JS Dean's 1946 book "Murder Most Foul". Or Bob Davis' "Death On The Streets". Or Mayer Hillman's "One False Move". Guy 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. Seeing how Volvo drivers seem to have total disregard for their and all other road users' safety, I suspect the safety cocoon they have purchased has lulled them into a sense of false security - at least for the rest of us! |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:22:59 +0100, "Paul Dicken"
wrote in message : 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. Seeing how Volvo drivers seem to have total disregard for their and all other road users' safety, I suspect the safety cocoon they have purchased has lulled them into a sense of false security - at least for the rest of us! For varying values of Volvo drivers. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/.../Documents/GPV 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 |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
Paul Dicken wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... Mind-blowing article about the European and Chinese challenges to the received wisdom on traffic planning and calming, arguing that the separation of peds and cars leads to less-safe streets: Now that really /is/ new. Unless you've read JS Dean's 1946 book "Murder Most Foul". Or Bob Davis' "Death On The Streets". Or Mayer Hillman's "One False Move". Guy 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? That idea didn't seem to work before seat belts were invented, when occupants used to die by being ejected through the windscreen. Indeed it still happens. We've all read stories of late-night crashes where a carful of young people were killed or injured after they were thrown from their car, presumably because they were too drunk or high to remember to put on their seat belts. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:08:54 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote in message : ... because people driving in a vulnerable vehicle would drive more safely? That idea didn't seem to work before seat belts were invented, when occupants used to die by being ejected through the windscreen. Indeed it still happens. On the other hand, they drive less carefully when protected by airbags, abs and seatbelts. 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 |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:08:54 GMT, "Richard J." wrote in message : ... because people driving in a vulnerable vehicle would drive more safely? That idea didn't seem to work before seat belts were invented, when occupants used to die by being ejected through the windscreen. Indeed it still happens. On the other hand, they drive less carefully when protected by airbags, abs and seatbelts. Guy Not all of them do, ta :-) 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... so my driving hasn't changed in that respect. Seatbelts - always worn one, always will, so can't comment on how I'd drive without one. Airbags? I'd rather it didn't go off, ta, so it's another incentive to not have an accident that'll make it explode in front of me. Airbags have been implicated in some rather nasty accidents that might have been less nasty had the airbag not gone off, so I have very mixed feelings about being in a car equipped with several of the things. Yes it might stop me cracking my head open on the steering wheel, but on hte other hand I'd rather not have massive chest injuries caused by it.. So it's not quite as clear cut that all the extra safety stuff makes people drive less carefully :-) -- Velvet |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
Velvet wrote:
Snipped Text On the other hand, they drive less carefully when protected by airbags, abs and seatbelts. Guy Not all of them do, ta :-) 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... so my driving hasn't changed in that respect. Seatbelts - always worn one, always will, so can't comment on how I'd drive without one. Airbags? I'd rather it didn't go off, ta, so it's another incentive to not have an accident that'll make it explode in front of me. Airbags have been implicated in some rather nasty accidents that might have been less nasty had the airbag not gone off, so I have very mixed feelings about being in a car equipped with several of the things. Agreed, although not because of what they do, I know how reliable they are(n't). Yes it might stop me cracking my head open on the steering wheel, but on hte other hand I'd rather not have massive chest injuries caused by it.. Actually it's wearing a seat belt that causes the chest injuries. An air bag only causes friction burns on your arms. All an air bag is designed to do is to stop whiplash injuries by absorbing your forward momentum. The bag is actually deflating as you hit it. If you don't wear a seat belt your face hits the steering wheel as the bag is deployed. This is where injuries occur - usually fatally. Hence the term 'Supplementary Restraint System'. So it's not quite as clear cut that all the extra safety stuff makes people drive less carefully :-) It is, there are always a few exceptions. Unfortunately you can't easily measure it, but observations suggest that having the safety devices does indeed 'encourage' more aggressive driving. -- Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor) http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
"Richard J." wrote in news:q9mBc.1219$L_
: ... because people driving in a vulnerable vehicle would drive more safely? That idea didn't seem to work before seat belts were invented, when occupants used to die by being ejected through the windscreen. "more safely" not "safely". The introduction of seat belts didn't result in less accidents, just people driving a little more carelessly. Graeme |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 19:26:54 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote (more or less): On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:22:59 +0100, "Paul Dicken" wrote in message : 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. Seeing how Volvo drivers seem to have total disregard for their and all other road users' safety, I suspect the safety cocoon they have purchased has lulled them into a sense of false security - at least for the rest of us! For varying values of Volvo drivers. Up to point, Lord Copper... ;-) -- 