On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:36:25 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

"drive at 60mph and jump on the brakes when the lamp lights" no thinking
involved

"drive at 60mph and maybe something unexpected will happen, then jump on
brakes" considerable thinking involved

reaction time v thinking time.

I like to think I react pretty quickly to hazards ahead, without
conscious thinking. I note I'm finding it a little hard to program in
that a van parked on a motorway bridge is a hazard, I'm still having
to think, while a yellow box on a stick has now become automatic).
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:31:34 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Not very often, these days most wagons sit at 56mph on the limiter no
matter the gradient. Other large vehicles, mobile cranes etc, have
flashing orange beacons and/or an escort.

So you can see a flashing light but not a car?

flashing lights are more readily seen than cars, that's why they are
used.

(cars are not "invisible" for any of the fans of nonsense English
reading)
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

Roger wrote:
The message
from John Rumm contains these words:

My money is on them ignoring thinking time completely.

The timing kit worked by someone outside the car sending a signal that
both started the timer, and signalled the driver. the timer then ran
until the car came to rest. The equipment also recorded the distance
travelled from signal to stop. So it must have included some thinking
time - although I expect less than real world for someone who has been
plodding down a motorway for a couple of hours.

ISTR that in quick fire contests the total time from signal to shot can
be less than 0.1 seconds. Keyed up drivers could perhaps match that. So
I was wrong about not including thinking time but I remain convinced
that retardation rates much in excess of 1 g are outside the realms of
reality for normal road cars even on the best of road surfaces.


ISTR that a Porsche in good nick can do about 1.1.

dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Roger wrote:

My money is on them ignoring thinking time completely.
The timing kit worked by someone outside the car sending a signal that
both started the timer, and signalled the driver. the timer then ran until
the car came to rest. The equipment also recorded the distance travelled
from signal to stop. So it must have included some thinking time -
although I expect less than real world for someone who has been plodding
down a motorway for a couple of hours.

Lets think about it...

"drive at 60mph and jump on the brakes when the lamp lights" no thinking
involved

"drive at 60mph and maybe something unexpected will happen, then jump on
brakes" considerable thinking involved

I wonder which one will produce thinking time?

So the test was *totally* invalid for thinking time.


Depends. On how experienced the driver is when assessing a situation is
almost instinctive.

Experienced drivers assume that an accident is ALWAYS about to happen
and are ready to react to the most likely ones all the time.

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
judith writes:
So are you saying if every vehicle was compelled to and drove at say
20mph there would not be fewer accidents?
Most accidents I see happen at that sort of speed.
But they don't make the news because there is very little damage or
injury.

Most of them are from somebody driving into someone else because they are
going too fast for their mental state.
Which is permanently switched off because they think they are driving
slowly..

I have never had an accident when exceeding a speed limit..

Luck.
Do I take it that you have had an accident while driving below a speed
limit?


Oh yes. Reversed into things, had people run into the back of me etc.
Its hard to average about 25k miles a year over 40 years of all
conditions driving without knocking a few corners off here and there.

Fatigue and inattention and personal stress have proved to be FAR more
dangerous than excessive speed.

My greatest danger is thinking I don't need the pitch of concentration
that I know I need at high speed, at low speed.

John Rumm wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

I have never had an accident when exceeding a speed limit..

Luck.

Probably more down to judgement. Most fast drivers I know don't speed in
silly places (i.e. through villages, in close proximity to where they
are people etc).


Quite. I tend to drive on the limit or less in the villages and towns,
far more so than most people who regard my driving as 'fast' ...my wife
regularly is to be found doing 40mph plus through 30mph limits. She
considers herself to be a careful slow driver.


Do I take it that you have had an accident while driving below a speed
limit?

Don't know about Dave, but on the three occasions someone has managed to
involve me in an accident, they all occurred well below the speed limit.


Me too. 15mph on a country road.. 40mph on a country road. 15mph in
town. 5mph in town (motorcycle overtook someone turning left as I pulled
out in front - completely hidden..whose fault? he blamed himself)..-3mph
in a car park twice..(blind spots)..3mph in another car park..scraped a
wall..I mean what do you class as an accident anyway? Hit pheasant at
60mph on an unrestricted road..only dent ever in my Defender..Haven't
claimed anything since 1987 or thereabouts.

On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:37:14 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Don't know about Dave, but on the three occasions someone has managed to
involve me in an accident, they all occurred well below the speed limit.

But were you driving too fast to avoid them?

that tends to be inevitably true except for side/rear impacts, the
only sensible question is was he driving at a speed *reasonable* for
the perceivable circumstances, which is what speed limits are
(supposed to be) about.
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

I have never had an accident when exceeding a speed limit..
Luck.
Probably more down to judgement. Most fast drivers I know don't speed in
silly places (i.e. through villages, in close proximity to where they are
people etc).

Do I take it that you have had an accident while driving below a speed
limit?
Don't know about Dave, but on the three occasions someone has managed to
involve me in an accident, they all occurred well below the speed limit.

