Surveys rarely tell us anything other than what the survey was designed to show. Often the questions asked are loaded, they offer only those choices that lead you one way or the other according to the surveyor’s bias. So it’s no surprise that they “find” what they want to find. With such poorly designed or outright biased data it’s often nigh on impossible to make any sense of the data, let alone draw any valid conclusions. I suspect we have another one here. Oh, and here as well.
You’ll notice that there are always vested interests at work in these media-savvy releases. The old media behind carguide.com.au want you to read on and click some links, if not outright buy their tacky work – so they write what they think will “sell”. And what they write is fed to them in the form of press releases announcing the results of “surveys” by car makers and insurance companies keen to drum up mindspace and, yes, sales. And the findings are always “shocking” or “surprising”, even when they are quite obvious. Finally it’s rarely the driver’s fault – they are after all impeccable, independent judges of what’s wrong on the roads. Instead it’s always the pedestrian’s – or bike rider’s – fault, isn’t it? Too bad they just want to cross or ride along the road but are impeded by speeding, tailgating, swerving, unaware drivers who leave no safe gaps for them to do so. So much for sharing the road. It’d be less stressful just to get rid of everyone else, at least in the classic “stressed driver” world-view.
What about speeding itself – notably absent as a “stressor” in the road stress survey – but probably underpinning much of the tension, tailgating and driving stress. That’s an odd exclusion. The faster you go, especially around pedestrians and bike riders, the more awake and aware you have to be. Everything comes at you faster and you need quicker, more precise reactions. Too many objects to track in a limited time and your stress level goes up. If it doesn’t affect you like that then you may have become complacent and unaware of the raised risks. Indeed, some of those identified as tailgaters in the survey will simply be drivers who are unaware of their gap, or lack thereof. Whilst others may be those wanting to speed and have closed up on purpose, to intimidate.
These intimidators – bullies, if you like – may have said in this survey that they are annoyed with drivers who are “too slow” or “too slow in the fast lane”. Perhaps they are actually expecting to go “too fast”? By speeding (either in excess of the speed limit or prevailing local conditions) you close up on the traffic ahead and guess what – you compress the traffic ahead of you and create a traffic jam.
There’s a flip side to every view, including those of the pedestrians who are dangerously “flirting with death” as they just try to cross a road. And maybe just understanding why your fellow motorist has slowed down – perhaps to allow others to share the road – will ease the stress overall. There may indeed be a good reason to just slow down – too much stress!
Who are the worst drivers | carsguide.com.au
The Buzz CEO Jacki Johnson says road rage, offensive gestures and general impatience are making motorists’ lives miserable. “The study shows there’s a lot of bad behaviour on our roads. Whether it’s dangerous or impatient behaviour, it’s putting the safety of Australians in jeopardy,” she said.
The most commonly experienced bad driving behaviours are: drivers changing lanes without indicating (97 per cent); tailgating (96 per cent); talking on mobiles or listening to an iPod (96 per cent); cutting in on lanes (95 per cent); and motorists holding up traffic by driving too slow (95 per cent).
Impatience is also rife on our roads. Of those surveyed, 88 per cent had seen drivers queue jumping, 87 per cent had spotted motorists running a red light, and the majority (91 per cent) had witnessed pedestrians crossing the road in a dangerous manner.
“There’s a lot of inexperienced drivers, families and elderly people on our roads and we need to modify our driving behaviour to ensure we are not placing any undue stress on drivers,” Ms Johnson says.
Pedestrians risking death | carsguide.com.au
Media spokesperson for vehicle insurer AAMI Mike Sopinski said their research shows two in three pedestrians admit to jaywalking. This comes as 200 pedestrians were killed on the roads around the nation last year.
Pedestrians risking death | carsguide.com.au
“I see it all the time… pedestrians stepping out into traffic in their own little world with their MP3 players and mobile phones in their ears,” he said. “What I’m concerned about here is that we have a great number of noiseless electric vehicles about to hit our roads. It’s a recipe for a growing number of pedestrian deaths.”
