Unnecessary? Because everyone’s such a great driver they don’t need any aids?
Seriously?
Yes, seriously, because many of these ‘aids’ are nothing of the sort, they’re just manufacturers getting carried away with all the whizzy new electronics and fancy selling points to try to flog new cars. All of the really important safety aids are already built into pretty much every modern car, everything else is just sparkly glitz. Nobody needs every control to be on a touchscreen. Mobile phones are banned while driving a car; tell me how it’s then safe for every function in a car to be on what is effectively a smartphone.
It’s ok, I’ve got plenty of time, I can wait.
More car drivers might die but less cyclists and pedestrians
It won’t be long before you’re physically unable to run over a pedestrian because it will slam the brakes on for you.
The number of pedestrians killed by cyclists will be higher than those killed by cars, though. Most Saturdays I sit outside a small cafe in town, which is busy with pedestrians, especially as there is an RSPCA charity shop next door, and every day, I see probably half a dozen people on bikes come past me at high speed, by which I mean at least 10mph, some well over that, between 15-20. On a public footpath heavily used by all ages. It’s only a matter of time before one of these assholes goes full tilt into an elderly person getting out of a car, or walking out of the charity shop, which has a recessed frontage, so the door is set back from the path.
Oh, and directly in front of where I sit are two disabled parking spaces, along with regular parking spaces in front of the rest of the shops.
Personally, your obsession with cars doing more than 70 on a main road would be far better directed at cyclists who ride in such a stupid, reckless and downright dangerous ****ing manner!
Cougar
Risk compensation is real
Of course it is. But killing off the non-conforming in order to thin the herd isn't really the answer now, is it. I'm unconvinced that that's what Darwin had in mind.
Mobile phones are banned while driving a car; tell me how it’s then safe for every function in a car to be on what is effectively a smartphone.
It isn't, it's garbage.
Personally, your obsession with cars doing more than 70 on a main road would be far better directed at cyclists who ride in such a stupid, reckless and downright dangerous **** manner!
A[part from cyclist very rarely kill anyone. Car drivers do most days. Look at the stats
Yes, seriously, because many of these ‘aids’ are nothing of the sort, they’re just manufacturers getting carried away with all the whizzy new electronics and fancy selling points to try to flog new cars. All of the really important safety aids are already built into pretty much every modern car, everything else is just sparkly glitz.
Just because you drove some cars to Cornwall for your job (I think you might have mentioned it once or twice), doesn’t qualify you as an expert in vehicle and system design. The newer aids might not provide the step change in safety that existing aids such as ABS, ESP, airbags, etc did, but they make incremental improvements to safety which all add up. Existing systems such as ABS and ESP are also improving all the time, partly aided by the better system integration - aka whizzy electronics. There is a lot more to making a car function than a touchscreen
they’re just manufacturers getting carried away with all the whizzy new electronics and fancy selling points to try to flog new cars.
Ok boomer.
Safety features have nothing whatsoever to do with the touchscreen trend, by the way.
Ok Boomer - LOLz
Ruddy millennials
The number of pedestrians killed by cyclists will be higher than those killed by cars, though
"Screw your statistics, i'm going with my gut feelings on this"
Cyclists kill a person every few years, statistically so insignificant that you can *almost* but not quite say they they kill no one, motorists kill 5 a day, which includes those killed by riders of illegally modified, throttle controlled "bikes" aka, electric motorbikes.
Yes, seriously, because many of these ‘aids’ are nothing of the sort, they’re just manufacturers getting carried away with all the whizzy new electronics and fancy selling points to try to flog new cars.
There is shit loads of data out there about numbers of accidents avoided/mitigated against and those where the severity has been reduced by vehicle systems. Obviously the data about accidents that didn't happen is the least reliable. But you can see (on the vehicle data logs) where the various systems cut in and either amplified what the driver wasn't doing enough of, or did something the driver didn't even think to do.
The number of pedestrians killed by cyclists will be higher than those killed by cars, though.
You what?
But you can see (on the vehicle data logs) where the various systems cut in and either amplified what the driver wasn’t doing enough of, or did something the driver didn’t even think to do.
