This is getting silly.
Everyone else, please just skip to my next post below.
fixitsan wrote:
In short, I can't see how a thrill seeker can achieve a thrill in an acceleration limited car, short of driving towards a wall and braking far too late. But that isn't really driving is it, so no. If you can think of a way then let us all know
[smeggy gives examples]
Can you explain the relevance of this to public road safety ?
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.
As you appear to be of the belief that accerlerating too quickly is not reckless then I suggest you be the frist person to be get a limiter when you learn to drivefixitsan wrote:
You asked me for examples of evidence I had assumed to be correct which might indicate that a higher than normal number of crashes where speed weas incvolved was as a result of excess accelration.
smeggy actually wrote:
Do you have any basis to believe higher accelerating cars are over-represented in crash stats?
fixitsan wrote:
so if you have some proof of it, why are you witholding it ?
Proof of what? I made no claim, I’m merely scrutinising your opinion of acceleration limiters.
Oh I see. It seemed to me that you were scrutinising YOUR opinion of acceleration limiters and not mine. You asked me why I thought higher accelerating cars might be misrepresented in crash statistics. Yet I made no such representation to that effect. You did. Therefore you are scrutinising your own ideas on the subject. I can't stop you from doing that, I can only suggest you might risk losing your own argument with yourself fixitsan wrote:
Again, you missed on my joke
If that was a joke it was unfunniest ever: length is width, mean isn’t average - don’t worry, we’re laughing anyway!
I admit a mistake in using mean when I meant median. We can't just lunmp into the average any statistic as it was attempted to beign done because the frequency distribution of accidents with respect to speed, in fact with respect to most measures is not symmetrical enough about the mean to do thatfixitsan wrote:
A bog standard car which is ragged ? How quickly does it accelerate on a dry road surface ? is it.....hhmmm.... let me guess, you seem to like vagueness….
How disingenuous of you. I gave you a straight quantative answer to that. You are trolling.
You made up a figure. Admit that.fixitsan wrote:
I evaluated it to be 173 metres, based on averaging over 97 streets chosen at random from the nearest city edinburgh.
Meet you halfway ? At about 110 metres ? okay ?
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
And didn't yoiu just agree that you you have not yet stated what an average street length is ? My goodness, having said you have quantified it already you now say you didn't do as much. I knew it was just a waiting game with you.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?
Once again, I don't mean to labour the point but don't you think you have suggested that exceeding the speed limit is dangerous. now, at some point I hear from Safespeed that actually exceeding speed limits is not dangerous, that the evidence to say it is dangerous is in some way faulty. You seem to have a problem with that. You are implying that merely exceeding 30mph is dangerous. You have not said by how much the limit is being exceeded by, so , for your readers, will they not begin to wonder which speed you mean.
Let me elaborate that for you.
Your bog standard car of undefined type, when driven raggedly reaches 30mph + Xmph in your scenario, because the full acceleration of the vehicle is being used
The same car, driven raggedly with a limit on accelration cannot reach the same top speed in the same distance, it's a physical fact that it can't do that.
You defined th first situation as dangerous, therefore the second situation has got to be less dangerous, based on your assumption that speeds over the limit have a relative ammount of accompanying danger, relative to the extent by which they have exceeded the limit.
Clear enough now ?fixitsan wrote:
I believe there are more than just two options, and you have ommitted to consider them in favour of just those two.
fixitsan wrote:
No ! I can't accept anything you say to that effect. You asked me to agree with your assumption that a car with an acceleration limiter would have it's acceleration limited to a rate LOWER ( your choice of word) than that of ' a typical car'.
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.Another complaint ? hens teeth
Your statement was as follows
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?
You clearly don't consider the possibility of limiting it to a higher rate of acceleration. As I said we don't yet know what we all agree might be reasonable enough. So when you dismiss the idea, bear in mind you are dismissing something which isn't yet defined to the point of being able of being rationally dismissed. It's as if you fear this idea ? !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:
smeggy previously wrote:
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?
…
I merely asked you the question: that or lower.
…
if your answer is lower, then what will become of joining fast roads?
Those are the only times in this thread where I used the word lower.
Indeed. You did not assume it could be limited to a higher level. We have not yet defined the standard car's performance, which is my point but already we can asume that we don't want to introduce danger into a situation which we are trying to make safe so it is a matter of simple logic
to assume that we don't mean lower.fixitsan wrote:
I could not agree because I didn't say it should be below the rate of accelration of a typical car.
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:
You have just assumed you have a definitive measure for the terms 'higher' and 'typical car' and so on, when in fact you have no such numbers to rely on. I don't have them either, so I prefer to stay with logic - no numbers - no answer. You have no numbers but you have an answer. Amazing that. Impossible though. lolfixitsan wrote:
I would say the next best option is to say it should be the same as that of your typical car, but again you might consider a Porsche 911 as your typical car, so should I be in a rush to agree without knowing your interpretations ?
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?
That has been the option all along, but adidtionally I woudl consider a limit to a higher level than a typical car. But here is where we differ....I take into account how that typical car is being driven. SHould I have assumed that what you have been doing all along is not considering typical drivers in typical cars but that the typical car is being driven, as you put it, ragged ? If that is the case then I would say that the limit should be lower where the ragged driving results in instability issues for typical cars. That is what the use of the term 'ragged' is about is it not, describing a car driven to it's limits, into an unsafe zone of operation ?fixitsan wrote:
The COMPLETE DISCUSSION centres about how cars are being driven.
You input is regarding limiting how cars can be driven.
Yes. A car which can be acelerated to 60mph in 4 seconds, when driven to full performance in a narrow street where there are pedestrians is going to exceed the 30mph limit and as you say, will result in greater dangerThe red herring still stands.
It is your intense defensiveness which makese you see a coincidental statement as being a deliberate attempt to confuse. I knew you wouldn't be confused, so why would I try to confuse you ?fixitsan wrote:
My method is to measure the acceleration of a randomly selected group of people. Let's take court jurors. if they have a driving licence they can be asked to do a little bit more in terms of civil duties and give their opinion of how quickly we should accelerate by spending five extra minutes, one time, in a car demonstrating what they consider to be reasonable. Or have manufacturers fit acceleration monitors to 10,000 cars chosen at randomw ( the hardware is already in place and little extra cost need be added) then after a year download the data, take an average, set that as the limit, Bish Bash Bosh, you might say.
fixitsan previously wrote:
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.
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?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