Surveys rarely tell us anything other than what the survey was designed to show. Often the questions asked are loaded, they offer only those choices that lead you one way or the other according to the surveyor’s bias. So it’s no surprise that they “find” what they want to find. With such poorly designed or outright biased data it’s often nigh on impossible to make any sense of the data, let alone draw any valid conclusions. I suspect we have another one here. Oh, and here as well.
You’ll notice that there are always vested interests at work in these media-savvy releases. The old media behind carguide.com.au want you to read on and click some links, if not outright buy their tacky work – so they write what they think will “sell”. And what they write is fed to them in the form of press releases announcing the results of “surveys” by car makers and insurance companies keen to drum up mindspace and, yes, sales. And the findings are always “shocking” or “surprising”, even when they are quite obvious. Finally it’s rarely the driver’s fault – they are after all impeccable, independent judges of what’s wrong on the roads. Instead it’s always the pedestrian’s – or bike rider’s – fault, isn’t it? Too bad they just want to cross or ride along the road but are impeded by speeding, tailgating, swerving, unaware drivers who leave no safe gaps for them to do so. So much for sharing the road. It’d be less stressful just to get rid of everyone else, at least in the classic “stressed driver” world-view.
What about speeding itself – notably absent as a “stressor” in the road stress survey – but probably underpinning much of the tension, tailgating and driving stress. That’s an odd exclusion. The faster you go, especially around pedestrians and bike riders, the more awake and aware you have to be. Everything comes at you faster and you need quicker, more precise reactions. Too many objects to track in a limited time and your stress level goes up. If it doesn’t affect you like that then you may have become complacent and unaware of the raised risks. Indeed, some of those identified as tailgaters in the survey will simply be drivers who are unaware of their gap, or lack thereof. Whilst others may be those wanting to speed and have closed up on purpose, to intimidate.
These intimidators – bullies, if you like – may have said in this survey that they are annoyed with drivers who are “too slow” or “too slow in the fast lane”. Perhaps they are actually expecting to go “too fast”? By speeding (either in excess of the speed limit or prevailing local conditions) you close up on the traffic ahead and guess what – you compress the traffic ahead of you and create a traffic jam.
There’s a flip side to every view, including those of the pedestrians who are dangerously “flirting with death” as they just try to cross a road. And maybe just understanding why your fellow motorist has slowed down – perhaps to allow others to share the road – will ease the stress overall. There may indeed be a good reason to just slow down – too much stress!
Who are the worst drivers | carsguide.com.au
The Buzz CEO Jacki Johnson says road rage, offensive gestures and general impatience are making motorists’ lives miserable. “The study shows there’s a lot of bad behaviour on our roads. Whether it’s dangerous or impatient behaviour, it’s putting the safety of Australians in jeopardy,” she said.
The most commonly experienced bad driving behaviours are: drivers changing lanes without indicating (97 per cent); tailgating (96 per cent); talking on mobiles or listening to an iPod (96 per cent); cutting in on lanes (95 per cent); and motorists holding up traffic by driving too slow (95 per cent).
Impatience is also rife on our roads. Of those surveyed, 88 per cent had seen drivers queue jumping, 87 per cent had spotted motorists running a red light, and the majority (91 per cent) had witnessed pedestrians crossing the road in a dangerous manner.
“There’s a lot of inexperienced drivers, families and elderly people on our roads and we need to modify our driving behaviour to ensure we are not placing any undue stress on drivers,” Ms Johnson says.
Pedestrians risking death | carsguide.com.au
Media spokesperson for vehicle insurer AAMI Mike Sopinski said their research shows two in three pedestrians admit to jaywalking. This comes as 200 pedestrians were killed on the roads around the nation last year.
Pedestrians risking death | carsguide.com.au
“I see it all the time… pedestrians stepping out into traffic in their own little world with their MP3 players and mobile phones in their ears,” he said. “What I’m concerned about here is that we have a great number of noiseless electric vehicles about to hit our roads. It’s a recipe for a growing number of pedestrian deaths.”
