Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Dec 17, 2017 22:12

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:32 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
How about technology that detects when a vehicle is within the area defined by a virtual "ring" (town/city) and then adapts to reduce the maximum speed of the vehicle to 15mph. Kind of like an ISA system but works on an ANPR/RFID system?

The driver then wouldn't need to worry about speed limits, just controlling the vehicle at an appropriate speed within this busy environment. The system could be de-activated at certain times (example: night time when there's not many people about)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 13:07 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
15mph? Why?

If you only ask folk to provide 15mph's worth of attention you only get 15mph's worth of attention - and actually that isn't much. So suddenly almost all of the impacts (which always did result from attention failures) will be at around 15mph.

And even 15mph is a deadly speed.

This really is one of the stupidest road safety ideas on the planet. We have an amazing road safety system based on the behaviour of human beings as skilled risk managers - and people like you wish to take their ability to manage risk away.

_________________
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 05, 2006 15:23 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
Apart from being a daft idea in the first place, this is highly impracticable anyway. Most towns have routes going through any such "ring" specifically designed for through traffic to pass through the area quickly. These go under, over and alongside roads designed for urban use. Technology is just not up to coping with this situation safely.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 23:41 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
SafeSpeed wrote:
15mph? Why?

If you only ask folk to provide 15mph's worth of attention you only get 15mph's worth of attention - and actually that isn't much. So suddenly almost all of the impacts (which always did result from attention failures) will be at around 15mph.

And even 15mph is a deadly speed

This really is one of the stupidest road safety ideas on the planet. We have an amazing road safety system based on the behaviour of human beings as skilled risk managers - and people like you wish to take their ability to manage risk away.


I thought there were no "wrong" or "right" ideas in the context of Brainstorming, or maybe you're just "inciting hatred" by rebuking my idea formally? :roll:

Anyway, the limit really was arbitrary. I was using the Joksch curve to generate a dV of 10mph as p(fatal)~0.1 at this dV, making the assumption that VRU's are 200% more likely to be killed than a car occupant in a crash.

It may well be worse, I don't know the exact figures for VRUs (I used DfT 20% die at 20 as a rule of thumb to generate my 0.1 figure which probably isn't linear.)

Anyway, in reality this would give:

1) A stopping distance which is virtually instantaneous for a good vehicle in good conditions.

2) Consistent and expected driving behaviour.

3) More time for COAST, as people would not need to worry about "limits". If the road ahead is clear, then maximum speed can be applied. If not, then slow down as normal.

The only places where this would be introduced would be highly urbanised environments or residential areas. High pedestrian and hazard density.

Why is that such a bad idea? How exactly would it remove concentration from the road? How exactly would it be any worse than allowing someone to travel at 30 or 40mph in the same are (which generates a p(fatal) of somewhere in the region of 0.3-0.6% allowing for braking effects) which is unacceptably high risk for an environment containing so many hazards.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 00:49 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
mpaton - please note my post above


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:40 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
I did, there's nothing stopping the system being implemented on these roads.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 13:24 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
mpaton2004 wrote:
I did, there's nothing stopping the system being implemented on these roads.


On what basis do you say that?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 15:45 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
ANPR cameras linked to transmitters which log and activate/deactivate vehicles coming into and out of the zone. It would probably work better in residential streets than in congested city centres.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 16:59 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
Not sure at all.

I do have to admit that I find myself using my speed limiter within the m42 but I control that and I have the discretion as to when to use it. A bit like the F1 drivers in the pit lane.

I'm very loath to take control, away from the driver in an urban area. You'll have more experience of auto pilot than me but I fear that the driver's brain would switch off rather than become more alert to the dangers.

I have more sympathy for the idea if it could be applied to congested non junction motorways when cars could be formed into a kind of high speed train........but this is star wars stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 18:00 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9230
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
First they get control of your car in what is termed dangerous territory.
Next it advances to 20 Zones.
Next 30 limitas and 40 limits.
Next week - the UK - LOOK AT THE PROBLEMS HGV blokes are having - overheard one traffic boss ( got a medium sized firm ) say - the problem is at 56mph they ALL SWITCH OFF.

And when you're following Aunty Flo at 45 in a 60 - don't forget that once in a time , you could accelerate to pass her in safety - now you've only got 15mph to play with - wait for the accident figures to go off the scale. :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 18:24 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
That's why I said residential areas / town centres.

Places where you DON'T need to accelerate rapidly to get out of trouble.

It would create a much nicer environment for pedestrians, and smooth traffic flow, which would reduce congestion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 18:53 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9230
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
And in a car there ane now two computers .One is a basic model. The other is a very advanced one - capable of controling a space vehicle / supertanker/ jet fighter/programming a computer.

One is the vehicle CCU - one is man.

Which one do you think is better equiped to deal with the task ( Little hint the more advanced one sits in your head) :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 19:15 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
mpaton2004 wrote:
ANPR cameras linked to transmitters which log and activate/deactivate vehicles coming into and out of the zone. It would probably work better in residential streets than in congested city centres.


And are these transmitters directional?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 21:20 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
Quote:
I have more sympathy for the idea if it could be applied to congested non junction motorways when cars could be formed into a kind of high speed train........but this is star wars stuff.

Perhaps not for much longer. do a Google on SLIMSENS. I'll have to say no more about it as I work for one of the companies involved.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 01:37 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
botach wrote:
And in a car there ane now two computers .One is a basic model. The other is a very advanced one - capable of controling a space vehicle / supertanker/ jet fighter/programming a computer.

One is the vehicle CCU - one is man.

Which one do you think is better equiped to deal with the task ( Little hint the more advanced one sits in your head) :lol:


You are missing the point. The speed limit would be 10-15mph, hard limited. You don't need to worry about exceeding it. If the road is clear enough to do 15mph, then that's what you can do. If it isn't you slow down. You don't need to stare at the speedo, in fact you don't even need to look at it!

We are talking about communities of linked residential streets with double parked cars, kiddies playing, dogs, etc. One benefit of the system would be the elimination of the need for speed cameras and road humps.

Is it such a bad idea?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 09:34 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
mpaton2004 wrote:
The speed limit would be 10-15mph, hard limited. You don't need to worry about exceeding it.


I agree, you just nail your right foot to the floor and forget about driving.

In fact, we could take it a step further, take complete control of the vehicle's speed within these areas, if every vehicle is travelling at 5mph they can't crash into each other and pedestrians can sprint out of the way. We can window shop from the driving seat. 8-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:13 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
Trying to have a sensible debate on here is pointless. I suppose we should continue to let people do 30-40 in these places, as they must be right, they're drivers who can judge "appropriate speed for the conditions" perfectly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:58 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
i'm sure this could be done, with existing technology, given the right funding & legislation.

it may well have some beneficial effects in terms of safety.

however, as usual, its probably targetting the effect and not the problem.

probably also has several undesirable spin off effects: increased pollution, drop in custom to local businesses.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
mpaton2004 wrote:
Trying to have a sensible debate on here is pointless. I suppose we should continue to let people do 30-40 in these places, as they must be right, they're drivers who can judge "appropriate speed for the conditions" perfectly.


With 11,000 child pedestrians injured last year and 47 deaths in built up areas, clearly the vast majority of us are not striking them at the '20% die at 30mph' level - If we were it would have been well over 2,000 deaths.

But the proportion 47/11,000 = 0.42% is a massive overestimate of reality, because:

- Injuries are under-reported by around a factor of 3. (=30,000)
- Many accident don't result in an injury at all (another 20,000?)
- The vast majority of incidents result in no impact (another 200,000 perhaps)

Show me ONE SHREAD of evidence that a significant part of our road safety problems are caused by 'people driving far too fast' in urban areas.

I've been looking for well over 5 years, and I haven't seen one yet.

_________________
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: Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:07 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1270
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
For what it's worth I reckon that you'd either have to have a "full auto" system - control of speed, braking, steering, collision avoidance etc, or nothing, ie leave things as they are.

Your method leaves effective control of everything except maximum speed to the driver - who would still have to remain sufficiently alert to adjust his speed if necessary, brake and steer... Ok... Can you imagine the unspeakable boredom (not to mention the sheer amount of time involved) of trundling across the 35-or-so miles of Greater London, or the 30+ miles that comprises the West Midlands conurbation at 15 mph max? You'd have masses of accidents caused by the official main contributory factor - innatention.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.240s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]