Safe Speed Forums

Yet you are willing to discount the opposite argument so readily. That where a driver has *lots* of aceleration, he could find himself in those sorts of situations more often than if he had less accelration to hand. The extra acceleration can bring about an a sense of overconfidence in both the vehicle's ability and the ability of the driver within himself. I'ld like to suggest to you thatb efore you argued against my idea and came up with a siutuation which conveniently fitted your type of rejection, you didn't stop to ask yorself if there was not another side to the situation which you could definately defend. You know as well as I do, that more acceleration in the worng hands will be no less dangerous than less acceleration in the hands of the inexperienced. This in itself made your argument moot.





Personally, I would turn to driving manuals first and have a read. When you say no great magnitude of acceleration is required I will agree that it doesn't for the physics of the situation to conform to existing laws of motion. If we look to driving manuals though we can see that there is a conflict. Most driving manuals suggest you should overtake briskly but safely, and in so doing there is a suggestion there should be more than 'no great magnitude' of acceleration at hand for the dirver's use before you begin the manouevre. So while I agree that the physics is correct, of you have only got 0.1m/s^2 of acceleration available to you when you start your manouevre you are conforming with the laws of physics but if you are not conforming with good sense



[/quote]


A minor techinicality ? It was merely a childish dig. Having had viral meningitis at 14 years and encephalytis the year after I consider myself to have been lucky enough to grow to appreciate what really matters in life. You're obviosuly taking a great deal for granted. I wonder when you might learn to start giving back what you take ? My illnesses affected my ability to spell but most of what you have seen so far is the result of a bad keyboard. Apologies if my computer doesn't meet your reuirements, but it more than satisfies mine

Oh look another little dig.

In response to the point you have made. By not limiting accelration then the opposite case is true, buy allowing them an escape route from the perilous situation are you not giving them an escape route to explore later on again and over ?

Where there is a possibility to get past the vehicle in front, even in a way which is hazardous then it may be likely that the driver will use that 'to their advantage', so to speak.

You can't expect others to have knowledge of incidents which ended up as not being noteworthy.

People who want to get a thrill or show off their 'expertise' will manage it somehow.
I've seen far more written off, bog standard fiestas and escorts than scoobies, supras, cosworths and the like.



Paul (or anyone else),

Do you have data regarding vehicle model type for KSI stats?

This is the point I was making last night but somehwo it was taboo then ! The drivers we are talking about will attempt stupid overtaking manouevres on the open road, acceleration limiter or not. And that's probably the most safe place for them to do it, where there are less children and other pedestrians at the roadside to get dragged into their pointless act. Their speed will be higher, so their death may be quicker and less painful too. They could still do that without breaking the speed limit in an NSL zone.

We still haven't addressed the abject lack of "excess acceleration" in the reports of accidents involving young, or inexperienced, drivers. The fact of the matter is that you have latched onto some physical aspect of the driving process, in a similar manner to the powers-that-be with "Speed Kills", with no evidence to support you assertions that it is a cause of danger.



...and yet you would deny less experienced drivers the ability to conform to this "good sense"!



By denying them the escape route their lives are put in jeopardy. Encouraging them not to put themselves into further sticky situations is the job of education.

Please don't feel you need to make excuses for your spelling, I was quite able to understand your meaning, hence its only a minor point. No medical sob-story required.

To say that there is a lack of it is to say that it is something which is being monitored and that the count of incidences is equal to zero. There even doesn't appear to be, not to me anyway, any mention of the method used to count incidences of excess accelration being a cause of an accident.

This is what you are referring to as an 'abject lack' of reports of. There is an abject lack of reports of excess acceleration because there is no count being taken of the number of incidences. There is also an abject lack of lack of "choking on a birds egg" reports, but then again there is no specific mention of that being monitored as a cause of an accident either.

Yet is this proof that excess acceleration was not an issue ? Of the speeding related incidents ( admittedly not the greatest number) would the speed have been less if an acceleration limiter had been used and the dirver was accelerating at the time ? Possibly

We are talkign about excess speed being a reason in those cases where a speed above that of the legal limit is used.

Could a pedestrian have gone from being seriously injured to only slightly injured if they were collided with at 20mph instead of 30mph, 30 metres from the junction ? Probably.

And so it goes. Acceleration is hidden in lots of ways but never isolated and examined on it's own in any report you care to look for. It rarely gets mentioned in any reports I have read.

There may be a reason for this. Acceleration is almost a sacred cow to the marketing people. The pride which some manufacturers take in their 0-60mph figures is enough proof of that.

