i was trying to be polite

 

To deal with the reaction time issue, the psychologists split this up into three separate areas:

1) Perception - seeing a hazard and deciding that it is a hazard
2) Decision - oh sh*t, what am I going to do
3) Reaction - the mechanics of putting the decision into action

The braking tests that the various posters have done are best described as 'anticipated reaction'. If you are going to brake at a given lamppost, the first two parts of the reaction time are already dealt with and your body knows, more or less, how long it will take to deal with the mechanical side of things, so you will start braking at a given point. This is how race drivers deal with speeds in excess of 180 mph - they know when they have to brake.

BTW - this is how Police deal with the same questions regarding reaction time when dealing with VASCAR traps in Court.

As for braking rates, the answer is simply yes, there is a difference between cars, provided the wheels are not locked. Once they are locked, they all decelerate at the same rate, because it is the friction between the sliding tyre and the road that is in control not the friction between the brake pad and disk. Up to then it is the skill of the driver that is in control.

Is the ad misleading? It depends whether you believe that ABS is the solution to all your driving infallibilities. The last study that I saw on ABS showed that the accident rate went down, but the fatality rate went up. The two reasons given were the fact that impact speeds go up because drivers thought they could change the laws of physics, and the fact that ABS allows you to steer, so that instead of colliding with the back of the nice soft Rover Metro, you swerved and collided with the unsoft tree.

ABS can be a great tool for road safety, provided you know what it's there for - and its not to allow you to go quicker because you can stop quicker.

 

Diablo,

what if you hit someone whilst trying to stop from a speed that exeeded the speed limit of that area?
will you still have a clear conscience?

------------

No offence to anyone in particular but you say 90% of the road users are thick and incompetent. That must include people who can't figure out what constitutes a reaction time etc. as that sort of ignorance is pretty dangerous as they are whizzing around thinking they are much safer / better than they really are.

Oooh I can add an extra 5 or 10 mph on to my speed here as I can stop much quicker than the average car!!! No. If someone steps out from nowhere all they're gonna do is hit someone at a higher speed

There is such warped logic on here sometimes its unreal. Dunno how half this lot passed a test!!


Take notice of people like BigJon and DTurn. These guys work in related fields and seem to know what they're saying.

[Edited by juan - 2/19/2002 11:21:34 AM]

 

your taking to someone who thinks 90% of road users are thick and incompetent- you may find you dont get through to him!

 

"I cannot reasonably be to blame " suggest hes driving at an appropriate speed i.e. under 20 if outside a school. the point is the speed limit has naff all to do with verifying the safety of a given speed in a given situation.

There are plenty of places where a 30 limit is too high or too low.

How does encouraging "I went past a school at 30 and killed someone - BUT i wasn't exceeding the speed limit so its not my fault" attitude help anyone ?

[Edited by dsmith - 2/19/2002 11:16:46 AM]

 

hence the point of the add- most people dont drive at 20mph past schools and even more dont do 30 in a 30.

the add is designed to make them think.

 

Haven't we come full circle now?

Steve

 

But Tiggs my old C/S target. The Add (like all governemtn adds around speed) doesnt emphasise "Think about your speed - appropriate speed varies with the conditions but the limit is a good inidicator of the maximum you should be doing"

it emphasises "Think about your speed - unless you're under the limit in which case its safe and you can safely concentrate on somthing else instead"

For me the problem is the adds dont advocate any suggestion that the individual should apply some additional thought over and above looking at the speed limit.

Deano

 

then i agree there should be an add for that- but as an add for the 35mph crowd (of which there are'000s) then it does what it sets out to do- makes them think.


Tiggs

 

Even if you are doing 30 mph outside a school and mow down a pederstrian, then there's still 'due care and attention' unless the kid launches themselves in front of you.

But the main point of the ad - ie don't even exceed the speed limit by 5mph in built up areas is put across effectively - and isn't aimed at clued up drivers/riders but your average muppet. So what if some cars can stop on a sixpence -sometimes you have to exaggerate to get your point across - or are Renault Scenics really driven by singing dogs?

 

flippin heck! where have all these sensible people come from!

Tiggs

ps- the andrex puppies dont really use toilet paper- a dog breeder told me this- apparently they have meets where all the dog breeders laugh at the adds

 

>>the point is the speed limit has naff all to do with verifying the safety of a given speed in a given situation.

Pfew, finally...

What's irresponsible about all this is that attention always goes to speed vs speed limits.

What's really important is that as a good driver, you'd have seen the kid long before it would cross the road. The difference between 30 or 35 mph is in a way academical... the car should have been doing 10 mph at that point, fully awaiting the kid to do the unexpected.

Reaction times is one thing... a good driver will foresee most of these situations (yes, I know there are these straight out of hell situations that no one can foresee, but I doubt that most accidents fall into this category).