But were you driving too fast to avoid them?


Hmm. In one case too slow to avoid them..in another well that WAS a
tricky one..a case of a completely random and panicky elderly gent who
dithered about stopping at a pedestrian crossing, put his brakes on,
then as I slowed, took them off and proceeeded halfway across before
slamming them on again when I had already used up my safety distance.
Wet road...Police said he had been done for careless driving a month
before and was very nervous about hitting people on crossings. Insurance
company didn't hit my no claims bonus..that was back in the early 70's..

Taught me to spot erratic drivers really early..

Worst one was a country road at 2 a.m. ..road being repaired..loose
gravel everywhere..been up working for 18 hours solid..came to a fork
and realized I was supposed to take the left one..swung the wheel
lazily, hit the bank, broke the rear springs, and that spun the car into
a ditch. Speed? about 40mph..

Fatigue, stress, unusual conditions (very loose surface there)...sure it
was 'too fast for the conditions' ..but WHAT conditions..the roadworks
weren't marked..all the white lines were erased..

Or another case..back in 1970 or thereabouts..temporary bridge of wood
planks with a metal entrance and exit strip ..raining, ford MkI escort
with RWD..approached at about 10mph..as wheels put down power to get up
the ramp onto it, they touched the metal strip, lost traction completely
and swung the tail out..the wood planks were muddy and sopping wet, no
grip, hit the side of the bridge. I'd only been driving 3 years then and
didn't have my own car..so not many miles under the belt..today one
would sue the council for a dangerous road surface.

Those are my worst ones..ones that required insurance claims.

Ive spun a jaguar at 50mph on snow, and controlled it well enough to
(after getting towed off the verge) have no damage...lost it at 100mph
on black ice..found grip on the sunny side of the road and made it
through..had a chap pull out in front of me doing 120mph in
Belgium..would have been OK if he hadn't panicked and jinked from side
to side..any side would have done..finally he settled on the slow lane
and I went past at 50mph..it WAS a dual carriageway, though not a
motorway..but apart from that I simply don't go fast when the conditions
don't allow it. Ive only had two 'moments' when driving over the speed
limit, but I have had dozens when driving at less than the speed limit.

Notwithstanding I have probably got about 15 speeding tickets over the
years.

Not one of which ever caused any insurance company to turn a hair. THEY
know there is zero correlation between the amount of speeding tickets
and the likelihood of having an accident. Police habitually look for
places where most drivers WILL exceed the speed limit because its potty.
Or for cars that arouse penis envy. Learnt that one early on. Do 100mph
in a Mondeo and they leave you alone. Do it in a sports car and they are
tailing you into the next county.

Looking back on my driving career, there are several dominant causes of
the accidents I have had..Inexperience at the start..not understanding
what the road conditions were..or how daft other drivers were or how to
spot them..and then finally fatigue and stress. Lethal. Fatigue, or a
temperature, or extreme stress and distraction.. frankly I'd rather
drive on 2 pints of beer than those. I used to carry aspirin to
counteract the odd cold etc. And finally learnt to force myself to
concentrate when I didn't want to.

These days I have the luxury of not having to drive when I don't need to..

However the point remains: the driver is finally the best judge of
appropriate speed, and, if he/she has enough experience, will finally
come to an understanding of what that is. The greatest danger remains
other drivers, and spotting the ones who are stoned/drunk/having a row
with their wives/driving stolen cars/putting on makeup/ or have zero
vision due to excess age..is the art.

Plus knowing the usual suspects of hazardous road conditions..any silly
speed reduction measures..all lethal. Tailgating round the M25 at 70mph
plus.in full rain..standing water..wet leaves..freshly rained on places
where cars idle and spew out oily exhausts...black ice..small children
running around streets..school leaving times..deer road crossing points
(yes, they have definite tracks..they always pop out of areas near
woods)driving at 11pm on a weekend evening in towns..the old boy with a
hat on driving too slowly..the middle aged woman whose head never moves
but stares fixedly straight ahead..the middle aged gent in a
Volvo..anyone with a fish symbol on their car..the one who never
signals, the one who hesitates and then does something silly..the ones
who drive 5 ft from your tail and never try to overtake..the middle aged
mum with kids in the car leaping around and yelling..the young lad in a
white van...the car that slowly deviates from the crown of the road to
the gutter and back..after a while you have a pattern of what is 'good'
and you know that if something doesn't fit the pattern, its extra risk.
Add space, add extra time..if you have the horsepower, overtake it.

After a few years of early driving, at which point your greatest danger
is yourself, you realise the greatest danger is other road (ab)users.
Not speed. Given a couple of clear visibility miles of empty road,
130mph is safer than 5mph in a crowded town street. Or 65mph in full wet
conditions on a crowded M25. Fast cars on good roads are predictable.
Other road users are not.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 9 May 2007 21:29:23 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Its more than the legal minimum

What legal minimum, references please?