The arguments I have heard for people wanting to have a car which just happens to also accelrate quickly is that they need the low down grunt for towing, or they need the pulling power for their trips to foreign and faster roads. An accelration limiter would not stop them from enjoying those things.

Clearly it is likely that acceleration could very much be playing a significant role in existing accidents, only the cause will be related to the first order measurement, such as finite speed. I think that's because when we think of the moment of impact we tend to freeze frame it in our minds, to make it easier to understand. When we do that we discount the change in velocity with time because it is not even in the picture in our mind.









...and yet you would deny less experienced drivers the ability to conform to this "good sense"!


No, not at all, an acceleration limiter does not limit their option to decide against overtaking the vehicle in front. That is a decision which they are always free to make







By denying them the escape route their lives are put in jeopardy. Encouraging them not to put themselves into further sticky situations is the job of education.

Back to education. If you have the information which pertains to the relevance of education to the person making this manouevre I would like to see it. I have noticed that in the past 20 years the standard of the education requirement to sit and pass the test appears to have increased. I sat a one part test with a few questions on the highway code which included a small ammount of discussion for clarifying your answers. now, absolute knowledge is measured, a much more demanding situation.

And yet, with this greater education system, there are still incidences which according to you are a result of a lack of education. Where do you think the system is going wrong ? What specifically do you mean by education if you do not acknowledge that the existing methods are better than ever ?

Should the test standard be raised higher , and if so, how could it ? Some motorway experience woudl be beneficial I think, but after that ? The examiner needs to be sure that the new driver abides by the rules and appears to him at the time of the test to be driving safely and in control.

What happens after the test is what defines the type of person passing the test doesn't it ? Great education, a first time pass, the sitting of pass plus to get an insurance rebate, but a moment of idiocy or disprespect for others, repeated over and over because they keep getting away with it.

How do you iron out this last bit of trouble with education ?

It took a law to get seatbelts fitted, yet here we are knowing how much safer we are as a result of that law, and like many I remember how almost nobody wore a belt before it was made a law. This might tell us something about the difference between the things which we think we know and the things we need to do. Nobody likes to go first, so maybe a law about this is an apt solution. Woudl you simply not wear a seatbelt tomorrow if the seatbelt law was suddely repealed ? ?
Please don't feel you need to make excuses for your spelling, I was quite able to understand your meaning, hence its only a minor point. No medical sob-story required.[/quote]

To say that there is a lack of it is to say that it is something which is being monitored and that the count of incidences is equal to zero. There even doesn't appear to be, not to me anyway, any mention of the method used to count incidences of excess accelration being a cause of an accident.

This is what you are referring to as an 'abject lack' of reports of. There is an abject lack of reports of excess acceleration because there is no count being taken of the number of incidences. There is also an abject lack of lack of "choking on a birds egg" reports, but then again there is no specific mention of that being monitored as a cause of an accident either.

Yet is this proof that excess acceleration was not an issue ? Of the speeding related incidents ( admittedly not the greatest number) would the speed have been less if an acceleration limiter had been used and the dirver was accelerating at the time ? Possibly

We are talkign about excess speed being a reason in those cases where a speed above that of the legal limit is used.

Could a pedestrian have gone from being seriously injured to only slightly injured if they were collided with at 20mph instead of 30mph, 30 metres from the junction ? Probably.

And so it goes. Acceleration is hidden in lots of ways but never isolated and examined on it's own in any report you care to look for. It rarely gets mentioned in any reports I have read.

There may be a reason for this. Acceleration is almost a sacred cow to the marketing people. The pride which some manufacturers take in their 0-60mph figures is enough proof of that.

The arguments I have heard for people wanting to have a car which just happens to also accelrate quickly is that they need the low down grunt for towing, or they need the pulling power for their trips to foreign and faster roads. An accelration limiter would not stop them from enjoying those things.

Clearly it is likely that acceleration could very much be playing a significant role in existing accidents, only the cause will be related to the first order measurement, such as finite speed. I think that's because when we think of the moment of impact we tend to freeze frame it in our minds, to make it easier to understand. When we do that we discount the change in velocity with time because it is not even in the picture in our mind.









...and yet you would deny less experienced drivers the ability to conform to this "good sense"!


No, not at all, an acceleration limiter does not limit their option to decide against overtaking the vehicle in front. That is a decision which they are always free to make







By denying them the escape route their lives are put in jeopardy. Encouraging them not to put themselves into further sticky situations is the job of education.