So engineers actually engineer things rather than must make something up on the spur of the moment or after reading a few webpages? Wow, who'd have thought it?
There is shit loads of data out there about numbers of accidents avoided/mitigated against and those where the severity has been reduced by vehicle systems. Obviously the data about accidents that didn’t happen is the least reliable. But you can see (on the vehicle data logs) where the various systems cut in and either amplified what the driver wasn’t doing enough of, or did something the driver didn’t even think to do.
I've never driven a car with any of these driver aids but there seem to be quite a few reports of cars slamming on the brakes with nothing to avoid, following the original lane lines in roadworks, steering cars back into lane when there's not enough room eg. Country lanes.
Are these statistically insignificant, bullshit or just ignored in the research?
Are there numerous instances when the driver prevents the car from causing an accident which are not recorded?
78% of all statistics are difficult for non-statisticians. There was a police awareness type advert outside where I used to work claiming something like "2 of 5 thefts from vehicles happen to unlocked cars." I thought great, I'm leaving my car unlocked in future then, that's far better odds!
The Ford Fiesta is, I believe, the most stolen car in the UK. So there must be a problem with it, right? Except, it's also the most common car in the UK. Comparing absolute numbers without context is often meaningless. It's self-evident that a pedestrian is likely to be better off being hit by a cyclist than a car, but if we're going to "look at the stats" then the first stat we need is the number of riders vs the number of drivers on the road or the figures are a nonsense.
(I haven't fact-checked the Fiesta thing, but if it's incorrect it doesn't really matter, it's just an example.)
I’ve never driven a car with any of these driver aids but there seem to be quite a few reports of cars slamming on the brakes with nothing to avoid, following the original lane lines in roadworks, steering cars back into lane when there’s not enough room eg. Country lanes.
Are these statistically insignificant, bullshit or just ignored in the research?
What are you driving, a Hillman Hunter?
The thing is, you're quite correct, these systems are fallible. I once had the adaptive cruise control stand the car on its nose because it detected a hazard up ahead. The hazard it locked on for was an empty crisp packet blowing about.
But, we're getting there I think. It's probably still a net gain.
Are there numerous instances when the driver prevents the car from causing an accident which are not recorded?
Back in *handwave* the late 90s, my manager of the day asked me to make a list of everything I hadn't thought of. This question reminds me of that day.
I’ve never driven a car with any of these driver aids but there seem to be quite a few reports of cars slamming on the brakes with nothing to avoid, following the original lane lines in roadworks, steering cars back into lane when there’s not enough room eg. Country lanes.
For the first, my collision alert really doesn't like cars turning in front of me, it's never flung the brakes on though, that's presumably after it's figured out whether the collision is going to happen or not.
Second, they only follow white lines so that's entirely possible and why the driver is there to make a decision.
Lastly, my lane guidance switches off below 40 mph (I think, maybe 30) which is about where I'd be driving on such a small lane. Regardless, mine requires a line on both sides to function which most country lanes I've ever seen lack.
Are there numerous instances when the driver prevents the car from causing an accident which are not recorded?
Near misses?
When was the last time you reported one in any context? I'd imagine they could be captured from on-board telemetry but unless there was a function to flag a near miss nobody is going to know about it. More likely is actual road testing would be used for that, statistics used to extrapolate the results and decisions made to mitigate. Like my lane guidance not working in slow speed situations (like navigating urban areas).
following the original lane lines in roadworks, steering cars back into lane when there’s not enough room eg. Country lanes.
With lane assist, the car does not steer itself. It nudges the wheel, but you can easily override it, it's not that strong. You're in control.
Actual autonomous driving is a different matter, and that's where stuff like old lines on roads would be an issue. My car does pick up phantom lines sometimes but like I say, just keep on your current line and you're fine.
Phantom emergency braking could be an issue though as that will override your input completely.
What are you driving, a Hillman Hunter?
I’ve never driven a vehicle that stops itself or has lane assist. I get a new work van every couple of years.
It’s a decent spec Connect at the mo, with ABS, traction control and maybe ESP? Oh and reversing sensors.
Possibly it has brake assist, I’ve not needed to stop it that quickly yet.