Well I’m all for it myself. Never loved big cars and big engines myself – it seemed a bit odd to ride around on a lightweight bike yet invest in an overweight, oversized motorcar – so I have so far kept the feisty four-cylinder faith. But this turbo twin from FIAT looks like both a blast from the past and a peek at the future. Fast and fun yet frugal. Can’t beat it, I reckon. Until we ween ourselves off petrol (and other liquid fuels) completely here’s an effective answer: downsize the car and the engine whilst squeezing out ever-better performance and efficiency.
Fiat 500 TwinAir two-cylinder turbo review | evo
It’s a Fiat 500. Not the sort of car that normally gets us excited. But like so many things in life, it’s what’s inside that counts. In this case, because it has the Italian firm’s new 900cc single turbo two-cylinder engine under its retro bonnet.
Well I’m all for it myself. Never loved big cars and big engines myself – it seemed a bit odd to ride around on a lightweight bike yet invest in an overweight, oversized motorcar – so I have so far kept the feisty four-cylinder faith. But this turbo twin from FIAT looks like both a blast from the past and a peek at the future. Fast and fun yet frugal. Can’t beat it, I reckon. Until we ween ourselves off petrol (and other liquid fuels) completely here’s an effective answer: downsize the car and the engine whilst squeezing out ever-better performance and efficiency.
Fiat 500 TwinAir two-cylinder turbo review | evo
It’s a Fiat 500. Not the sort of car that normally gets us excited. But like so many things in life, it’s what’s inside that counts. In this case, because it has the Italian firm’s new 900cc single turbo two-cylinder engine under its retro bonnet.
I have no problem with mandatory professional driving lessons – I think I only had 1 or 2 ‘lessons’ with my father in any case, the rest were with a driving school. (And interestingly my driving instructor was a private pilot – and he coincidentally knew my flying instructor… which was a bit spooky.) But it wasn’t just the lessons that set me up for a fairly safe start on the roads.
Luckily my dad was generally a safe, law-abiding and careful driver, so I picked up fairly good habits just by watching. I’ve already hinted that there’s more to it than just that. My first “love” was flying – and learning to fly before learning to drive taught me – if nothing else – how important safety concerns are. Sure, it also teaches you how to have fun, but within a safe context. You don’t take un-calculated risks in an aircraft. (Having said that my driving instructor managed to roll a VW Beetle on Bankstown Airport’s then-gravel perimeter road, so he was “human” as well.)
But that’s not all, because another thing I got from my dad was a bike. So before I had done anything in a car I had learnt the basic road rules, fixed something mechanical (bikes force you to understand something about machines, even if it’s just how to fix a flat) and picked up the nuances of navigation.
So even if professional driver training was mandated I wonder how effective it would be, especially if some of these other factors were left out? You could ditch the flying training, sure, but what about bike riding? And what if professional training was set against 16 or more years of poor behaviour modelling? If your parents have a bad driving attitude then you may well not “unlearn” that easily. Whilst you may well get good training it means nothing if it’s forgotten the day after you pass the test. I wonder what the retention rate is for professional driver training?
But wait, there’s more. Although I rushed out and started flying training (never finished, by the way!) at 16, I didn’t get a driving licence for another 3 years. So I was not only more road-experienced than most people – being an active cyclist – I was also more mature and a bit more cashed up. Which meant I could afford a small but reliable and “safer” car – a VW Golf. But wait, there’s more. After getting my licence I sat on it and didn’t drive for almost a year. Then I got the car and finally started practicing my driving – it was almost a ‘cooling off period’. But that was both good and bad. I should have kept practicing some of the car-only skills required, so that was a negative – but I was also a fair bit older again before finally getting behind the wheel. That maturity made a big difference, I think.