I've yet to see any signage that there is a minimum limit on entering a
motorway or the end of a minimum limit when leaving. Indeed minimum speed
limits are very rare in the UK.

and large vehicles on motorways do less than that at times.

Not very often, these days most wagons sit at 56mph on the limiter no
matter the gradient. Other large vehicles, mobile cranes etc, have
flashing orange beacons and/or an escort.

I take it you don't see them when you drive on the motorways..

No, at least not wagons or large vehicles without beacons. The dangerous
ones are ordinary cars doing 40mph.

Speed differential is the key. The Germans found that out..its fine to
do 140mph down the autobahn..till some clot pulls out to overtake a car
doing 60mph..in front of you.

Thats really the rationale behind urban speed limits - which I accept as
a reasonably necessary evil. It's pedestrians at 2mph versus cars at
30mph..mixing it in close proximity..whether one feels the pedestrians
should be given minimum speed limits, or banned, is a matter of opinion ;-)

dennis@home wrote:
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Wed, 9 May 2007 21:29:23 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Its more than the legal minimum
What legal minimum, references please?

I've yet to see any signage that there is a minimum limit on entering a
motorway or the end of a minimum limit when leaving. Indeed minimum speed
limits are very rare in the UK.

There is requirement for a vehicle to do more than 25 mph or it isn't
allowed on the motorway.


Up a hill?

I must say I didn't like dropping to 25mph on the M1, We got overtaken
by a tank on a transporter fer heavens sake!

Huge wrote:
On 2007-05-09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
judith wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 11:27:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS. the
roads would be a far safer place.
Or *both*.


Not really. There is no direct correlation between vehicle speed (within
broad limits), and accidents.

So are you saying if every vehicle was compelled to and drove at say
20mph there would not be fewer accidents?
Definitley.

As I said earlier, horse drawn transport shows that to be the case.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Boy, are you an (innumerate) moron.

I don't think so.

Check the statistics out yourself..the number of horse related deaths
was massive around the turn of the 20h century.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Roger wrote:

My money is on them ignoring thinking time completely.
The timing kit worked by someone outside the car sending a signal that
both started the timer, and signalled the driver. the timer then ran
until the car came to rest. The equipment also recorded the distance
travelled from signal to stop. So it must have included some thinking
time - although I expect less than real world for someone who has been
plodding down a motorway for a couple of hours.

Lets think about it...

"drive at 60mph and jump on the brakes when the lamp lights" no thinking
involved

"drive at 60mph and maybe something unexpected will happen, then jump on
brakes" considerable thinking involved

I wonder which one will produce thinking time?

So the test was *totally* invalid for thinking time.
Depends. On how experienced the driver is when assessing a situation is
almost instinctive.

Experienced drivers assume that an accident is ALWAYS about to happen and
are ready to react to the most likely ones all the time.

Perfection must be wonderful. Experienced drivers may well make numerous
assumptions. A very common one is that they are 'better than average'. About
80% of drivers think they are better than average, so even if the 50% of
drivers who are better than average correctly self identify, 30% of drivers
must be deluded. In fact I imagine that some of the best drivers are those
who don't think of themselves as good, so probably about 50% of
'experienced' and 'good' drivers are actually poor. (Only 50.7 % of these
statistics are made up - the 80% figure comes from a Canadian survey).

I hope that I am a reasonable driver, I hope I'm not deluded, I assume that
most other cars are likely to do something dumb most of the time, but I know
that I don't always drive at 100% all the time. I worry, I daydream, I swear
at the radio or people using mobiles. Still, I can aspire to perfection and
being totally alert all the time.

Andy

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Roger wrote:

My money is on them ignoring thinking time completely.
The timing kit worked by someone outside the car sending a signal that
both started the timer, and signalled the driver. the timer then ran
until the car came to rest. The equipment also recorded the distance
travelled from signal to stop. So it must have included some thinking
time - although I expect less than real world for someone who has been
plodding down a motorway for a couple of hours.

Lets think about it...

"drive at 60mph and jump on the brakes when the lamp lights" no thinking
involved

"drive at 60mph and maybe something unexpected will happen, then jump on
brakes" considerable thinking involved

I wonder which one will produce thinking time?

So the test was *totally* invalid for thinking time.
Depends. On how experienced the driver is when assessing a situation is
almost instinctive.

Experienced drivers assume that an accident is ALWAYS about to happen and
are ready to react to the most likely ones all the time.

Yes I know but it still takes time to decide it has happened.

Its even worse when you are stopped behind one accident and watching the
jack knifed tanker approaching in the rear view mirror.
You think is it safer in the car or out of the car.
I choose in and I am still here.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

I have never had an accident when exceeding a speed limit..
Luck.
Probably more down to judgement. Most fast drivers I know don't speed in
silly places (i.e. through villages, in close proximity to where they
are people etc).

Do I take it that you have had an accident while driving below a speed
limit?
Don't know about Dave, but on the three occasions someone has managed to
involve me in an accident, they all occurred well below the speed limit.

