Safe Speed Forums

I am sorry but I think that highlighted bit is completely incorrect. I think you will find, if you speak to any professional driver who tutors ordinary road drivers at track days/motorsport events, that an almost universal fault is that ordinary drivers do not brake hard enough or late enough, without quite a bit of coaching, to achieve decent lap times. Why is that the case? Because we never (or very rarely) experience using maximum braking effort in ordinary driving which, in turn, is because using maximum braking is uncomfortable (for the driver to a significant degree but maximally for any 'ordinary' passenger).

So I don't think drivers are at all accurate in judging braking points in the sense that they nearly always choose a point that is way ahead of the latest possible point. That is why it is so common to see drivers slow on the approach to a hazard before they need to or, in some cases, even double brake. As I said before, I believe drivers generally start braking much earlier than they have to and then modulate the braking effort according to the perceived speed and proximity of the hazard.

Another piece of supporting evidence - we know that drivers sometimes crash even though the crash could have been avoided if the driver(s) had braked harder? (That's why Mercedes and others have developed BAS). Why does that happen? Because, mostly, drivers don't know how hard they can brake. Why is that? Because they never (or rarely) have need to practice.

So is the judgement of a braking point time based or distance based. Well, if we're talking about ordinary road driving, I think it is distance based. But, the judgement is not what the required braking/stopping distance IS, it is based on what it ISN'T. Drivers start braking at a point which is sooner than the latest point at which they know they would have to start braking in order to be able (with certainty) to stop (or lose the required amount of speed) with maximum braking effort. Some drivers judge that more accurately than others but still, usually, with a significant margin for error. It's really not until you get on a track that a braking point needs to be more precise. Even then, there will frequently be a safety margin, otherwise overtaking by outbraking would be rare, whereas it is very common.

That's why we (in your words) "adapt very easily". It is very easy to brake comforably (and appear to brake accurately) when you start braking early. And that's what drivers do. How often (really!) do you see a driver really hammering on the approach to a haxard and then max braking to a halt (or required slower speed) 'just in time'. Never - or very rarely. If you did, you would (rightly) conclude the driver was a nutter (certainly extremely irresponsible and arguably dangerous). You may sometimes see enthusiastic drivers braking relatively late and hard but, even then, still substantially sooner than the absolute latest point.

If you say your judgement is time based, I accept that. But suggesting that drivers in general judge a braking point by reference to time is more bizarre than suggesting they do it by reference to distance. Are you really suggesting that a driver has a conscious or sub-conscious thought process that 'tells' him he is 'x' seconds away from a hazard so must start braking? (and "x" will vary with speed so he has to be precisely aware of that).

This is a misunderstanding of the point (caused by me, I think, I apologise). I was thinking about someone experienced in track driving. You're replying regarding the behaviour of people who are in an unfamiliar environment and I agree that in such circumstances inexperience results in unnecessary caution and early braking.



Failures in planned braking are extremely rare as a crash cause. I don't think I have ever specifically heard of a single one. Obviously it's possible that some bend crashes are planned braking failures, but the vast majority are more bend misjudgement than braking misjudgement.

Obviously it's necessary to allow a substantial margin for error on the road. Anyone who approached the 'last possible braking point' would be close to no margin for error.



I don't think it's 'common' to even see adjustment. I'd say (guessing wildly) that 95% of driviers, 99% of the time, brake according to their plans with no need for major adjustment.

My points here aren't about the nature of the failures - they are about the accurate routine judgements made by most, most of the time.



If you look at the braking graphs on http://www.safespeed.org.uk/braking.html I think you'll agree that the distance graphs are far more 'bizarre' than the time graphs. (Figures 4 and 5)

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

They are common on ice and to a lesser extent on a wet road. Drivers plan to stop but fail due to lack of friction!

Yeah, good point.

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

You can't rely on a pedestrian's manoeuverability, some are a bit doddery.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

In the course of my studies way back when - we covered "duty of care". This was established in a case whereby a woman found a dead snail at the bottom of a bottle of ginger beer and became quite "ill" as a result. It covers then all walks of life where health and safety issues are concerned.

However, if a court decides that the failure to wear a seat belt or the act of stepping out into traffic on the 70 mph dual carriageway somehow contributed in part to the incident - they may well reduce compo as a result. I think there was a case in Cleveland couple of years back whereby the insurers managed to get a payment to a pedestrian reduced by the court because she stepped out into the path of albeit slow craling traffic but was unlucky in that the vehicle she stepped out in front of happened to be a 4x4 with bull bars

It does then depend on how far a court with all the facts may decide on liability or a factor to mitigate compo on the part of those paying it out.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

"Bullbars" were developed in Australia to negate the effect of the vehicle's crumple-zone when it was in collision with a kangeroo. Their correct name is "roo bars" but in places where they are merely fashion accessories the name "bullbars" is prefered because it sounds more macho.
The design specifications include enhanced lethality to the 'roo, (which are very tough and take a lot of killing); they are in this respect humane killers for animals which would otherwise die slowly in the pitiless Australian sun.

If the pedestrian suffered greater injuries because the car was fitted with a device designed to kill, getting the payment reduced was utterly disgraceful.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

Good sidestep.

The ones on UK cars are not necessarily the same as the origninal roo killer ones. There is no reason to assume so, and I doubt safety regualtions would allow them to be. See first two paragraphs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_bars. We don't know what type was fitted.

Anyone who steps in front of slow moving traffic should not receive any payment. The very idea is barking mad.

(Wasn't happy with the original version, I read a few things wrong)

I must say Dondare, I am confused about your comments.



First you seem to suggest that the motorists are responsible for pedestrians with little distinction for whether the pedestrian is to blame in any event due to their own irresponsible behaviour.