So to summarise, maturity + safer car + professional training + good positive behaviour modelling + prior on-road experience (ie cycling) = someone with a better than average chance of remaining “safer” on the roads. I followed that up with a defensive driving course as well and joined a car club to boot (so I worked out my driving “angst” on a closed racetrack, not just the road). Whilst I’m not average – no-one is – I feel that somewhere in that mix are some key learning elements that may be missing from the background of many current drivers.
So bravo Mark Skaife but hey let’s have mandatory bike riding as well!
Skaife urges ban on parents teaching | Review | carsguide.com.au
“With the best intention in the world, too many parents pass on their own bad habits. We have to avoid that, which is why I believe we need to move to professional driver trainers in Australia,” Skaife said yesterday. “We don’t like hearing the truth on some things, and this is one of them. Proper education on driving is a big part of the road safety puzzle.
I have no problem with mandatory professional driving lessons – I think I only had 1 or 2 ‘lessons’ with my father in any case, the rest were with a driving school. (And interestingly my driving instructor was a private pilot – and he coincidentally knew my flying instructor… which was a bit spooky.) But it wasn’t just the lessons that set me up for a fairly safe start on the roads.
Luckily my dad was generally a safe, law-abiding and careful driver, so I picked up fairly good habits just by watching. I’ve already hinted that there’s more to it than just that. My first “love” was flying – and learning to fly before learning to drive taught me – if nothing else – how important safety concerns are. Sure, it also teaches you how to have fun, but within a safe context. You don’t take un-calculated risks in an aircraft. (Having said that my driving instructor managed to roll a VW Beetle on Bankstown Airport’s then-gravel perimeter road, so he was “human” as well.)
But that’s not all, because another thing I got from my dad was a bike. So before I had done anything in a car I had learnt the basic road rules, fixed something mechanical (bikes force you to understand something about machines, even if it’s just how to fix a flat) and picked up the nuances of navigation.
So even if professional driver training was mandated I wonder how effective it would be, especially if some of these other factors were left out? You could ditch the flying training, sure, but what about bike riding? And what if professional training was set against 16 or more years of poor behaviour modelling? If your parents have a bad driving attitude then you may well not “unlearn” that easily. Whilst you may well get good training it means nothing if it’s forgotten the day after you pass the test. I wonder what the retention rate is for professional driver training?
But wait, there’s more. Although I rushed out and started flying training (never finished, by the way!) at 16, I didn’t get a driving licence for another 3 years. So I was not only more road-experienced than most people – being an active cyclist – I was also more mature and a bit more cashed up. Which meant I could afford a small but reliable and “safer” car – a VW Golf. But wait, there’s more. After getting my licence I sat on it and didn’t drive for almost a year. Then I got the car and finally started practicing my driving – it was almost a ‘cooling off period’. But that was both good and bad. I should have kept practicing some of the car-only skills required, so that was a negative – but I was also a fair bit older again before finally getting behind the wheel. That maturity made a big difference, I think.
So to summarise, maturity + safer car + professional training + good positive behaviour modelling + prior on-road experience (ie cycling) = someone with a better than average chance of remaining “safer” on the roads. I followed that up with a defensive driving course as well and joined a car club to boot (so I worked out my driving “angst” on a closed racetrack, not just the road). Whilst I’m not average – no-one is – I feel that somewhere in that mix are some key learning elements that may be missing from the background of many current drivers.
So bravo Mark Skaife but hey let’s have mandatory bike riding as well!
Skaife urges ban on parents teaching | Review | carsguide.com.au
“With the best intention in the world, too many parents pass on their own bad habits. We have to avoid that, which is why I believe we need to move to professional driver trainers in Australia,” Skaife said yesterday. “We don’t like hearing the truth on some things, and this is one of them. Proper education on driving is a big part of the road safety puzzle.
The “robo-car” concept – where the car takes control and interacts with and responds to the road environment automatically – has much to offer. Better traffic flow, safer driving and improved fuel consumption for starters. The downside is loss of human control, but we already effectively given that up when we get on a plane, a bus or a train. We may believe to a greater or lesser extent that a human has ultimate “control” but the point is that with public transport we opt out of direct “hands-on” involvement – we just take a seat and get off when we want.
