"[I]Of course. But not crashing is better than crashing slower.[/i]"
This is true, and of course sounds glib and winning, but its truth is only skin deep. This simply doesn't work as a systemic solution.
To make that philosophy work you need to engineer in the "not crashing" bit. Which is why we can very safely travel at 200mph by train.
To apply it to the roads - the attitude that speed is fine provided you don't crash - is hugely problematic, because it's well documented that people think they're better drivers than they are and that things don't happen to them; and they're also pretty poor at anticipating certain things or considering others' potential behaviour.
That attitude is why people pass cyclists on the road with inches to spare.
And that attitude is precisely what killed Denisa Penirova.
There's a lot if supposition on this thread. A lot of opinion presented as fact, a lot of assumptions dressed up as certainty.
There are a few facts only...
- Everyone of us makes mistakes as a driver, pedestrian or cyclist on the highway
- None of us are perfect
- Lack of care and attention costs lives
- Recklessness cost lives
Rather than arguing about cruise control, speeding and overtaking - why do we not agree to take a little more care tomorrow and the next day, the day after that etc... You get the picture.
We might then actually achieve something in this thread, more than classic passive-aggressive behaviour or dick measuring anyway...?
molgrips - MemberCruise control does not mean inattention.
It doesn't automatically mean inattention, do you mean? That's true but the link between cruise control and careless driving's been studied and seems pretty well accepted. (and is not in the least bit surprising)
deadlydarcy - MemberSpeed limiting does not disengage you from speed control in the same way that cruise control does. You can keep saying it all day, but it won't make it true Northwind.
How on earth does it not? It is 2 slightly different ways to achieve the exact same result, steady speed with no driver thought.
Bez - MemberTo apply it to the roads - the attitude that speed is fine provided you don't crash - is hugely problematic,
I never said it does. The point I'm making is that this isn't as simple as reducing speed without any possible ill effects. If it were, it would be easy to argue for. But it's entirely possible, and previous studies suggest it's likely, that it will decrease driver's attention and therefore increase the risk of accidents.
That's true but the link between cruise control and careless driving's been studied and seems pretty well accepted
Well I'm sceptical. All cruise control does is save you having to keep your foot in a fixed position. It's just as easy to drift off with your foot on the pedal.
Very sceptial of that conclusion and of your assertion. Especially as pointed out, it's not really like cruise control anyway.
How on earth does it not? It is 2 slightly different ways to achieve the exact same result, steady speed with no driver thought.
Er no, you still control your speed, you just can't go faster than a set ammount.
molgrips - MemberEr no, you still control your speed, you just can't go faster than a set ammount.
You control your speed with cruise control too! But don't tell me you don't think people would just cruise at the limit. That's the important bit- foot on pedal, car on limit, brain in same mode as cruise control. Setting CC to 70 is no different from letting the car's limiter carry you along at 70.
Have a quick google if you like- University of Strasbourg says drowsiness increased by 25%, reaction times by 1 second. The German Department of Traffic and Engineering Psychology also finds delayed reaction times.
Considering that 3/10 road deaths in France are sleep or drowsiness related, that 25% sounds like it's something to worry about. And needless to say, delayed reaction times will both cause crashes, and increase the speed at the point of collisions.
I call bollocks. That's ridiculous. So cruising along a motorway with my foot on the pedal is somehow more engaging and stimulating than without?
Personally I would say of course it is. Keeping speed steady isn't just a case of setting your foot and leaving it there for hours. Perhaps on a completely flat, straight road with no changes in weather conditions. And a robot leg.
It's not the foot on the pedal that matters, of course, that's all just hardware.
You still have to drive when using cruise. Isn't that obvious?
I could only find one reference on Google and it left loads of unanswered questions.
But for [b]everyone else [/b]it means they have thought "this is pretty safe here I can switch of for a bit and just cruise"
Balls.
If anyone thinks they can 'switch off' when driving, they are a crap driver and will crash, cruise control or not.
Driving is like making love to a beautiful woman.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
You'd be a crap shag molgrips 😀
molgrips - MemberYou still have to drive when using cruise. Isn't that obvious?
Of course that's obvious, and beside the point. I don't see what's so hard to believe tbh... It's not that it forces you to be instantly inattentive or drowsy, that'd be ridiculous. But it's one less thing to think about. And that means it's one less thing to keep you sharp, and it's one less thing that can make you notice when your attention wavers.