I actually think that's a good question to ask, if a motorist runs down a pedestrian because a pedestrian (and lets for the sake of argument, lets say they were totally obscured by street furniture, and there are no other indications that anybody is going to cross the road, who is to blame?

You then go on to say



I am confused as to whether you're comparing murderers and drivers? A murderer who's intention it is to kill someone and commit a crime and someone who has a law abiding and perfectly safe hobby?

Or perhaps you're talking about a gunman on a "shooting range" or something, and if a madman breaks in and runs in front of a gun just as it is being fired, perhaps you're saying the shooter is as much to blame as the victim?



I think everyone here takes on the personal responsibility necessary to operate dangerous equipment. But, say in the case of a fruitcake even running in front of you at the bowling lanes and getting a ten pin bowling ball in the groin, your apportion of responsibility and blame seems a little skewed.

In these cases, the victim surely is responsible for their own careless behaviour and must therefore be attributed with the blame.

We all take the audible, visual and behavioural cues to minimise risks and avoid danger in all areas of our life. Just as in life, we adjust our driving according to the conditions at the time. Many people seem to propose that as motorists, we should be responsible for other peoples actions, or that, and I like this phrase, that motorists should be "able to stop on a sixpence". I've heard people suggest that motorists should quite literally, expect the unexpected, the illogical, incompetent, irrational and moronic.

If a kid is hiding behind a skip and decides to run across the road at the last second, then people like to blame the motorist.

All this means that a driver no longer needs to think. The cues we take to adjust our driving and behaviour are negated. Pedestrians are not liable to do anything that can be accounted for. So what speed is the right speed to avoid such unexpected accidents? 5 mph?

Sadly it seems to be the case in society that we're happier blaming someone else.

Pedestrians no longer need to think as they have been absolved of all responsibility.

Cya
Simon

A healthy post Simon, except for the very first sentence which I believe is unjustified as I haven't seen any baiting or ad-hominem.

Please could you edit the above, thanks.

NP.

Sorry for any offence caused.

Cya
Simon

They (bull bars) were developed to save minor panel damage when pushing through undergrowth or herding beasts. As pretty much ALL such devices bolt directly TO the crumpling parts of the car (the main longitudinal chassis members) I can't see that they'd be in the least bit effective in preventing the crumple zone from crumpling in any kind of medium-high speed impact with a 'roo (or a bull for that matter)! In fact, I've seen the odd perverse situation whereby the hapless individual has been faced with a BIGGER repair bill having driven into a solid object at pretty low speed with these things fitted because it saves all the soft, cosmetic part of the car from damage and transfers the loads directly to the expensive bit - the deformable elements of the main chassis members!

It is pretty well documented that the traditional designs render the front of the car less pedestrian friendly than it was when it left the factory but I think we need to keep a sense of perspective here though! It's not like without them fitted, the stricken pedestrian hops off the bonnet of the 4x4 and proceeds on their merry way without a care in the world! Most of the (newer) vehicles that these are fitted to get out of doing the pedestrian protection test because they're too heavy. Now if you want to have a go at a REAL social injustice, why not have a go at the EC legislators who let passenger cars over 2.5 tonnes get off having to do the test?! Even now, they've only just introduced a "bull bars" directive to make them more pedestrian friendly.

It's worth bearing in mind, however, that the high front of this kind of vehicle (and trucks, buses etc) tends to push the pedestrian over so that they go under the vehicle (in which case, the bull bars are the least of their worries) whereas cars tend to scoop them up on to the bonnet.

In fact, there's a bit of an argument to say that if you're going to get run over, the ordinary (and much reviled!) passenger car is the pedestrian's best bet!

Come to that, some driver's are a bit doddery too! Now I'm sure you wouldn't expect doddery drivers to get special dispensations when it comes to taking appropriate care, so why should doddery pedestrians get any?

I still maintain that everyone using the public roads needs to take responsibility for their own actions - and that means pedestrians too.

Possibly the main object of the bars was to prevent damage to the radiator. It's not only in the hot parts of the world that radiator damage is the easiest way to put a vehicle out of action . But how some people can justify having them on vehicles to drive through a UK town,without any off road use, defeats me ---not as if escaped cattle are a feature of UK roads

_________________
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

There on the common near where I live.

There plastic 'bull bars' available now that have the purpose of enhancing pedestrian safety.

There's a saying, chiefly attributed to Harley Davidson riders I think, which goes "loud pipes save lives".

With the original silencer on my motorbike I had people walk in front of me as they dodged between traffic to cross a road or simply go to walk in front of my path because they underestimated my speed. It happened to me several times during the first month with my new motorbike.

The original silencer was quite literally whisper quiet so I changed it for something, errrr… a little louder. The result? It hasn't happened one single time since, and that's over two years ago now!

Not trying to make a case for everything being very noisy but as a statement of fact I can tell you it worked. As well as making pedestrians aware that there's something coming down the road, or filtering between the traffic out of sight, I think there's also a perception of noise means quick so they hold back from crossing until I'm past even if I'm the only thing on the road.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

... and when we all have electric cars?

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

How about a modified football rattle attached to the wheels?

It's not in the oil companies interest. I remember a friend of mine telling me some 20 years ago that cars were regularly run on renewable fuel grown from crops, in South Africa I think he said, but we still don't use them much to this day.

There's nothing like the throb of an internal combustion engine anyway. It's a male ego thing I think, or the beat that is still in us from cave man days

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Yes, "Frontal Protection Systems". But the thing to bear in mind here is that althought they might well make the front of the vehicle more pedestrian friendly than it WAS, it would be interesting to ask if it made them pedestrian friendly enough to meet the requirements that a sub 2500kg car would have to meet?