But were you driving too fast to avoid them?

Hmm. In one case too slow to avoid them..in another well that WAS a tricky
one..a case of a completely random and panicky elderly gent who dithered
about stopping at a pedestrian crossing, put his brakes on, then as I
slowed, took them off and proceeeded halfway across before slamming them
on again when I had already used up my safety distance. Wet road...Police
said he had been done for careless driving a month before and was very
nervous about hitting people on crossings. Insurance company didn't hit my
no claims bonus..that was back in the early 70's..

That is a case of two careless drivers.
You should have been done too.

Taught me to spot erratic drivers really early..

Worst one was a country road at 2 a.m. ..road being repaired..loose gravel
everywhere..been up working for 18 hours solid..came to a fork and
realized I was supposed to take the left one..swung the wheel lazily, hit
the bank, broke the rear springs, and that spun the car into a ditch.
Speed? about 40mph..

A second case of driving without care and attention.
I think we can safely ignore any advice on driving for now.

Fatigue, stress, unusual conditions (very loose surface there)...sure it
was 'too fast for the conditions' ..but WHAT conditions..the roadworks
weren't marked..all the white lines were erased..

Or another case..back in 1970 or thereabouts..temporary bridge of wood
planks with a metal entrance and exit strip ..raining, ford MkI escort
with RWD..approached at about 10mph..as wheels put down power to get up
the ramp onto it, they touched the metal strip, lost traction completely
and swung the tail out..the wood planks were muddy and sopping wet, no
grip, hit the side of the bridge. I'd only been driving 3 years then and
didn't have my own car..so not many miles under the belt..today one would
sue the council for a dangerous road surface.

Those are my worst ones..ones that required insurance claims.

Ive spun a jaguar at 50mph on snow, and controlled it well enough to
(after getting towed off the verge) have no damage...lost it at 100mph on
black ice..found grip on the sunny side of the road and made it
through..had a chap pull out in front of me doing 120mph in Belgium..would
have been OK if he hadn't panicked and jinked from side to side..any side
would have done..finally he settled on the slow lane and I went past at
50mph..it WAS a dual carriageway, though not a motorway..but apart from
that I simply don't go fast when the conditions don't allow it. Ive only
had two 'moments' when driving over the speed limit, but I have had dozens
when driving at less than the speed limit.

Notwithstanding I have probably got about 15 speeding tickets over the
years.

Not one of which ever caused any insurance company to turn a hair. THEY
know there is zero correlation between the amount of speeding tickets and
the likelihood of having an accident. Police habitually look for places
where most drivers WILL exceed the speed limit because its potty. Or for
cars that arouse penis envy. Learnt that one early on. Do 100mph in a
Mondeo and they leave you alone. Do it in a sports car and they are
tailing you into the next county.

Looking back on my driving career, there are several dominant causes of
the accidents I have had..Inexperience at the start..not understanding
what the road conditions were..or how daft other drivers were or how to
spot them..and then finally fatigue and stress. Lethal. Fatigue, or a
temperature, or extreme stress and distraction.. frankly I'd rather drive
on 2 pints of beer than those. I used to carry aspirin to counteract the
odd cold etc. And finally learnt to force myself to concentrate when I
didn't want to.

These days I have the luxury of not having to drive when I don't need to..

However the point remains: the driver is finally the best judge of
appropriate speed, and, if he/she has enough experience, will finally come
to an understanding of what that is. The greatest danger remains other
drivers, and spotting the ones who are stoned/drunk/having a row with
their wives/driving stolen cars/putting on makeup/ or have zero vision
due to excess age..is the art.

Plus knowing the usual suspects of hazardous road conditions..any silly
speed reduction measures..all lethal. Tailgating round the M25 at 70mph
plus.in full rain..standing water..wet leaves..freshly rained on places
where cars idle and spew out oily exhausts...black ice..small children
running around streets..school leaving times..deer road crossing points
(yes, they have definite tracks..they always pop out of areas near
woods)driving at 11pm on a weekend evening in towns..the old boy with a
hat on driving too slowly..the middle aged woman whose head never moves
but stares fixedly straight ahead..the middle aged gent in a Volvo..anyone
with a fish symbol on their car..the one who never signals, the one who
hesitates and then does something silly..the ones who drive 5 ft from
your tail and never try to overtake..the middle aged mum with kids in the
car leaping around and yelling..the young lad in a white van...the car
that slowly deviates from the crown of the road to the gutter and
back..after a while you have a pattern of what is 'good' and you know that
if something doesn't fit the pattern, its extra risk. Add space, add extra
time..if you have the horsepower, overtake it.

After a few years of early driving, at which point your greatest danger is
yourself, you realise the greatest danger is other road (ab)users. Not
speed. Given a couple of clear visibility miles of empty road, 130mph is
safer than 5mph in a crowded town street. Or 65mph in full wet conditions
on a crowded M25. Fast cars on good roads are predictable. Other road
users are not.