Arguendo... You're driving along, fully under your own control. You're feeling tired, one of the things you may notice as a symptom of your unwitting loss of focus is wavering steering or speed. Take one of those away, and you have less warning signs. Is that controversial?
Not juggling doesn't cause you to fall asleep, but good luck falling asleep while juggling.
But it's one less thing to think about
No it's not!
Unless the motorway is completely 100% empty, in which case what are you gonna crash into?
Take one of those away, and you have less warning signs. Is that controversial?
Seems far fetched. That you'll notice how you're not noticing things... If you're tired enough to be that crap at driving, you're tired enough to be a liability with or without cruise. I can't see it.
Whenever I get tired driving I'm well aware of it, on account of feeling really tired. I then try to take steps to fix the situation. Cruise control doesn't enter into it imo.
Cruise control still doesn't control a car's speed in the same way as speed limiting. You can still keep saying it, but it's still not true.
Just in case it's not clear:
Cruise [b]Control[/b]
Speed [b]Limiting[/b]
molgrips - MemberSeems far fetched. That you'll notice how you're not noticing things...
Doesn't seem at all farfetched to me tbh. Nor to these two institutions investigating it, obviously. I see no reason to doubt it. The entire point of loss of focus and judgement is that you've lost your focus and judgement. "Oh I feel tired but I'm driving fine" is probably exactly what everyone who's too tired to drive safely tells themselves. I think maybe you're seeing this too much from the perspective of a conscientious driver?
molgrips - MemberUnless the motorway is completely 100% empty, in which case what are you gonna crash into?
Oh I don't know... Not the motorway? Nodding at the wheel isn't that good an idea even on an empty motorway I reckon. But this isn't right in any case, you can easily cruise on the motorway when it's not empty.
deadlydarcy - MemberCruise control still doesn't control a car's speed in the same way as speed limiting. You can still keep saying it, but it's still not true.
Just in case it's not clear:
Cruise Control
Speed Limiting
DD, you don't actually seem to be saying anything? Cruise control at 70mph, speed limiter at 70mph, tell me why are these different other than the fact that you've put some words in bold? The foot on the accelerator, forgotten about, is no different to the foot on the floor, forgotten about- what's doing the speed control is not the driver, it's the car.
Mines limited.
To 155mph
If you read your last paragraph there Northwind, you've nearly answered your own question.
Oh go on DD, you've made 3 different posts and not actually said anything other than "no it isn't". I've done you the courtesy of explaining my reasoning, is it too much to ask you do too?
Something very tragic about this thread still being on the front page.
I have a Citroen C1. Surely it qualifies for speed limited.
I'm with Molgrips on this one.
Have you ever tried driving with a car on cruise control in this country? It's a bloody scary experience and your hand is never off the button which changes the speed. It is impossible to drive in this country at a set speed for any distance because the rest of the muppets on the road are doing a yoyo drive.
molgrips - Member
Unless the motorway is completely 100% empty, in which case what are you gonna crash into?
Hold onto that thought for a second. Now, imagine conditions are ideal with excellent visibility and no wind. Would you exceed the speed limit? Even just by 5mph? What about 10 (too much)? Go on...Ok, that's enough. Back down to 70 again, and breathe. That wasn't so bad was it?
Oh go on DD, you've made 3 different posts and not actually said anything other than "no it isn't". I've done you the courtesy of explaining my reasoning, is it too much to ask you do too?
Oh steady on petal, don't go getting all sensitive one me. 🙂
Right, in your last paragraph, you say:
The foot on the accelerator
So tell me, what is maintaining the car at 70mph? (leaving aside any philosophical argument about whether it's the engine or fuel or whatever) Is it the car? No. There's some trickery [b][i]limiting[/i][/b] the car to 70mph. It is still the driver's foot on the pedal that is maintaining the car at 70mph. What happens if the driver lifts his foot? Don't need to answer that do we?
As for CC, the driver just has his foot resting in the footwell, neither engaged with the brake pedal or the accelerator. Hell, he can have his both knees up under the steering wheel if he wants. Which is what I do if I'm driving on the motorway when it's very quiet and I'm not likely to have to make quick decisions about altering my speed. Yes, I'm slightly disengaged from the act of driving, but only because the road conditions allow me this luxury. As I was taught in my driving lessons, I still keep checking my mirrors, but y'know, rolling a ciggie or pouring a cup of coffee from my flask is a little easier. 🙂 If the road gets busy, I switch the CC off and re-engage my foot on the accelerator or brake (of course, I don't know of any CC systems that don't switch off when the brake is engaged anyway, but that's another discussion.)