It doesn’t even have a passenger airbag.
It does have an eight speed auto, alloy wheels, air con, cruise control and hill start. Heated mirrors, seats and screen Those aren’t really active safety features
It does have the Ford connectivity location thing. Which is switched off.
With lane assist, the car does not steer itself.
As above - I drove a car that certainly did. It would turn the steering to keep you in the lane. You could over ride it but it certainly turned the car
You could over ride it
That's what I mean. It's making strong suggestions, but it is not in charge.
And override means just steering in the direction you want to go against a slight resistance isn't it? It's not like you need to fumble through the menu options to turn it off when you try to overtake or shift lanes.
Yes. It turns the wheel a bit, but if you're holding onto it it isn't at all difficult to override it. It's just disconcerting at first. I have got used to it pretty quickly. I leave it on because it might save my life some day, or someine else's.
It's a bit like the old Force Feedback on game controllers.
I turned it off because, as I said earlier, its choice of lane position was crap so it was constantly wibbling away to itself when I was trying to drive in a straight line.
Or your choice of line was crap.
Mine doesn't bother me on the motorway unless I really do drift towards the edge of the lane. It does get confused by sliproads sometimes if the lines are scrubbed off.
I've been driving since 1990 and I was taught in-lane positioning on an advanced driving session. I'm reasonably confident that I know where I should be within a lane.
Apparently so 🙂 but why do you think your car doesn't? Isn't doing something other than keeping you in the middle of the lane?
Is the middle of the lane the right place to be? At all times?
You've just answered your own question.
Apparently so 🙂 but why do you think your car doesn’t?
I'm guessing his car has a shit system. Funnily enough not all are made equally.
Whilst there is the very rare occasion where the ability to speed up is useful to get you out of trouble, those occasions are vastly outnumbered by times when going faster gets you into trouble.
Police Officer chum, who did a lot of Traffic, told me that he had never attended an RTA where going faster would have helped.
It would if you were there before the accident, so weren’t involved. Steady 140mph should solve that.
Police Officer chum, who did a lot of Traffic, told me that he had never attended an RTA where going faster would have helped.
Of course he did, that was his job. How many near misses did he attend?
I've had this situation happen, more than once. Some pillock comes steaming out of a side street or running a red light at a crossroads. They're on a collision course with my rear quarter. Do I:
a) do nothing and get my back end taken out,
b) stand on the brakes and get t-boned instead,
c) attempt to swerve out of the way, throwing myself into oncoming traffic,
d) stand on the loud pedal to get out of harm's way?
It's a rare scenario for sure. But it can happen and sometimes acceleration is the best answer.
I am guessing that temporarily accelerating to avoid an accident is not what the Police Officer chum was implying when he said "going faster" as they would have be referring to overall speed.
In your scenario above you could also accelerate out of that accident straight into another where cars ahead of you were not expecting you to suddenly accelerate, i.e. speed has not helped after all.
Question - If all cars had a max speed of 20mph how many serious accidents would there be?
I am going to say pretty much zero meaning speed is a big aspect in serious accidents.
In your scenario above you could also accelerate out of that accident straight into another where cars ahead of you were not expecting you to suddenly accelerate, i.e. speed has not helped after all.
I could.
I could've done many things that didn't happen.
Question – If all cars had a max speed of 20mph how many serious accidents would there be?
I am going to say pretty much zero meaning speed is a big aspect in serious accidents.
Great, limit all vehicles to 20mph. Job jobbed.
I am going to say pretty much zero meaning speed is a big aspect in serious accidents.
Speed is a compounding factor, the biggest aspect is the driver(s). If you reduced poor drivers by 20% then you'd see a greater reduction in collisions than by a 20% reduction in speed
Well the only factor is the driver in that case (maybe not the only factor but I'd bet that accidents where mechanical failure or something similar is a factor are very low). It's like saying guns don't kill people. People kill people. I do agree though that the test needs to be a lot tougher.
What are you driving a Hillman Hunter?
Lol. A 2016 Ford CMax, it has ABS, Traction Control and Rear Parking Sensors but no automatic lane or braking capabilities.