I think you need driving lessons.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
judith writes:
So are you saying if every vehicle was compelled to and drove at say
20mph there would not be fewer accidents?
Most accidents I see happen at that sort of speed.
But they don't make the news because there is very little damage or
injury.

Most of them are from somebody driving into someone else because they
are going too fast for their mental state.
Which is permanently switched off because they think they are driving
slowly..

I have never had an accident when exceeding a speed limit..

Luck.
Do I take it that you have had an accident while driving below a speed
limit?


Oh yes. Reversed into things, had people run into the back of me etc. Its
hard to average about 25k miles a year over 40 years of all conditions
driving without knocking a few corners off here and there.

I've managed 35 years at a similar sort of millage with zero accidents.
It would have been longer if someone hadn't run into me at some lights.
It cost £2 to have the bumper adjusted after that.

Andy McKenzie wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Roger wrote:

My money is on them ignoring thinking time completely.
The timing kit worked by someone outside the car sending a signal that
both started the timer, and signalled the driver. the timer then ran
until the car came to rest. The equipment also recorded the distance
travelled from signal to stop. So it must have included some thinking
time - although I expect less than real world for someone who has been
plodding down a motorway for a couple of hours.
Lets think about it...

"drive at 60mph and jump on the brakes when the lamp lights" no thinking
involved

"drive at 60mph and maybe something unexpected will happen, then jump on
brakes" considerable thinking involved

I wonder which one will produce thinking time?

So the test was *totally* invalid for thinking time.
Depends. On how experienced the driver is when assessing a situation is
almost instinctive.

Experienced drivers assume that an accident is ALWAYS about to happen and
are ready to react to the most likely ones all the time.

Perfection must be wonderful. Experienced drivers may well make numerous
assumptions. A very common one is that they are 'better than average'. About
80% of drivers think they are better than average, so even if the 50% of
drivers who are better than average correctly self identify, 30% of drivers
must be deluded. In fact I imagine that some of the best drivers are those
who don't think of themselves as good, so probably about 50% of
'experienced' and 'good' drivers are actually poor. (Only 50.7 % of these
statistics are made up - the 80% figure comes from a Canadian survey).

I hope that I am a reasonable driver, I hope I'm not deluded, I assume that
most other cars are likely to do something dumb most of the time, but I know
that I don't always drive at 100% all the time. I worry, I daydream, I swear
at the radio or people using mobiles. Still, I can aspire to perfection and
being totally alert all the time.


Indeed. Know your weaknesses and play to your strengths.

I know my reflexes are not what they were..have to rely more on
experience and caution than car control..

I used to do endurance kart racing for fun..if I really concentrated, I
was about .2s a lap faster..but I couldn't keep it up more than 10 or 15
laps..

I don't know whether I am a good driver or not, but it appalls me what
other people I drive with do NOT notice..or how they lack the most (to
me) basic of skills, such as positioning the car for best visibility,
and assessing what is happening up the road three to five seconds before
its necessary to work out what to do..or night driving..how people will
slam on the brakes as if the road they suddenly can't see because they
are momentarily dazzled, has in some way changed from the road that they
could see a second earlier..

Most people don't PLAN their driving. They just react. Fast driving
taught me to always work out your escape routes before entering a tight
situation....if HE does THAT where will you go? etc.

I think the situation I hate the most is being boxed in in traffic on
the M25, with nowhere to go whatsoever. About 10% of drivers leave the
sorts of gaps in front that I normally do. The rest are in my opinion
just accidents waiting to happen.

At least to date I have only injured myself slightly once in a crash,
and never injured anyone else at all. Although the amount of wildlife I
have scraped out of the radiators at times is quite shocking.

Above all, I take driving seriously. VERY seriously. I don;t quite
approach a car with the same sort of respect I approach a loaded rifle
or shotgun, but thats familiarity. I know I OUGHT to do that.

I wish sometimes the average mum with kids on the way to Tescos would
stop and think 'I could be a mass murderer if I don't watch out'..but if
you asked them what the most dangerous thing that endangered other
people's lives' would be, very few of them would say 'leaning over to
stop the kids fighting in the back seat'.

My time ****ing about in Karts, but more significantly, watching live
motorsport, and fatalaties therein, did not make me a boy racer..it made
me utterly serious about just how lethal a car is if things go wrong,
and how much discipline is required to prevent them doing that.







Andy

On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:48:03 +0100 Andy McKenzie wrote :
Perfection must be wonderful. Experienced drivers may well make numerous
assumptions. A very common one is that they are 'better than average'. About
80% of drivers think they are better than average, so even if the 50% of
drivers who are better than average correctly self identify, 30% of drivers
must be deluded.