You're making the assumption that someone driving a speed-limited vehicle will always drive to the limit. Why do you make this assumption?
Something very tragic about this thread still being on the front page.
We all know what's even more tragic don't we?
glupton1976 - MemberHave you ever tried driving with a car on cruise control in this country? It's a bloody scary experience and your hand is never off the button which changes the speed.
I use it often 😕 Nothing scary about it unless you use it at silly times.
deadlydarcy - MemberYou're making the assumption that someone driving a speed-limited vehicle will always drive to the limit.
No, I'm obviously not- I'm making the assumption that some people will. Or rather, stating the inevitable fact that some people will. Speed limit's a target don't you know?
deadlydarcy - MemberWhat happens if the driver lifts his foot? Don't need to answer that do we?
Yes, and? You can turn off cruise control with a movement of the foot, you can turn off the accelerator with a movement of your foot. With a speed limiter, you can plonk your foot on the accelerator, unthinking, and you hold a steady speed.
As I said about a page ago. Your brain's exactly as involved whether your foot's plonked heavy on the pedal or on the floor. Your brain's more involved if your foot is constantly controlling the speed. It's pretty simple.
Not using cruise doesn't make you think any more. Hardly anyone thinks about their speed on motorways anyway, that's obvious. They slow down when something is in front of them. You still have to do this with cruise, otherwise you hit the first lorry you come to.
molgrips - MemberNot using cruise doesn't make you think any more.
Apart from those folks in the studies, apparently.
Living in Australia, with plenty of long quiet roads, cc concentrates on my speed so that I can concentrate on other things, like looking where I'm going and trying not to drive into kangaroos or being sideswiped by fish tailing road trains. But, in busier areas I find it a pain in the arse. Last time I drove in the uk I had a hire car with it, and tbh it was a pita. Constant on/off, and far easier to regulate my speed with my right foot.
Right, I might regret this 🙂
I got interested in speed limiters- after all, they already exist, we don't need to conjecture. And found quotes from research by Leeds University which found that drivers with speed limiters fitted were less likely to reduce speed for adverse driving conditions- for example, when driving in fog in a 70 limit, drivers of unlimited vehicles dropped to an average of 55mph, while limited drivers dropped to 60. Limited cars had a large increase in tailgaiting, and were almost twice as likely to decide to drive through an amber rather than stop.
So, all leading to the same conclusion, that drivers of speed limited cars are less keen to slow down than drivers who have no restriction on their speed.
Problem with this is that I can't get back to the original study- all I have is an extract, in a terrible anti- piece from the Association of British Drivers. So it's a bit suspect. But at the same time- it's a pretty reasonable outcome. Everyone's seen trucks doing ridiculous creeping overtakes with neither prepared to slow down from their max for a moment. Tell some people they can't go as fast as they want, and they will go as fast as they're allowed, right?
Also a recurring theme is that vehicles with a crude max speed limiter (ie, not a location sensitive one) seem to increase the incidence of speeding below the limit to a higher level than is seen in equivalent vehicles without limiters (lots of US stuff on this) Again, quite rational, people are inclined to speed when they have the opportunity, when they know it'll be taken away. (so here, you've got an impact of reducing speeds on the safest roads and increasing speeds on less safe roads)
Yes, and?
You haven't answered the question. Who or what is maintaining the speed? The car or the driver? And who or what is maintaining the speed of the car when it's on cc? In which scenario is the driver more engaged with driving?
Who or what is maintaining the speed? The car or the driver?
The engine
HTH
I see little difference between cruise and limited, if anything I think limited would be more dangerous as you do not have to make any active decision as to what speed to set, just shove your foot to the floor.
I also think it would make a % of people driver FASTER in 30 or 40 zones, Im am not talking about all the impeccable drivers above, but mummy on the school run who would rather talk to their kids, and chav Dave in his Corsa who will be in a rush keep the foot planted every where.
Who or what is maintaining the speed? The car or the driver?
The engine
HTH
🙂
Knew [i]someone[/i] would say it.
Apart from those folks in the studies, apparently
And who were they?