So a robo-car is simply a smaller, nimbler and more personalised form of the larger concept of public transport. And the core technologies are already there: cruise control, collision avoidance and GPS for starters. If we added RFIDs and a car-based WiFi network into the equation we’d effectively have an Internet of cars where the cars become “packets” and we simply get inside and add an address. The routing would happen automagically and if problems appeared we’d be rerouted via the best path.
OK, the car-mad who like that feeling of control – those for whom the mechanics of acceleration, braking and cornering are a practised skill, be they good at it or not – will have to find other outlets, but for the bulk of us it’s a compromise that’s probably going to happen. And in consequence it opens up a whole world of possibilities – greater efficiency, reduced road trauma, savings in hospital costs – you name it. We may end up with “trains” of cars on the freeway instead of a log jam.
Robocars – not that far away at all
I’m not sure we have perfect trust – or faith – in all of these devices and the software that will integrate them but I see a day when these and other perhaps more robust technologies (like embedded RFIDs in road furniture and signage) fall into place to regulate and control traffic flow. It may start with control in low-speed and low-risk environments and work from there and priority could be given to drivers who hand over to robo-control. So there would be a carrot – you get a smoother run as well as less angst behind the wheel.
The “robo-car” concept – where the car takes control and interacts with and responds to the road environment automatically – has much to offer. Better traffic flow, safer driving and improved fuel consumption for starters. The downside is loss of human control, but we already effectively given that up when we get on a plane, a bus or a train. We may believe to a greater or lesser extent that a human has ultimate “control” but the point is that with public transport we opt out of direct “hands-on” involvement – we just take a seat and get off when we want.
So a robo-car is simply a smaller, nimbler and more personalised form of the larger concept of public transport. And the core technologies are already there: cruise control, collision avoidance and GPS for starters. If we added RFIDs and a car-based WiFi network into the equation we’d effectively have an Internet of cars where the cars become “packets” and we simply get inside and add an address. The routing would happen automagically and if problems appeared we’d be rerouted via the best path.
OK, the car-mad who like that feeling of control – those for whom the mechanics of acceleration, braking and cornering are a practised skill, be they good at it or not – will have to find other outlets, but for the bulk of us it’s a compromise that’s probably going to happen. And in consequence it opens up a whole world of possibilities – greater efficiency, reduced road trauma, savings in hospital costs – you name it. We may end up with “trains” of cars on the freeway instead of a log jam.
Robocars – not that far away at all
I’m not sure we have perfect trust – or faith – in all of these devices and the software that will integrate them but I see a day when these and other perhaps more robust technologies (like embedded RFIDs in road furniture and signage) fall into place to regulate and control traffic flow. It may start with control in low-speed and low-risk environments and work from there and priority could be given to drivers who hand over to robo-control. So there would be a carrot – you get a smoother run as well as less angst behind the wheel.
Just something that piqued my interest….
Halliday puts 1960 Alfa Romeo Guilietta through its passes | Female Racing News | News about Women in Motorsports
Liz Halliday enjoyed a hectic few days featuring two very different types of horsepower last week as she made her return to the race circuit and continued her British 3 Day Eventing season.
The week began with the California-born dual sportswoman attending the Silverstone Classic media day where she had a first opportunity to put her father’s 1960 Alfa Romeo Giulietta SZ Coda Tronca through its paces.
The car, a rare ‘cropped tailed’ version and one of just 29 ever made, will be raced by Liz at the Monza Coppa Intereuropa and the Silverstone Classic this summer. It has been expertly prepared by race car specialist John Danby Racing and ran perfectly throughout the day as well as attracting plenty of media interest.
Just something that piqued my interest….