It will help bugger all if people stick to 30 mph ... what would help is throw away all that sat nav, mobile phones, bum warmers etc... and get people to be 100 % concentrated in their cars ... or at least 80 %.

Last year, I drove through a city center, and saw a mum with a 2 kids. The one kid wriggled out of her hands and started to run, but I had seen the situation and stopped calmly with no effort at all. From the other side however, another car had totally not seen what happened, paniked, braked at the last minute, and slid about 50 yards missing the little girl by about 5 inches ...

I'm not saying I'm never distracted in a car, but it's more about the commitment to actively look around & spot the danger situations. Having a vivid imagination & erring on the safe side of things helps. I don't care if the mum should have held the kid tighter, I just don't ever want to see a kid stuck in my front spoiler

And before you think "holier than thou" ... I showed off the car a bit last Saturday and got to 140 mph before I backed off... on a clear road, no other cars, dry, highway, fully concentrated etc... still 70 mph over the speed limit but if you ever catch me speeding in a built up area, you can smack me in the face, no questions asked.

Now my point was ... erm... yeah, concentration

 

Juan,

If I am exceeding the speed limit of the area then clearly I would not have a clear conscience. My post stated that if "I could not be reasonably held to blame" Similarly, if my speed was below the posted limit but unsuitable for the conditions (ie playground, School, shops whatever) then the same would apply.

Also, there's a difference between not being able to figure out the exact distance/details of reaction time and not instinctively knowing that reaction time exists.

Tiggs,

LOL...yeah I get it.

The problem is not one of speed, tyres or brakes, its one of education, for both drivers and pedestrians alike. As Theo and others have posted.

What pi$$es me off is that the motorist is always the target of these campaigns, not the pedestrian who is almost "never" deemed to blame

Oh, and the sanctimonious spoutings of some (but not all, ok ) parents who can't be ar$sed to teach their kids the basics.

D







[Edited by Diablo - 2/19/2002 12:34:58 PM]

 

Here's an interesting little tale.

My next door neighbour was driving along in a small village at 30mph (probably between 27 and 33).

A dog runs out between parked cars and my neighbour hits the dog.

Amazingly the dog was ok, which just goes to show that my neighbour wasn't going that quickly. Anyway, damage is done to the car so neighbour calls insurance company who say it's an open and shut case. Dogs owners are at fault and should pay for the damage.

Imagine if that had been a kid. It would have been a completely different story.

Like previously stated, kids can do no wrong these days. It's no different to when a kid throws a stone at your car. You can't do anything about it.

 

If the (misguided) message "It's safe as long as you're at or below the speed limit" were to get through, would that mean the end of the '45mph in a 60 limit' brigade? I don't think so.

 

Here's some more food for thought.

1. Why do we tolerate pedestrians being allowed to walk out in front of cars whenever they feel like it? You can't do it with trains or aeroplanes, so why is it ok with cars? In the US & Germany for example, you are only supposed to cross the road at crossings. Britain might have one of the lowest incidents of car accidents, but we have a disproportionally high rate of pedestrians killed by cars.

2. Why do we tolerate children playing by the side of busy roads? As a kid, I knew what would happen if I walked out infront of a car without looking, I'd have got a right telling off from my parents. Should we be asking the government what happened to all the playgrounds?

3. Why can't we teach hazard perception as part of the driving test? A driving license is a privilege, not a right. Modern roads are busier, so hazard perception is more important, so we should adjust the test to account for this.

 

I reckon that Hoppy is right.

In the advert I quote "this car WAS traveling at 35mph" what they fail to mention is that wasn't what the guy was doing before he saw the kid, so I think they meant at 35mph he reacted, but he was slowind down anyway.

he must of being doing at lest 50MPH

thats the speed an F1 driver comes to the pit stop!! And the distnace is definitley less!

they don't even have ABS

 

Diablo it must be great to be that perfect and never have made a mistake:

You need a driving license to drive legally, but you don't need one to cross a road - logic being car can kill pedestrians, pedestrians cant kill car.

 

Elvis, There could be some law about having your dog on a lead, or at leats under control. Don't think its the same law with kids (right or wrong) but thats why it was purely dog owners fault in that case

 

.

[Edited by juan - 2/19/2002 2:05:55 PM]

 

 

This is true.

You are responsible for your dog, but not your kids.

A pedestrian will not kill a car, and that automatically puts them in the right, even if they run out in front of a car whilst pissed.

 

I think the thread is showing up one of the great truisms: you can criticize a bloke about his carnal abilities but if you criticise his driving you are dead. Nearly 75% of drivers believe that their driving is 'better than average'. The views expressed so far seem to show this, with virtually no-one believing that their skills are in any way deficient. The courts and prisons are full of people who believed that they were better drivers than the rest of the general population. Many are adamant that the 'pedestrian came running out of nowhere'. Some of the posters seem to think that pedestrians should only cross in marked places; I presume this is so that they can speed everywhere, and only have to think about other road users at certain points. That's as good a definition of 'driving without reasonable consideration' as I've heard for a while.

Unfortunately as a background to this, the government view on road safety is 'Speed kills'. This is wrong. Speed doesn't kill, inappropriate use of speed kills. Now, everyone likes to think that they are good judges of what is and isn't appropriate speed. A performance driving instructor friend of mine thinks that even the Police aren't good judges of a particular person, unless they spend a lot of time assessing their driving, before coming to a decision.

The problem arises in how to deal with this. If drivers were better trained then accident rates would go down. Unfortunately, a driving licience is now a necessity of life and if everyone had to sit another test most would fail. The pass rate for the extended driving re-test (Given to those disqualified by the courts) is amazingly low. I spent a small fortune learning to drive properly and I have come to realise that the majority of the population would not be capable of high standards of driving. The government also realises this, so it targets the only thing that could reduce the fatality rate. If you slow down, it reduces the amount of injuries recieved. Mind you, if they put the EC regulation for pedestrian safety in, that would reduce things further. Rather than treating the symptoms of the problem, the aim is to reduce the effect.

 

We're all getting a little serious here but...

I think the original point that the ad was pants we all agree on :

Surely it would have been better to have two - both from behind the driver's seat, one with driver on the phone & eating a sandwich obviously not paying attention to the road, & the other with someone obviously concentrating. In both cases, kid runs out in front of car (preferably 'real situation' running out in front of car rather than appearing 'as if by magic') & the careful driver - who has anticipated more/concentrating/actually looking about the place - can stop (mainly?) in time, and the one who's 'in a meeting' (or whatever) slams into the kid without really even noticing. A sort of 'how to drive with due care and attention' type thing.

Oh no, hang on, that wouldn't work - it would get the message across that driving carefully & at the right speed for the situation was the thing to do, when the right thing to do is to be mindlessly driving at 30 (not 35!) & dribble quietly over the wheel. I forgot.

 

D-turn,
I have followed this thread with interest as i thought the Ad was very badly put together and it has caused some heated discussions with the mrs...

Spot on mate, I have taken advanced road riding courses for my bike as well as track days schooling and general adavanced road riding nout for me car as yet (IAD soon)and people in general would not be up to the std re-test let alone anything further. It's quote shocking how much you miuss until someone points it out to you. Speed kills, no it does not. However cars do, buses do and inapropriate use of said vehicle is going to get you in hot water full stop.

Am i the only person that was annoyed by this ad as it was inaccurate but the underlying message is so very important so it needs to be addresed. How you think they could have done this better.

We are all still learning bad habits, trust me a free one hour drive with an Institute of advanced motoring instructor will open your eye's, and no we are not talking skid control, or stunt manovoures, check it out and do it if only to get a second opinion to aggree Mr. Mc Rae has nothing on you !!!

Phill

 

I don't think the ad is misleading as such. If the driver had been doing 30 instead of 35, and started to react at the same point on the road, and had a car without ABS brakes, then the ad is absolutely correct. Mind you if he had been doing 30, not 35, then (s)he would have been a long way further back on the road and there would have been no drama.

I reckon they should go back to the shock tactic ads. I've got a big enough collection of sick photos from jobs to put most people off driving badly.

BTW, if you're thinking of doing some advanced driver training in the car, try either HPC or the Hairy Don himself at Driving Development.

[Edited by DTurn - 2/19/2002 6:47:05 PM]

 

...and if you're a parent who's going to take some driver training, make sure you teach you kids the Green Cross Code first.

 

u can teach kids the green cross code but you cant stop them being impulsive and exitable- they will make mistakes.

 

I have just read this topic from start to finish, and the point of the ad is right here in this post.

It's got everybody on here discussing it, so it must have had some impact, negative or positive.

Up in Norfolk, a while ago, there was an incident where some kid came flying past a school in Bacton (I think)at chucking out time. He lost control of the vehicle, and ploughed into a group of mothers and their kids standing outside. Very fortunately, no-one was killed, but several were injured, one kid seriously.

Ever since then, I drive at like 15mph past schools at any time, and remind myself to be more aware in built up areas. I think too many people drive on auto-pilot anywhere and everywhere. I am no perfect driver by any means, but I like to think that I am more aware than I used to be.

As long as it gets you thinking, then it's fine by me. Don't want to watch the ad - turn over. Simple as.

Flame suit on, but I'm not sure why!

 

Tiggs,

Isn't EXIT the pro-suicide lobby in which case if your kids are exitable does that mean they are prone to suicide like running out in front of a car!!!!

Just wondering??

tiggers.