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 |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:08:54 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote (more or less): Paul Dicken wrote: "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... Mind-blowing article about the European and Chinese challenges to the received wisdom on traffic planning and calming, arguing that the separation of peds and cars leads to less-safe streets: Now that really /is/ new. Unless you've read JS Dean's 1946 book "Murder Most Foul". Or Bob Davis' "Death On The Streets". Or Mayer Hillman's "One False Move". Guy 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. That idea didn't seem to work before seat belts were invented, when occupants used to die by being ejected through the windscreen. Indeed it still happens. We've all read stories of late-night crashes where a carful of young people were killed or injured after they were thrown from their car, presumably because they were too drunk or high to remember to put on their seat belts. You seem to be mixing up 'drive more safely' with 'never have accidents at all', and conflating severity of accident with risk-taking while driving. -- 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 |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
"Velvet" wrote in message ... Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:08:54 GMT, "Richard J." wrote in message : ... because people driving in a vulnerable vehicle would drive more safely? That idea didn't seem to work before seat belts were invented, when occupants used to die by being ejected through the windscreen. Indeed it still happens. On the other hand, they drive less carefully when protected by airbags, abs and seatbelts. Guy Not all of them do, ta :-) 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... so my driving hasn't snipped 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. |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
Orienteer wrote:
"Velvet" wrote in message ... Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:08:54 GMT, "Richard J." wrote in message : ... because people driving in a vulnerable vehicle would drive more safely? That idea didn't seem to work before seat belts were invented, when occupants used to die by being ejected through the windscreen. Indeed it still happens. On the other hand, they drive less carefully when protected by airbags, abs and seatbelts. Guy Not all of them do, ta :-) 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... so my driving hasn't snipped 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. However, in the situation where the vehicle in front has ABS, and will brake it to the maximum without inducing a skid (skidding leads to longer stopping times?) it means that the following vehicle has to be able to control their braking to the same fine degree to avoid starting the skid, and many will either be too cautious or overcook and skid... So in my experience (and I do speak from experience) when you avoid a skid in a non-abs car and the one in front does have it, you end up braking slower, with obvious consequences if you're close enough... -- Velvet |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
Velvet wrote:
So in my experience (and I do speak from experience) when you avoid a skid in a non-abs car and the one in front does have it, you end up braking slower, with obvious consequences if you're close enough... You mean "too close". -- Mark. |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:37:33 GMT, Velvet
wrote in message : On the other hand, they drive less carefully when protected by airbags, abs and seatbelts. Not all of them do, ta :-) I don't think anyone is immune to risk compensation, although some people have a more realistic view of the merits of various safety aids than others. The comment refers to research done on drivers with and without ABS and seatbelts, which showed that they drove faster and less safely when using those devices. See Risk by John Adams. 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... Er, actually ABS doesn't really affect stopping distances. It allows you to steer while braking. So it's not quite as clear cut that all the extra safety stuff makes people drive less carefully :-) It is, though. The taxi driver ABS trial was a near-perfect double-blind study and it showed that those driving ABS equipped cars accelerated harder, braked harder, drove faster and followed closer. 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 |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
Er, actually ABS doesn't really affect stopping distances. Yes it does. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca...99-01-1287.pdf "For most stopping maneuvers, made on most test surfaces, ABS-assisted panic stops were found to be shorter than those made with best effort or full pedal applications with the ABS disabled" |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
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. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
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. I assume that means "not that"; please write in English. Are you suggesting that we should abandon seat belts in order that we should drive more safely? That idea didn't seem to work before seat belts were invented, when occupants used to die by being ejected through the windscreen. Indeed it still happens. We've all read stories of late-night crashes where a carful of young people were killed or injured after they were thrown from their car, presumably because they were too drunk or high to remember to put on their seat belts. You seem to be mixing up 'drive more safely' with 'never have accidents at all', and conflating severity of accident with risk-taking while driving. 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. Overall, driving with belts is safer than it used to be, i.e. it kills fewer people. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:29:58 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:37:33 GMT, Velvet wrote in message : So it's not quite as clear cut that all the extra safety stuff makes people drive less carefully :-) It is, though. The taxi driver ABS trial was a near-perfect double-blind study and it showed that those driving ABS equipped cars accelerated harder, braked harder, drove faster and followed closer. What particular form of psychic capability was reckoned to account for this, then ? As soon as any driver realised his vehicle had ABS, the trial failed the double-blind test, which demands that those taking part and the observers are both ignorant of the conditions. (I don't have any problem with trials that show that drivers fully aware of such features may "risk compensate" for them. But claiming to have double-blind trial results smacks of very dodgy science.) -- He said: Smile, things could be worse! I did! They were! Mail john rather than nospam... |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:53:47 +0100, John Laird