Not if average = mean. If 90 drivers each have one accident every ten years and
10 drivers each have an accident every year, the average driver has 1.9
accidents every ten years but 90% have a better than average accident rate.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Roger wrote:

My money is on them ignoring thinking time completely.
The timing kit worked by someone outside the car sending a signal that
both started the timer, and signalled the driver. the timer then ran
until the car came to rest. The equipment also recorded the distance
travelled from signal to stop. So it must have included some thinking
time - although I expect less than real world for someone who has been
plodding down a motorway for a couple of hours.
Lets think about it...

"drive at 60mph and jump on the brakes when the lamp lights" no thinking
involved

"drive at 60mph and maybe something unexpected will happen, then jump on
brakes" considerable thinking involved

I wonder which one will produce thinking time?

So the test was *totally* invalid for thinking time.
Depends. On how experienced the driver is when assessing a situation is
almost instinctive.

Experienced drivers assume that an accident is ALWAYS about to happen and
are ready to react to the most likely ones all the time.

Yes I know but it still takes time to decide it has happened.

Its even worse when you are stopped behind one accident and watching the
jack knifed tanker approaching in the rear view mirror.
You think is it safer in the car or out of the car.
I choose in and I am still here.


That when I'd have tried for the hedge at the side with the trusty 4WD..

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
judith writes:
So are you saying if every vehicle was compelled to and drove at say
20mph there would not be fewer accidents?
Most accidents I see happen at that sort of speed.
But they don't make the news because there is very little damage or
injury.

Most of them are from somebody driving into someone else because they
are going too fast for their mental state.
Which is permanently switched off because they think they are driving
slowly..

I have never had an accident when exceeding a speed limit..
Luck.
Do I take it that you have had an accident while driving below a speed
limit?


Oh yes. Reversed into things, had people run into the back of me etc. Its
hard to average about 25k miles a year over 40 years of all conditions
driving without knocking a few corners off here and there.

I've managed 35 years at a similar sort of millage with zero accidents.
It would have been longer if someone hadn't run into me at some lights.
It cost £2 to have the bumper adjusted after that.



Hmm. In which case you are deluding yourself. I have never met a person
who claimed to have 'never had an accident in 35 years' whose car
didn't somehow betray the fact that they had.

Of COURSE 'that was done whilst it was parked. I wasn't even in it';

'That wasn't my fault'
'someone drove into the back of me'

The ability to claim that you have never had an accident seems to
consist mainly on shifting the blame of the ones you have had, to
someone else.


Obviously you need driving lessons. You should have seen him coming and
braked much earlier.

Obviously you were going far too slow.

Huge wrote:
On 2007-05-10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2007-05-09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
judith wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 11:27:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS. the
roads would be a far safer place.
Or *both*.


Not really. There is no direct correlation between vehicle speed (within
broad limits), and accidents.
So are you saying if every vehicle was compelled to and drove at say
20mph there would not be fewer accidents?
Definitley.

As I said earlier, horse drawn transport shows that to be the case.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Boy, are you an (innumerate) moron.

I don't think so.

Check the statistics out yourself..the number of horse related deaths
was massive around the turn of the 20h century.

Quite. Far more people were KSI when we had horse drawn transport (and
a lot less of it) than we have now. So, how does that mean that horse
drawn transport shows it to be the case that there would be fewer
accidents if everyone drove at 20mph?


dunno. That was my point. Of all the factors that influence frequency
and severity of accidents. speed is the one everyone thinks dominates,
but the facts and statistics show otherwise when closely examined.

What causes accidents are poor drivers and poor road conditions and poor
car design.

Good drivers don't do "inappropiate" speed, though they mostly don't
stick slavishly to speed limits.

It is however the EASIEST way to get a conviction if you want to ****
off drivers, and raise stealth taxes. Which is pretty much the current
govts attitude, AFAICT

Roger wrote:

ISTR that in quick fire contests the total time from signal to shot can
be less than 0.1 seconds. Keyed up drivers could perhaps match that. So
I was wrong about not including thinking time but I remain convinced
that retardation rates much in excess of 1 g are outside the realms of
reality for normal road cars even on the best of road surfaces.

If you plug 0.1 secs back into that sum I did that means you only lose
3.1m in thinking time. That reduces the deceleration to 0.94g

(might be worth pointing out that some of the more "performance" cars
they tested would stop shorter - 49m being the best IIRC)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

dennis@home wrote:

"drive at 60mph and jump on the brakes when the lamp lights" no thinking
involved

"drive at 60mph and maybe something unexpected will happen, then jump on
brakes" considerable thinking involved

I wonder which one will produce thinking time?

So the test was *totally* invalid for thinking time.

It still illustrates the point that I was making originally - that the
distance figures published[1] are significantly out of date for modern
cars. If you add the highways code published thinking distance to the
actual results obtained for stopping distance (i.e. that including the
the actual reaction time in the test), you still end up with an overall
distance of 20m (66ft) less at 70mph.

[1] they are about right for lower breaking efficiency vehicles or cars
in poor conditions.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Huge wrote:
On 2007-05-10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2007-05-09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
judith wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2007 11:27:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING ACCIDENTS. the
roads would be a far safer place.
Or *both*.