Back to education. If you have the information which pertains to the relevance of education to the person making this manouevre I would like to see it. I have noticed that in the past 20 years the standard of the education requirement to sit and pass the test appears to have increased. I sat a one part test with a few questions on the highway code which included a small ammount of discussion for clarifying your answers. now, absolute knowledge is measured, a much more demanding situation.

And yet, with this greater education system, there are still incidences which according to you are a result of a lack of education. Where do you think the system is going wrong ? What specifically do you mean by education if you do not acknowledge that the existing methods are better than ever ?

Should the test standard be raised higher , and if so, how could it ? Some motorway experience woudl be beneficial I think, but after that ? The examiner needs to be sure that the new driver abides by the rules and appears to him at the time of the test to be driving safely and in control.

What happens after the test is what defines the type of person passing the test doesn't it ? Great education, a first time pass, the sitting of pass plus to get an insurance rebate, but a moment of idiocy or disprespect for others, repeated over and over because they keep getting away with it.

How do you iron out this last bit of trouble with education ?

It took a law to get seatbelts fitted, yet here we are knowing how much safer we are as a result of that law, and like many I remember how almost nobody wore a belt before it was made a law. This might tell us something about the difference between the things which we think we know and the things we need to do. Nobody likes to go first, so maybe a law about this is an apt solution. Woudl you simply not wear a seatbelt tomorrow if the seatbelt law was suddely repealed ? ?


Please don't feel you need to make excuses for your spelling, I was quite able to understand your meaning, hence its only a minor point. No medical sob-story required.[/quote]

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't making a sob story, just pointing out that you can see past things which may seem alien at first, once you see how short life really is. Well done on your good spelling, hopefully it doesn't mean that you believe that what you say is any more true as a result !

That answers my points how?



More to consider:

Urban areas:
Your bog standard car, when ragged, will still go from slow speeds or standstill to exceeding 30mph in a fairly short distance, certainly less than the length of your average street.

Rural areas:
Acceleration isn't the problem here. In general there is plenty of distance to get up all the speed one needs to take too much speed into a bend.


So just what do you believe we should limit acceleration to? To that of a standard car, which obviously won't help - or lower still?

Highways:
If acceleration is limited to below what a standard car will do, what becomes of joining fast roads?

I will have to assume that by a standard car you mean something like a family hatchback driven cautiously. Or do you mean something else perhaps ? I can't see why you have assumed that the acceleration limit would be set to below that which such a car could manage, can you explain why you have done that ?

Sorry, I had hoped it would be clear enough (and there was a question in there, I’ll repeat).
Would you agree that people who want to get a thrill or show off their 'expertise' will manage it somehow, even with an acceleration limited car?

Do you have any basis to believe higher accelerating cars are over-represented in crash stats?


Sorry. From your previous posts in other threads it appeared you had a basic level of technical appreciation.
A typical car is capable of getting to 60 in about 10 seconds. Assuming a lumped linear power curve (gear changes) except at very low speeds (torque limit), from standstill (which need not be the case); it would take such a car about 4 seconds to get to 30 (if pushed to the limit). 4 seconds ramping to 30mph from standstill (assuming no gear change needed) needs ~27 meters. An average street is somewhat more than 4 houses wide – no?
I live in the heart of a high density city. The shortest road within 500m of me is 50 meters in length (using Google maps).


What silly questions, no need to grace them with answers. These follow a statement, which I agree with, which serves to undo your argument.
Yes the bends could well serve to limit the maximum safe speed for the conditions, so what does that have to do with acceleration? No matter how much you limit acceleration, one can still build up enough speed to get it wrong through a bend – no?


Please don’t misrepresent my posts. I made no such assumption, I merely asked you the question: that or lower. Any higher is pointless because that’s what you are arguing against – no?
To restate a previous question: if your answer is lower, then what will become of joining fast roads?

“Driven cautiously” is a red herring. Your argument is around what a car is capable of, not what people actually ask of it (now who is the one making assumptions?)


So what kind of rate of acceleration do you propose to limit cars (of inexperienced drivers) to? Above that of a typical car, about equal, or below? I’m not looking for a definitive quantative answer, an answer of principle will do. I don't think that's an unreasonable question to ask.

We would have to define the typical car's performance to know what sort of benchmark to use, would we not ?

You can use your own method, I will use my own, then we have our ideas we can compare the merits of each and I suppose we pick somewhere in between. Then we ask others to get involved. Maybe ask them to accelrate at what they consider a safe maximum for ordinary traffic conditions and average that into our figure. Then maybe ask the police and even insurance companies for their input, after all, wiht their backing you also get some shared responsibility which makes more people invovled in the process. It should not be one person dictating a finite limit. It should be a democratically derived limt in my opinion

Oh dear lord, the obtusity, it burns!



I don't see excess acceleration mentioned in Paul's quote, perhaps he will add it in light of your persuasive argument.



Reading as well as writing huh? Smeggy obviously meant that the average street's length is greater than the width of four houses!



Traction control then? Not quite the same as your original suggestion is it!

If a car goes 0-30mph in 2 houses' or 4 houses' width, do you seriously believe it makes a significant impact on safety? They're hopefully not driving with their eyes shut after all!

You're obviously entrenched in your position, with no intention of shifting regardless of the weakness of your argument, so there's really little point in trying to see eye-to-eye on this one. Suffice to say that I hope, for the safety of all road users, that the government do not start basing future policies for young drivers on your hunches!

Yes Robin. I don't why why we bother. Nice to see great minds think alike. See below.

Everyone else, if you don't want to read a tortuous post, just go straight to the bottom.






High speed cornering, power sliding and wheel-spinning (yes they can be done in a torque limited car), threading the needle (racing in tight spaces a la Japan).


One can always have too much acceleration.
Now please explain how on earth that answered my question above, where is the description of the disproportionate number of higher accelerating cars involved in more accidents?


You’re either very disingenuous or just plain stupid (slap wrist – sorry Paul but it has to be said).
There is a ‘mean length’ but not an ‘average’? (in case you say it: you said ‘typically average’, not me)
Now who said wide or width or sideways? Was that me or you? Do you not know what length means? What is the length of a rope that extends to 10 meters and has a diameter of 1cm? I’ll give you a clue. Here’s another.
How many drivers do you know who try travel along a street widthways?

These were my original words:

If you really did read that as sideways then you’ve just made a laughing stock of yourself.
Now that you’re clear on the matter, do you agree with my original statement quoted just above?


I’m so sorry for not measuring the length of all the streets on Portsea Island, no – Hampshire, no – England!
I went with what I believe to be a worse than representative case (indeed subsequent checking of the rest of Portsea Island confirms the trend). At least I tried to arrive at a figure (and I was clear with how I did it); how about you?


Are you committing ad hominem by claiming my driving is somehow worse than most, or are you saying that most people cannot possibly ever get it wrong?


Didn’t you just give the answer – yes?
Please clarify: you would in principle limit the acceleration of a car of a young driver to that of a typical car?
(I take it you accept your claim of an assumption on my part is unfounded.)


And how does that explain how the comment isn’t a red herring?
If I might remind you: I was talking about the capabilities of a standard car, not how a standard car is being driven (especially to below its abilities); that’s why your addition of how a car is being driven is irrelevant.


No!

What is your method? I don’t have one because I see no net benefit for supporting doing so, so we cannot compare. The insurance companies already have their input.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Right. As far as I’m concerned, I responded to a joke; thankfully there was an exception. The bit below gets to the nub of it.


Only up to a point. If one keeps accelerating they’ll still eventually fall off the road. Besides, it is possible to control an excess torque slide; the same can’t be said for torqueless slide.

Why not continue your theme by limiting braking; afterall, that takes away from traction too.

Now, my comment is not as silly as you might try to make it out to be. In fact, your comment above is IMO the most valid point you’ve made; however, I can solve that (from your point of view) in one easy hit without use of a blanket acceleration limiter – traction control. Now that is worth discussing!

Traction control then? Not quite the same as your original suggestion is it!

Why does it have to be instead of . Traction control could work well together with acceleratin limits ? Traction control only works where there is danger of losing grip. An accelration limiter works when there is danger of a driver losing their mind



If a car goes 0-30mph in 2 houses' or 4 houses' width, do you seriously believe it makes a significant impact on safety? They're hopefully not driving with their eyes shut after all!



I can't be serious about distance mesured in house widths I'm afraid, shoudl we measure accelerator pedal deflection in numbers of heavy potatoes too ? , Reminds me of my uncle, a farmer his whole life till he died. He measured driving times in a tractor in numbers of cigarettes. Sadly, we're trying to talk about something which obviously needs a bit
more accuracy.

You're obviously entrenched in your position, with no intention of shifting regardless of the weakness of your argument, so there's really little point in trying to see eye-to-eye on this one. Suffice to say that I hope, for the safety of all road users, that the government do not start basing future policies for young drivers on your hunches!


And hopefully they will consider the safety of all new drivers from all age groups to be as important as each other and not just those of the young drivers you seem to be obsessed with.

Yes but how good is it at stopping a new driver from acelerating too fast ? Traction control is safety device to assist someone in getting out of a dangerous situation but an accelration limiter would stop them from getting into the intial situation IMO

This is getting silly.

Everyone else, please just skip to my next post below.





I answered your question, why do you feel the need to divert with another?
More significantly: to answer your question – nothing, which is exactly our point! Acceleration limiters do not prevent reckless behaviour.





Proof of what? I made no claim, I’m merely scrutinising your opinion of acceleration limiters.


If that was a joke it was unfunniest ever: length is width, mean isn’t average - don’t worry, we’re laughing anyway!


How disingenuous of you. I gave you a straight quantative answer to that. You are trolling.


Halfway? To what? 173 is fine! You see, I never actually gave a figure for the average length, just a minimum; but then you were looking for the mean length, which is of course a completely different characteristic

Anyway, to repeat yet again:
Urban areas:
Your bog standard car, when ragged, will still go from slow speeds or standstill to exceeding 30mph in a fairly short distance, certainly less than the length of your average street.
I have quantified the ‘fairly short distance’, you have quantified the average length of a street in Edinburgh. This confirms my statement above – yes?
My point being (wow, at last): what good will acceleration limiting a car do, considering one can still get up to dangerous speeds on an average street anyway?


That was a question? Sorry but it really isn’t clear at all.
What are the other options you believe exist?


No I did not. You are lying (both with the ‘assumption’ and asking you ‘to agree’) – please desist! Failure to do so will result with a complaint.

I actually asked if you propose that a car (for inexperienced drivers), with such a limiter, should be limited to what a standard car can do:

Those are the only times in this thread where I used the word lower.


Well, you did say "The answer is not lower" and I did comment that it is pointless being higher.
Lo and behold, I eventually get my answer anyway:


Or: you could agree that it should be the same as a typical car, whilst leaving the option open to disagree on what you believe is a typical car. Would that not be more appropriate?


You input is regarding limiting how cars can be driven. The red herring still stands.


In case you don’t know what you were talking about: we were referring to the capability of a typical car as a reference, not the typical rate which people choose to accelerate at. Anyway, let’s go on with your method.

There is a problem with it. You see, people will not accelerate at the same rate each time: they will be slower in sensitive areas. They’ll also be faster, perhaps taking the vehicle to the limit, on entry points to fast roads (remember me saying that earlier - now do you see how I was many steps ahead). Now, to deprive drivers of that part above the average of the distribution (do I need to explain that word too?) could be very undesirable in such circumstances – yes?

Now to get to the part where I hoped a level of sanity would return

<sigh>


How? There’s nothing a simple, passive, acceleration limiter can do to stop drivers from going into a corner too fast. Indeed they can still lose control when flooring it.





I think you really need to reconsider your arguments here – I’m serious! I’m sure readers will agree that I don’t need to say anymore on the subject until you do.

In my old Fiesta Mk3 it was sometimes a bit terrifying joining busy motorways due to lack of power. Overtaking was difficult due to poor acceleration, where in the car i'm driving now (Fiesta Mk5 16v Zetec-S) overtaking is a doddle. Of course, you will get morons who abuse this, but it goes back to the point of is it fair to punish all young drivers for the actions of the idiotic few?

May I add my two pennorth, in order to try and clear up the moraass of confusion that seems to have arisen regarding house widths vis a vis street lengths?

Whilst there may seem prima facie to be a terminological misalignment involving the notion of street length being depicted in integral multiples of house-width, there is nevertheless a persuasive and compelling reason for this apparent misappropriation.

This, quite simply, is the fact that in the general case (assuming we are dealing with the general case, and thus that any specific examples to the contrary can be dismissed as atypical, if not anecdotal, or even hearsay) residential housing displays a strong tendency to be constructed perpendicular to the run of the street upon which it abuts; that is to say that to the observer, (casual or otherwise) viewing the property from the perspective of the said street, the width of the house actually lies along or parallel to a line (imaginary or otherwise) painted along the length of the street.

Thus it is apparent that the representation of street length as a multiple of house-width is perfectly correct, as the two measurements lie along the same vector.

I trust this concise post clears up any confusion arising, and that everyone can now return to the previous valuable discussion upon vehicle acceleration (limits thereof).

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

I could not have said it any better, or even as good