wrote in message : It is, though. The taxi driver ABS trial was a near-perfect double-blind study and it showed that those driving ABS equipped cars accelerated harder, braked harder, drove faster and followed closer. What particular form of psychic capability was reckoned to account for this, then ? As soon as any driver realised his vehicle had ABS, the trial failed the double-blind test, which demands that those taking part and the observers are both ignorant of the conditions. The condition being tested was "driver knowingly driving ABS equipped car". The drivers did not know which cars were fitted with measuring devices, and the observers did not know which measuring devices werefitted to cars with ABS. 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 |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:42:13 +0100, "Grant Mason"
wrote in message : Er, actually ABS doesn't really affect stopping distances. Yes it does. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca...99-01-1287.pdf "For most stopping maneuvers, made on most test surfaces, ABS-assisted panic stops were found to be shorter than those made with best effort or full pedal applications with the ABS disabled" Because people don't know how to brake. But the statement was overly simplistic, of course. ABS does not increase the power of the brakes, and does not increase the coefficient of friction. All it does is make it less likely that the driver will lock the wheels. Which, to a first approximation, is the same thing as "doesn't stop you quicker" - letting people believe that ABS stops you quicker is Not Smart in my view because in the end it doesn't affect the two main factors in stopping you. Actually the grip on my current car is so good that I haven't managed to trigger the ABS yet, even when I've tried. 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 |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
"Richard J." wrote in news:b5yBc.1632
: Overall, driving with belts is safer than it used to be, i.e. it kills fewer people. That's not what the research that the government did showed. Then again, they don't tend to shout about that research too much for obvious reasons. Graeme |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 at 23:15:30, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On the other hand, they drive less carefully when protected by airbags, abs and seatbelts. When I tried, abortively, to learn to drive many years ago now, my father commented that one should always remember that *every* other car on the road was driven by a murderer. A lesson which I passed on to my daughter when she learnt to drive. -- Annabel Smyth http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 6 June 2004 |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:06:34 GMT, Graeme
wrote in message : That's not what the research that the government did showed. Then again, they don't tend to shout about that research too much for obvious reasons. Quite. You'll find the Isles Report in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard" - you'll need a ladder and a flashlight thobut ;-) 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 |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:01:08 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:53:47 +0100, John Laird wrote in message : It is, though. The taxi driver ABS trial was a near-perfect double-blind study and it showed that those driving ABS equipped cars accelerated harder, braked harder, drove faster and followed closer. What particular form of psychic capability was reckoned to account for this, then ? As soon as any driver realised his vehicle had ABS, the trial failed the double-blind test, which demands that those taking part and the observers are both ignorant of the conditions. The condition being tested was "driver knowingly driving ABS equipped car". The drivers did not know which cars were fitted with measuring devices, and the observers did not know which measuring devices werefitted to cars with ABS. That makes more sense, thanks. Of course, testing taxi drivers is highly dubious in itself ;-) -- Just a fake guitar player in the Monkees of life. Mail john rather than nospam... |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in
: Quite. You'll find the Isles Report in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard" - you'll need a ladder and a flashlight thobut ;-) For some reason the first thought that popped into my head after reading that was "Hmm... must do my tax return." Now if anyone can explain the thought process behind that I would be very grateful. Graeme |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:43:35 GMT someone who may be "Richard J."
wrote this:- 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. Overall, driving with belts is safer than it used to be, i.e. it kills fewer people. In theory you are correct. However, practice is rather different to theory. Of course the people not being killed as much are those inside cars, while those being killed more are outside cars. If one has a road "safety" policy that is only concerned with the former then one can present this as a "success". See the Isles Report and the Durbin/Harvey Report. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000. |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in
: You'll find the Isles Report in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard" - you'll need a ladder and a flashlight thobut ;-) And on a related subject http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/index_new.shtml Bloody excellent! Now if only I can sort out timed recordings so I don't have to get up at 2am! :-) :-0 And I can imagine Guy's reaction :{) Graeme |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk