Safe Speed Forums

We all sit in our comfy cars strapped to our seats and surrounded by crumple zones airbags and reinforced doors, we have our ABS to avoid having to worry about braking in poor conditions and the air conditioning isolates us from the outside environment, so how do we feel? Safe and invunerable, nothing can hurt us.

Now what if all the "safety" features were removed and instead we had a nice big spike sticking out of the steering wheel.

Would we drive the same?

No we wouldn't drive the same. It's the same with seat belts, you do feel safer with one on and drive differently in my opinion.

It's a commonly held belief but I don't think it stands up to scrutiny. If drivers are compesating for extra safety features by driving more dangerously then why are roads getting safer?

I don't believe a spike on the steering wheel would make people drive any differently since they don't go out with the idea tha tthey are going to crash.

If we say people set out driving with the firm belief that they will not crash then it does not matter how much the crash will hurt because they believe it will not happen.

For example. There are plenty of people driving aroound with no seatbelts on, do they drive more safely?

i think driving is more governed by comfort than perceived safety.

you slow down for speed bumps not cos its safer but because you don't like banging your head on the roof lining!

i'd theorise the same for braking/accel & cornering. ABS will (often) get you decceleration of over 1g on dry tarmac which is uncomfortable for a driver to do regularly let alone the passengers. lateral acceleration of above 0.5g likewise can be pretty uncomfortable.

Did we drive safer prior to seat belts. When we would have our faces smashed into the screen or chest crushed by the steering wheel......NO

In my time I have driven cars with and without seat belts fitted (not mandatory fitment prior to cars built up to 1966). It did not affect my driving at all.

But then again I also ride a motorcycle.
no seat belts
no ABS
no air bag
no traction control
In places where it is legal, no helmet

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

I disagree. I think we all have a level of risk we are willing to take. This is different for different people. If you lower the risk in one area you simply increase the risk in another area. I think crashes did increase when seat belts became obligatory.

To see the vailidity of this argument, let's turn it round.

There should be no pedestrian safety features built into cars. That will make pedestrians more careful they don't walk out in front of cars, won't it.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Or alternatively - charge them with jaywalking /dangerous walking or walking without due care and attention.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I also believe in 'risk compensation. When we drive we are continuously
controlling a subjective level of risk. We go faster when we have more space
because we're resetting risk levels. We slow down in areas of danger because
we're resetting risk levels.

The risk assessment process is mostly a subconscious one, and it's hard to
know what it takes account of (at least beyond the obvious 'immediate
dangers').

The risk assesment process is also closely tied with attention, concentration
and arousal levels. We need a certain amount of risk to stimulate us into
being interested and engaged in the task.

I've found no evidence at all that general improvements in vehicle design lead
to riskier behaviours (as might be suggested: "because we feel safer")

I find the following chart persuasive that road risks shifted when seat belts
were made compulsory:

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Your graph shows a down turn in motorist deaths and a rise in pedestrians and cyclists in 1982- 1984, the compulsory wearing of front seltbelts came in 1983.
It would appear drivers were safer, but the increase in risk to cyclists and pedestrians was a mirror image of the decrease for motorists, coincidence, or drivers feeling safer and taking more risks?
I can remember reports in the mid eighties regarding this trend.
fatboytim

May have been economic factors making more people walk / cycle. I remember things being tough for my family around that time.

There's nary a ripple in this chart:

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

You believe that behaviour is influenced by perceptions of risk, yet



Hm… if improvements really do not cause riskier behaviour, then design changes do not make us feel safer, because we would indulge in risk compensation if they did. So is our perception of danger fixed, whatever vehicle we drive? And, if not, how do you explain it?

_________________
I stole this .sig

We all have an inbuilt psychological level of acceptable risk, when a risk is removed (butting the steering wheel or windscreen), it is bound to affect our perception of overall risk, and our behaviour (if only in the short term).
In the past it was always said by bikers that Volvo's (perceived as a safe car) had more accidents with motorbikes than other cars. Safer car, risk taking driver? or a poor driver trying to compensate by buying a safe car?
Was 1983 a long hot summer?(I can't remember) maybe more cyclists and pedestrians out and about.
Too many variables..my brain hurts.
I was just pointing out that there appears to be a relation, coincidence or anomaly in 1983.
fatboytim

Yes. Isn't it fascinating?

I notice that whatever vehicle I drive, from truck to high performance sports car after a week or three it just feels 'normal'. I think risk perception levels are set by deviation from this 'normal' baseline.

So not exactly fixed, but based on dynamic rather than static factors. We tune out static factors to establish a new normal.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

That is what I think. With one exception. A person will feel a safer in a bigger car.

Despite popular belief there is no evidence that cars have got bigger. It is true there are more large cars but the biggest growth in car sales has been in the small car section.

[quote="basingwerk"][quote="SafeSpeed"]I also believe in 'risk compensation. When we drive we are continuously controlling a subjective level of risk. [/quote]

You believe that behaviour is influenced by perceptions of risk, yet

[quote="SafeSpeed"]I've found no evidence at all that general improvements in vehicle design lead to riskier behaviours [/quote]

Hm… if improvements really do not cause riskier behaviour, then design changes do not make us feel safer, because we would indulge in risk compensation if they did. So is our perception of danger fixed, whatever vehicle we drive? And, if not, how do you explain it?[/quote]

But can you tell as you walk up to a car how many stars it will score on the euro NCAP tests? if not then how do you judge that the car is safer and you can take more risks in it?

If you can tell just by looking at it how safe a car is, you should apply for a job at euro NCAP and save them the time, expense and effort of crashing all those cars.

Duncan Macarthur

My car has an explosive charge in the steering wheel which, upon impact, propels canvas towards my face breaking any bones it comes in contact with. Ain't no way I want that to go off.

_________________
Andrew.

It was mostly about 'perception of risk', not the risk metrics determined by euro NCAP. What do you think the relationship is between a driver's 'perception of risk' and the tables drawn up by euro NCAP?

_________________
I stole this .sig

I agree with this conclusion largely. I think that the 'user interfaces' of cars are so similar that one is not conscious of the model. I have 2 cars and I use either depending on which one is easier to get out of the driveway. One is an automatic. It took a long time (and a couple of accidental emergency stops!) before I stopped hunting for the clutch on the auto. This means that I was oblivious to the model, and so oblivious to the relative risks between them.

I think, though, that risk perception changes at a slower tempo, but is still related somehow to technical advances and other things. Individual risk perception changes very dramatically and permanently, however, if you have a severe head-on crash.

_________________
I stole this .sig