Not really. There is no direct correlation between vehicle speed (within
broad limits), and accidents.
So are you saying if every vehicle was compelled to and drove at say
20mph there would not be fewer accidents?
Definitley.

As I said earlier, horse drawn transport shows that to be the case.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Boy, are you an (innumerate) moron.

I don't think so.

Check the statistics out yourself..the number of horse related deaths
was massive around the turn of the 20h century.

Quite. Far more people were KSI when we had horse drawn transport (and
a lot less of it) than we have now. So, how does that mean that horse
drawn transport shows it to be the case that there would be fewer
accidents if everyone drove at 20mph?

I think you missed the "not" old boy...

TNP was agreeing with the statement:

"So are you saying if every vehicle was compelled to and drove at say
20mph there would ***not*** be fewer accidents?"

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

dennis@home wrote:

Don't know about Dave, but on the three occasions someone has managed to
involve me in an accident, they all occurred well below the speed limit.

But were you driving too fast to avoid them?

You decide:

First one, I was leaving the exit to the road near my house. There was a
car in front. He waited until a car coming along the road we were about
to join had past, and pulled out behind it. I followed. The car that had
just past, turned left into a driveway. Not his driveway, but the one
opposite his driveway - he waited until the car in front of me past
behind him, and then reversed out across the road, into his driveway,
making the assumption that the car behind him was the only one behind
him. Given the roads here are quite, it is an assumption that he
probably made hundreds of times before and got away with. This time it
cost him a new bumper.

Second one, country lane, 110 degree left turn. As I approached the
corner (15mph perhaps) a car coming the other way arrived at the same
time and turned right, but did so about five feet too soon, hence
cutting across the front of me and reducing the available road width to
four feet. By the time it became obvious that she was going to cut the
corner, her car was broadside across the front of me and about 4 foot
away. She would have clipped the front of my car even if I was not moving.

Last one, driving up the high street in our village. A chap parked in
the bus stop on the other side of the road decides to pull out without
looking, straight into the path of a car. She hits him, which deflects
here across the road (and jams her steering in the process), such that
she glances off the side of the car coming the other way (i.e. me). I
must admit did not even see that one coming - it all happened beside me
on the other side of the road, and the first I knew was "clunk", "WTF
was that? I think someone must have just hit me".

As far as I can see, the only way that speed figures in any of them, is
that a different speed might have placed me elsewhere at the time the
accident occurred.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

wall..I mean what do you class as an accident anyway? Hit pheasant at
60mph on an unrestricted road..only dent ever in my Defender..Haven't

If you are counting them, then you can add a pigeon, a starling, and
possibly a badger to my total then. (there was one close encounter with
a great dane that was scary - it was bigger than the car!)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

dennis@home wrote:

That is a case of two careless drivers.
You should have been done too.

You seem to have an amazing insight into past events and situations
where you were not even present.

Is this some form of clairvoyance?

Or do you frequently cause accidents and assume the rest of the world is
just like you?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

wall..I mean what do you class as an accident anyway? Hit pheasant at
60mph on an unrestricted road..only dent ever in my Defender..Haven't

If you are counting them, then you can add a pigeon, a starling, and
possibly a badger to my total then. (there was one close encounter with
a great dane that was scary - it was bigger than the car!)


Well I dunno,. In the last year probably a couple of pheasants, couple
of rabbits, missed most of the pigeons sadly..missed the deer
thankfully..seem to have a 6th sense so far about deer..countless small
things that you don't even notice..frogs and mice and the like.

The Myxy rabbits sit in the middle of the road waiting for something to
hit em, poor sods. Not so many this year - the terrier got a couple. We
made pate out of one.

I don't think anyone round here gets away without hitting something
feathered or furry at least once a year. There's an awful lot of it
about, frankly.

Real dearth of hedgehogs tho. Where are our fleabitten hedgehogs?

Saw a dead dog in Norwich the other week. Nasty. traffic was
gridlocked..no idea how that one happened.

Hit a cat once I think..couldn't find it afterwards. Hate that.

Had a few close encounters with White Rhino in Africa, but none decided
I was an enemy/mateable with. ;-)

Personally I think the government should ban all insects from the roads
and prosecute them. They are obviously flying too slowly.

John Rumm wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

That is a case of two careless drivers.
You should have been done too.

You seem to have an amazing insight into past events and situations
where you were not even present.

Is this some form of clairvoyance?

Or do you frequently cause accidents and assume the rest of the world is
just like you?


Yup. almost certainly. Probably has a fish on his volvo and never
indicates at all.

On 2007-05-10 15:46:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:

John Rumm wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

That is a case of two careless drivers.
You should have been done too.

You seem to have an amazing insight into past events and situations
where you were not even present.

Is this some form of clairvoyance?

Or do you frequently cause accidents and assume the rest of the world
is just like you?


Yup. almost certainly. Probably has a fish on his volvo and never
indicates at all.

... and wears a hat for driving....

