Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Jan 22, 2018 03:18

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 14:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
zak wrote:
The reaction generated on this forum to this seems to confirm the lack of intelligence and arrogance of some of todays drivers who have little concern for safety!


Quite the opposite.

Do you actually drive?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 14:28 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
willcove wrote:
I note that you still haven't answered my technical questions about how such a device would work (got a link to the Swedish system - preferably in English?) In the meantime, I've thought of yet more issues with such a system:
  • It has to transmit the full torque from the engine - or perhaps the full torque from the gearbox output. If you put it between the gearbox output and the diff on an auto, it will need to take account that torque converters are effectively torque multipliers at low speed - i.e. it will need to be really beefy.
  • Where are you going to fit this device? In modern front-wheel-drive cars, there isn't much room for an additional clutch capable of transmitting the full power of the engine. It has to be an additional device - unless you're only going to fit it only to manuals.
  • Such a device is certain to absorb power - which means greater fuel consumption - and is thus contra to the stated government policies of reducing emissions.
I just hope that this device is only ever fitted as an "optional extra".


to be honest it would take literally minutes for any vehicle manufacturer to knock up a prototype of such a system on any modern car with power steering and engine management system.
sounds like nothing more than a software tweak.

not including safety analysis & validation etc.
there are lots of functions that could be easily added through software, not all are desirable! or particularly useful.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 00:47 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
zak wrote:
The reaction generated on this forum to this seems to confirm the lack of intelligence and arrogance of some of todays drivers who have little concern for safety!


Would you care to enlighten us as to any reason why driving with only one hand on the steering wheel is, in itself, dangerous or detrimental to road safety?

How come I can safely control multi-million pound aircraft with one hand but to drive thus would instantly make me a menace to be stopped at once, regardless of my situation on the road?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 09:55 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
Zaks idea may have a little merit, however, to forcibly implement a removal of control of a vital function from the driver does not.

I think the main thrust of Zaks argument is that by having both hands on the wheel youll effectively gain more control.
The reason for that assertion would be because of the extra numbers of nerve endings in contact with the vehicle giving extra feedback, certainly ive heard such things stated before in books on handling and control.

As for whether or not its dangerous to drive one handed; no, absolutely not. If it was considered so, there would im sure be a law for it and disabled drivers wouldnt be allowed to drive.

The thumb through the wheel point; I confess to doing this. :( However, i dont actually lock them in position, and both are on top of the spar thats positioned at the periphery of the wheel.
In the hopefully unlikely event of me having a shunt thatd rip it out of my grasp, i think it likely my thumbs would simply release.
I could be wrong though! :)

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:45 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
Sounds to me like an invention looking for a purpose or a solution looking for a problem.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't think I've ever heared a clamour for a device that makes sure both your hands are on the wheel. Not even from the 'Something must be done' brigade!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:50 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 15:14
Posts: 420
Location: Aberdeenshire
Leaving off-road vehicles aside for a moment - I think it's fair to say that most vehicles would react undesireably if power was cut mid-bend - especially in the wet.

The thumbs in steering wheels discussion is interesting but it is not directly relevant to this thread........ perhaps another should be started to discuss that topic which is a discussion in it's own right??

This topic was started by Zak suggesting a system which removed control from the driver, in the event of the driver not being in "full control" as defined by Zak who I'd guess has never driven before.


Leaving aside my distaste for driver assistance devices and automation in general (I firmly believe that automation does erode the ability to think), I fail to see any benefits of a system which punishes a lack of control with the removal of further control.

And that's being as kind as I can. I can think of plenty times on snow when I simply can't feed the wheel fast enough to catch skids and have to spin the wheel one handed. Sure I wasn't in proper control - but I have avoided accidents that way.

I wholeheartedly reject the idea that driving one handed is automatically dangerous, and I question the idea that using a mobile phone whilst driving is dangerous. I simply cannot see why a mobile phone is a disaster waiting to happen whilst driving using a CB or other type of radio tranceiver (as the Police do) is not dangerous. There seems to be a remarkable similarity between a phone and a radio yet only one is ragarded as a menace to society....???

Apart from my reservations about the validity of the apparent need for this suggested system - I think it sounds positively dangerous.

I bounce the accusation of lack of intelligence straight back at Zak for attempting to sell a flawed idea on a concept he clearly knows nothing about.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 12:04 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
It's a 'good idea' but I think it's fairly obvious that its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I see it all the time. I've been in my new role a few months now and all I seem to be doing is scrapping and cancelling projects that are 'good ideas' and 'answers' because they are attempting to solve problems that don't exist.

You'd be amazed how many people come up with a solution (particularly if it's technology based) then set about looking for the problem to apply it to!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 14:04 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:28
Posts: 12
Quote:
Leaving off-road vehicles aside for a moment - I think it's fair to say that most vehicles would react undesireably if power was cut mid-bend - especially in the wet.

The thumbs in steering wheels discussion is interesting but it is not directly relevant to this thread........ perhaps another should be started to discuss that topic which is a discussion in it's own right??

This topic was started by Zak suggesting a system which removed control from the driver, in the event of the driver not being in "full control" as defined by Zak who I'd guess has never driven before.


Leaving aside my distaste for driver assistance devices and automation in general (I firmly believe that automation does erode the ability to think), I fail to see any benefits of a system which punishes a lack of control with the removal of further control.

And that's being as kind as I can. I can think of plenty times on snow when I simply can't feed the wheel fast enough to catch skids and have to spin the wheel one handed. Sure I wasn't in proper control - but I have avoided accidents that way.

I wholeheartedly reject the idea that driving one handed is automatically dangerous, and I question the idea that using a mobile phone whilst driving is dangerous. I simply cannot see why a mobile phone is a disaster waiting to happen whilst driving using a CB or other type of radio tranceiver (as the Police do) is not dangerous. There seems to be a remarkable similarity between a phone and a radio yet only one is ragarded as a menace to society....???

Apart from my reservations about the validity of the apparent need for this suggested system - I think it sounds positively dangerous.

I bounce the accusation of lack of intelligence straight back at Zak for attempting to sell a flawed idea on a concept he clearly knows nothing about.
________________Yes you are right I know little about the concept,but it has been fitted to vehicles,the drivers reported that they never knew the device was fitted.bit like an airbag.You carry on using your mobile phone when driving?,lets hope you dont cause an accident like so many selfish stupid people have done.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 14:05 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:28
Posts: 12
Quote:
Leaving off-road vehicles aside for a moment - I think it's fair to say that most vehicles would react undesireably if power was cut mid-bend - especially in the wet.

The thumbs in steering wheels discussion is interesting but it is not directly relevant to this thread........ perhaps another should be started to discuss that topic which is a discussion in it's own right??

This topic was started by Zak suggesting a system which removed control from the driver, in the event of the driver not being in "full control" as defined by Zak who I'd guess has never driven before.


Leaving aside my distaste for driver assistance devices and automation in general (I firmly believe that automation does erode the ability to think), I fail to see any benefits of a system which punishes a lack of control with the removal of further control.

And that's being as kind as I can. I can think of plenty times on snow when I simply can't feed the wheel fast enough to catch skids and have to spin the wheel one handed. Sure I wasn't in proper control - but I have avoided accidents that way.

I wholeheartedly reject the idea that driving one handed is automatically dangerous, and I question the idea that using a mobile phone whilst driving is dangerous. I simply cannot see why a mobile phone is a disaster waiting to happen whilst driving using a CB or other type of radio tranceiver (as the Police do) is not dangerous. There seems to be a remarkable similarity between a phone and a radio yet only one is ragarded as a menace to society....???

Apart from my reservations about the validity of the apparent need for this suggested system - I think it sounds positively dangerous.

I bounce the accusation of lack of intelligence straight back at Zak for attempting to sell a flawed idea on a concept he clearly knows nothing about.
________________Yes you are right I know little about the concept,but it has been fitted to vehicles,the drivers reported that they never knew the device was fitted.bit like an airbag.You carry on using your mobile phone when driving?,lets hope you dont cause an accident .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 14:18 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
zak wrote:
Yes you are right I know little about the concept,but it has been fitted to vehicles

This means nothing! Besides, it’s only for a trial.

zak wrote:
the drivers reported that they never knew the device was fitted

This proves that the equipment is redundant and did nothing to improve safety!

The equipment didn’t affect their attitude or driving style otherwise the cut-off would have activated – and then they would have known about it!

zak wrote:
bit like an airbag.

Except an airbag won’t forcibly take control from you.


Pretty please sort out your quote tagging!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 14:19 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 15:14
Posts: 420
Location: Aberdeenshire
zak wrote:
Quote:
Leaving off-road vehicles aside for a moment - I think it's fair to say that most vehicles would react undesireably if power was cut mid-bend - especially in the wet.

The thumbs in steering wheels discussion is interesting but it is not directly relevant to this thread........ perhaps another should be started to discuss that topic which is a discussion in it's own right??

This topic was started by Zak suggesting a system which removed control from the driver, in the event of the driver not being in "full control" as defined by Zak who I'd guess has never driven before.


Leaving aside my distaste for driver assistance devices and automation in general (I firmly believe that automation does erode the ability to think), I fail to see any benefits of a system which punishes a lack of control with the removal of further control.

And that's being as kind as I can. I can think of plenty times on snow when I simply can't feed the wheel fast enough to catch skids and have to spin the wheel one handed. Sure I wasn't in proper control - but I have avoided accidents that way.

I wholeheartedly reject the idea that driving one handed is automatically dangerous, and I question the idea that using a mobile phone whilst driving is dangerous. I simply cannot see why a mobile phone is a disaster waiting to happen whilst driving using a CB or other type of radio tranceiver (as the Police do) is not dangerous. There seems to be a remarkable similarity between a phone and a radio yet only one is ragarded as a menace to society....???

Apart from my reservations about the validity of the apparent need for this suggested system - I think it sounds positively dangerous.

I bounce the accusation of lack of intelligence straight back at Zak for attempting to sell a flawed idea on a concept he clearly knows nothing about.
________________Yes you are right I know little about the concept,but it has been fitted to vehicles,the drivers reported that they never knew the device was fitted.bit like an airbag.You carry on using your mobile phone when driving?,lets hope you dont cause an accident .


Zak - please don't mis-quote me. I said I questioned the idea of the dangers of using mobile phones when driving.

My justification was that Police, Ambulance and HGV drivers can driver with devices which perform a remarkably similar function, requiring the same divertion of attention and often are used in a remarkably similar way. Despite this - driving on the phone is illegal whereas driving on the CB radio for example is not. Is there a justification for this specific exclusion?

Please find, quote and highlight the point at which I stated I continue to use my mobile phone whilst driving. If you cannot find it, please apologise for making it up :)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 14:47 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
A GREATER degree of attention even!

Mind you, police can also SOMETIMES exceed the speed limit and it's not dangerous! :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 15:48 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
jamie_duff wrote:
The thumbs in steering wheels discussion is interesting but it is not directly relevant to this thread........ perhaps another should be started to discuss that topic which is a discussion in it's own right??


I've split the 'thumbs' discussion as best I can to a new topic: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11073

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 17:56 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
Jamie

FWIW I BELIEVE CB's fall under the same legislation banning the use of handheld mobile phones. The reason the emergency services get away with it is because of the frequencies they use.

I personally don't actually believe that using a handheld phone is as dangerous as people make it out to be, but that's a different debate! :P

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 18:33 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 18:41
Posts: 893
Sixy_the_red wrote:
FWIW I BELIEVE CB's fall under the same legislation banning the use of handheld mobile phones. The reason the emergency services get away with it is because of the frequencies they use.

AFAICT, two-way radios that cannot be used as mobile phones are still allowed subject (of course) the requirement that you remain in full control of your vehicle while driving (IOW, the man is just as likely to pull you for using a PTT as before the mobile phone ban). Here's a link on the Sussex police site.

AFAICT the key feature to be an exempted 2-way radio is that it must use a PTT switch - i.e. the much safer VOX option available for CB and Ham mobile rigs might turn them into "mobile phones" for the purposes of these regulations - even if duplex operation isn't possible. (infered from this RoSPA page) However, SI 2003 No. 2695 defines a mobile phone as: "... a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data." but does not define what is meant by a two-way radio - so the courts seem left to decide whether replacing a manual PTT with a VOX switch is enough to turn a two-way radio that would otherwise be exempt into a mobile phone.

<fe>Yet another well thought out piece of legislation? </fe> :roll:

_________________
Will


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 19:40 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
willcove wrote:
...but does not define what is meant by a two-way radio

Yes it does:
Quote:
(d) "two-way radio" means any wireless telegraphy apparatus which is designed or adapted -

(i) for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken messages; and

(ii) to operate on any frequency other than 880 MHz to 915 MHz, 925 MHz to 960 MHz, 1710 MHz to 1785 MHz, 1805 MHz to 1880 MHz, 1900 MHz to 1980 MHz or 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz; and


CB radios are exempt. Everything is exempt except mobile phones. Including tetra handhelds. Which work (or can work) as mobile phones. It is a stupid law. Very stupid law. Completely pointless.

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 19:55 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 18:41
Posts: 893
Ziltro wrote:
Yes it does:

and reproduced the bit that I'd missed :oops:

Thanks for that. So, CB, PMR, and ham equipment on 70cm and longer is exempt no matter whether they're operating simplex or duplex, or controlled via PTT or VOX!

_________________
Will


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 20:20 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
Yep. If it's not in that list of frequencies it's exempt.
So a standard telephone handset connected to an amature, CB, PMR etc. radio is exempt.

A VOIP + WLAN phone (2.4GHz) is exempt.

A DECT or analogue cordless phone (maybe communicating with a base station in your car which could be connected to another device or being used in convoy) is exempt.

Holding a mobile phone to your ear to listen to music is (unless I read it wrong) also exempt.

Using a mobile phone while sitting in a traffic queue, bad bad evil and illegal. Please pay fine.

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 21:05 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 18:41
Posts: 893
Ziltro wrote:
A DECT or analogue cordless phone (maybe communicating with a base station in your car which could be connected to another device or being used in convoy) is exempt.

So, you could run (say) Asterisk with a premicell and a WiFi card on a laptop in the boot of your car connected to a hand-held Wifi SIP phone and be completely legal even though the communication was routed via a prohibited frequency because the device you were actally holding was talking to your PBX rather than the outside world.

They really thought this one out ... or perhaps it's another rule born of policital expedience and spin rather than common sense?!

_________________
Will


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 21:16 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
Pretty much. But try explaining that to Mr. Police officer... :lol:

I've had a thought...

If using a mobile phone while driving causes you to drive dangerously or not be in control of the vehicle then you are already committing an offence.

So this law is only for penalising people who can use them safely. :x

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.332s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]