The ones jn the study I saw a reference to were off the street, and were likely not used to cruise. There is a small learning curve, when you see a hazard and your brain tells your foot to lift off but nothing happens and you realise you have to brake. That could easily account for their half a second reaction time or whatever the figure was.
And for those who currently drive speed limited cars - professional drivers? Who could be more likely to tailgate and drive badly anyway?
Lots of questions.
Have you ever tried driving with a car on cruise control in this country?
Yes.
Every day, and for large amounts of my journeys.
And I do a LOT of miles.
....It's a bloody scary experience
I [b][i]think[/i][/b] you might be doing it wrong 😐
I agree with neal, I use cruise all the time. Only time I turn it off is when it's really busy.
Not sure how it can be scary.. It is really easy to disengage.. Did you know it disengages?
I have a motorbike capable of 150mph. However I don't see the need to get anywhere near its top speed on public roads. The accleration though has helped in sticky situations when other drivers decide their coming into my lane without looking. A quick blast of the throttle and I'm in front of them.
In my car it's generally a quick dab of the brakes, but the proposed system would still allow you to break the limit for a moment.
I'm a bit non-plussed about some tech in cars. Cruise control is OK but cruise control that automatically adjusts your speed if you come up in front of slower cars is better, just very little use when using the UK's busy motorways.
My car has a sort of drowsiness awareness tech. If it detects that you are tired is gives an alarm. It's only gone off once (8hours driving in heavy rain on busy M-way). It made me consider how tired I was (it's non-subjective) even though you can convince yourself that you aren't. I stopped and took a break even though I was near home.
Automatic collision prevention tech is also good IMO.
Speed limiters. Completely non-fussed about. Just press the loud pedal less.
but the proposed system would still allow you to break the limit for a moment.
🙄
You're making this up (badly) as you go along. How long is this 'moment'? Long enough to overtake a car? Two cars? A 40 footer? Two or three in a row (they sometimes travel in packs)?. What if the vehicle you're overtaking speeds up? So many possibilities to throw a spanner in the works. Unless every vehicle on the road is fitted with your imaginary safety system (ISS) then it's a dumb idea. Anyone who thinks it's not should be made to take the bus or train.
Molgrips, you can dab your brakes and thats probably the safer option in a car. But, and its really childish attitude. But you shouldn't have to brake. Because their to incompetent to use their bloody mirrors or even to look in whats next to them. I don't ride in peoples blinds spots, but on a motorway there is gonna be a miniscule time when im in a blind spot, so they should be checking over their shoulder.
And if they do that, i don't want them in front of me.
But, and its really childish attitude
I don't think you undetrstand. I meant, if I'm alongside someone and they start to change lanes into me, I brake rather than accelerate. I can brake much quicker than even your fast bike can accelerate.
My god, there are a load of holier than thou dogooders on this thread.
Why don't you have a nice sit down, slip off your sandals, enjoy some nice vegan falafel while watching the lib dem conference.
Meanwhile, the roads will be safer for the rest of us.
You're driving along, fully under your own control. You're feeling tired, one of the things you may notice as a symptom of your unwitting loss of focus is wavering steering or speed. Take one of those away, and you have less warning signs. Is that controversial?
Doesn't this disprove your own hypothesis? You speed will still drop when you get tired as it's still your foot maintaining the speed. This whole limit=cruise control is spurious in the extreme.
And found quotes from research by Leeds University which found that drivers with speed limiters fitted were less likely to reduce speed for adverse driving conditions- for example, when driving in fog in a 70 limit, drivers of unlimited vehicles dropped to an average of 55mph, while limited drivers dropped to 60. Limited cars had a large increase in tailgaiting, and were almost twice as likely to decide to drive through an amber rather than stop.
This is what happens in an environment where there are few speed limited cars and it's not the norm. What happens where everyone is limited?
Also these effects are interesting but also meaningless. What we really need to know is if speed limited cars result in less accidents? Any figures? They must exist from insurance companies?
Unless every vehicle on the road is fitted with your imaginary safety system (ISS) then it's a dumb idea. Anyone who thinks it's not should be made to take the bus or train.
This isn't even close to being a dumb idea (apart from being able to break the limit for a moment, that is dumb). How can stopping things from going to fast ever be dumb?
People who think this will make things more dangerous. They are the ones who should be off the roads, I don't trust their judgement. There is not a single dangerous situation that couldn't be improved by braking, not one and nobody is going to fall asleep just because their car won't do 80.