More likely is actual road testing would be used for that, statistics used to extrapolate the results and decisions made to mitigate.
That's what I was meaning.
There seems to be a lot of conflating 2 different aspects of collisions ( not accidents - actual accidents where no one is to blame are very rare)
1) the severity of a crash where speed is clearly a huge factor and indeed the main one
2) the likelihood of a crash where speed is one of many factors
The accelerate to above the speed limit to avoid a crash is a very rare / highly unlikely situation and even if real the extra accidents and injuries caused by being unable to accelerate would be far less than the accidents avoided or minimized by the inability to speed
Greatest good of greatest number
Let's look at the statistics. Driver aids are you, traffic is way up, anecdotally aggression is up, but deaths are down.
, but deaths are down.
Deaths of car drivers and passengers but not of pedestrians and cyclists
Its that pesky risk compensation again
stand on the loud pedal to get out of harm’s way?
Oh god this is one of those threads where everyone is an awesome platinum elite driver who engages turbo thrust to speed around the dangerous amateurs...instead of being some dreary IT manager from Cleethorpes driving a secondhand mini-MPV
If you reduced poor drivers by 20% then you’d see a greater reduction in collisions than by a 20% reduction in speed
I'm curious as to how you might reduce poor drivers, a couple of pages back speed limiters were apparently an unenforceable concept (despite already existing). I presume there's a set of criteria to ID these individuals and then have them culled?
And aren't 'poor drivers' (at least in part) prone to speeding? excess speed reduces their (already limited) ability to react, perhaps we could mitigate the effects of this 20% of wronguns by, you know, forcing their vehicles to obey speed limits for them?
You know, while you come up with some way to magically skim off the worst 20%...
Oh god this is one of those threads where everyone is an awesome platinum elite driver who engages turbo thrust to speed around the dangerous amateurs…instead of being some dreary IT manager from Cleethorpes driving a secondhand mini-MPV
Did you not attended the Knight industries school of advanced motoring? Everyone know moar speed will save you when...
Crossing a busy junction:
https://youtube.com/shorts/jPtjpScBD_o?feature=share
Dealing with tailgating:
https://youtube.com/shorts/DZl6_4kzaaE?feature=share
What we should do is keep the safety aids but remove all comfort. Windows, heating, air-con, entertainment, comfy seats, plush suspension. Get rid of the lot and make it unbelievably uncomfortable to go quickly. Nobody would be driving fast in inclement weather!
I’m curious as to how you might reduce poor drivers,
thats an easy one. Mandatory retesting every few years. Ramp up fines for traffic offenses significantly and use this to pay for more traffic police. Allow random breath testing, reduce the number of points needed for a ban. More traffic cameras. More enforcement of parking laws, More checks on vehicles
Deaths of car drivers and passengers but not of pedestrians and cyclists
Its that pesky risk compensation again
That's not risk compensation at all - if it were, you'd see car occupant deaths as flat or increasing.
It's just an obvious reflection if the fact that it's a lot easier to physically protect the occupants of a car (who are strapped into an airbag-filled steel cage) than it is to protect the people that the car hits. It's exactly why crash avoidance etc is so important - because it protects people outside the car.
All this toss about "drivers will become lazy with too much help, they need to be alert and awesome like me" is a waste of time. Drivers have always been useless and lazy, and we are all useless and lazy. We need all the help that we can get and, obviously, to collectively drive much less.
cookeaa
a couple of pages back speed limiters were apparently an unenforceable concept (despite already existing)
Yes - there are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of vehicles in this country that already have them. It's not witchcraft.
Great, limit all vehicles to 20mph. Job jobbed.
Well as well as bringing road deaths down to almost zero it would also mean less people would bother driving as they may ride their bikes (as now almost just as quick and nicer duet less cars and slower cars), take
But then nobody really wants bold solutions do they...
That’s not risk compensation at all – if it were, you’d see car occupant deaths as flat or increasing.
It is - they take more risks and thus we see pedestrian and cyclist deaths increasing. the extra protection for car occupants is greater than the risk increase from the riskier behaviour
this is all well researched stuff. Its not (generally) conscious behaviour