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Hmm. In which case you are deluding yourself. I have never met a person
who claimed to have 'never had an accident in 35 years' whose car didn't
somehow betray the fact that they had.

You just don't know the right people.
Why do you think an accident is inevitable?


Of COURSE 'that was done whilst it was parked. I wasn't even in it';

'That wasn't my fault'
'someone drove into the back of me'

The ability to claim that you have never had an accident seems to consist
mainly on shifting the blame of the ones you have had, to someone else.

Or maybe its because I haven't or at least not for a very long time.
My only claim to fame was sliding for about 100 yards on ice and failing to
get below 5mph and then hitting someone else sliding across
I don't think anyone was actually to blame as it was to damn slippy to stand
and there were several other cars involved.



Obviously you need driving lessons. You should have seen him coming and
braked much earlier.

Obviously you were going far too slow.


I think they only obvious thing is the attitude you appear to have..
you think accidents are inevitable and judge your driving by how many you
have..
I judge it by not having accidents.

IMO your driving record as you have stated is very bad.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-10 15:46:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:

John Rumm wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

That is a case of two careless drivers.
You should have been done too.

You seem to have an amazing insight into past events and situations
where you were not even present.

Is this some form of clairvoyance?

Or do you frequently cause accidents and assume the rest of the world
is just like you?


Yup. almost certainly. Probably has a fish on his volvo and never
indicates at all.

.. and wears a hat for driving....

Well it does come with the volvo, in the glove box with the pipe.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

wall..I mean what do you class as an accident anyway? Hit pheasant at
60mph on an unrestricted road..only dent ever in my Defender..Haven't

If you are counting them, then you can add a pigeon, a starling, and
possibly a badger to my total then. (there was one close encounter with a
great dane that was scary - it was bigger than the car!)

Well if you are going too count vermin you have ruined my accident free
period.
I had a pigeon fly into my front nearside wheel while I was doing 70 on the
M6 about 15 years ago.
There was a huge cloud of feathers behind me and an imprint of a pigeon on
my tyre sidewall.

On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:20:57 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

Experienced drivers assume that an accident is ALWAYS about to happen
and are ready to react to the most likely ones all the time.

Yes I know but it still takes time to decide it has happened.

An experienced driver has taken his foot of the accelerator and has it
hovering over the brake before any decision has be made about what the
**** in front is doing or the child that has just turned round on the
pavement to face the road is going to do.

Its even worse when you are stopped behind one accident and watching the
jack knifed tanker approaching in the rear view mirror. You think is it
safer in the car or out of the car. I choose in and I am still here.

Depends how far away the tanker is. Mind you having said that if it's far
enough away such that you have time to get out and run it'll probably have
enough distance to stop anyway... So in with knees up, head down, elbows
in and hands clasped hard onto the back of your head.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:31:34 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

There is requirement for a vehicle to do more than 25 mph or it isn't
allowed on the motorway.

No. What you mean there is a restriction on certain *types of vehicle*
that can't, due to their construction, go faster than 25mph, such as
(most) tractors. That is *not* the same as a minimum speed limit. If a
vehicle is allowed on the motorway show me the requirement for it to
travel no slower than 25mph.

Admittedly if you did do such a thing plod would take a dim view but you
would be done under "due care and attention" or possibly "dangerous
driving" not breaking any minimum speed limit.

So you can see a flashing light but not a car?

I shall ignore the personal abuse. A flashing light draws attention to
hazard at a mile or three. A car is a car, you can't tell its speed at a
mile. It's not until you are getting fairly close that you can gauge how
fast you are actually closing.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/85-mph/?

--
Roger Chapman

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...

I shall ignore the personal abuse. A flashing light draws attention to
hazard at a mile or three. A car is a car,

A car is a hazard the same as a crane.

you can't tell its speed at a
mile. It's not until you are getting fairly close that you can gauge how
fast you are actually closing.

So how close is it before you can judge the speed difference?
What if its a stationary car at the end of a queue?
You should be driving so that you can stop if its a stationary object ahead
not just a car doing 25mph.

On 2007-05-10 22:55:58 +0100, Roger said:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/85-mph/?

I see that Alastair Campbell has signed...

On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:55:58 +0100, Roger
wrote:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/85-mph/?

What's the significance of 85 mph?

--
Frank Erskine

Frank Erskine wrote:

On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:55:58 +0100, Roger
wrote:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/85-mph/?

What's the significance of 85 mph?

I would imagine that it is close to the 130km/h limit common in the rest
of Europe and that it is de facto the limit observed by most drivers in
the UK.

Steve Firth wrote:
Frank Erskine wrote:

On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:55:58 +0100, Roger
wrote:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/85-mph/?
What's the significance of 85 mph?

I would imagine that it is close to the 130km/h limit common in the rest
of Europe and that it is de facto the limit observed by most drivers in
the UK.
IIRC its 120 in belgium, 130 in france..some german roads are 140..ISTR
denmark/sweden is 110..or even 100..