Halliday puts 1960 Alfa Romeo Guilietta through its passes | Female Racing News | News about Women in Motorsports
Liz Halliday enjoyed a hectic few days featuring two very different types of horsepower last week as she made her return to the race circuit and continued her British 3 Day Eventing season.
The week began with the California-born dual sportswoman attending the Silverstone Classic media day where she had a first opportunity to put her father’s 1960 Alfa Romeo Giulietta SZ Coda Tronca through its paces.
The car, a rare ‘cropped tailed’ version and one of just 29 ever made, will be raced by Liz at the Monza Coppa Intereuropa and the Silverstone Classic this summer. It has been expertly prepared by race car specialist John Danby Racing and ran perfectly throughout the day as well as attracting plenty of media interest.
Another re-post from 2006, this time on speeding drivers…
OK, I sometimes exceed the posted speed limit. Don’t get me wrong, most times I am spot on or just below the limit – possibly 95% of the time or more. However sometimes by simple neglect, more often by intent, I go past the stated figure. But not by much – 10% at most. And only when I feel it’s utterly safe, if not safer than the posted limit – or the limit is so poorly posted (behind a tree, for example) that I simply miss it. So why is it that so many other cars are zooming past me, irrespective of road conditions or surrounding environment? Don’t they see the risks? Do they know something I don’t?
When I was a newbie driver I regularly pushed the limits. I thought it got me there quicker. However I did feel constant frustration with other drivers who did not share this urge to get there quicker. I also enjoyed the thrill of fast cornering and of the world flying past. I am mostly talking of 15-20km/h over the limit, sometimes waaay more (although it was actually legal to exceed 110kmh on de-restricted roads back then, too).
I soon recognised a few things. Firstly my time gains were often eroded by untimely fuel stops, roadworks or traffic signals. Too often that car or truck I just overtook is back in front again. At best I was gaining minutes – and not very many, even on a long trip.
I also could see that feeling frustrated if not downright angry was not a good feeling, especially when driving. Much of this came about because cars kept pulling out of cross streets or changing lanes right in front of me. What were they thinking? I saw them as being in the wrong, which technically they were, but I didn’t see that by being even just 10kmh over the stated limit I was increasing the risk of someone pulling out too late, and by a sizable margin. I was simply closing the gap too quickly for their orderly, planned traffic-merging. But I didn’t see it as my fault, did I?
Gradually – it took about a year of regular daily driving – I got the message. The real shock was when a dog ran out of a car yard on a highway, straight in front of 6 busy lanes of traffic. I didn’t hit the dog but someone else did. It brought things to a head, gave me pause to reflect as it were. If I slow down I can avoid trouble better. If I look around and ahead I can plan for a smooth run in traffic. If I anticipate what could happen I’ll have a nicer, smoother run. Importantly, I found that by sticking closer to the limit I’d reduce my risk of inadvertent lane-merging ‘incidents’ and run less risk at intersections.
So I slowed down. (Not so easy to do at 20 or 21, but there you go.) My frustrations eased, people stopped pulling crazy death-defying stunts at intersections (well a lot of ‘em did, anyway) and I had a lot more time to deal with the unexpected. I also gave myself more room between myself and the car in front. All in all it cost me very little in time and saved me fuel, wear and tear and angst. When the road was truly safe, as free of unnecessary risk as anyone could reasonably imagine I still gave (and give) the car a bit of a fang. I still have some fun, as it were. But it’s calculated.
So why are all of these people passing me? What are they thinking? If you habitually speed, do you do it in suburban streets lined with houses, kids and dogs? Or around blind suburban corners littered with driveways? Do you do it when there are intersections left and right? Do you find yourself swerving around from lane to lane, dodging slower cars? Do you tailgate these infuriatingly ‘slow’ drivers? Do you ever wonder why you get so aggro when you drive?
Or do you just speed and let everyone else do their level best to avoid your accident?
Filed under cars, drivers, driving by Rob.
Another re-post from 2006, this time on speeding drivers…
OK, I sometimes exceed the posted speed limit. Don’t get me wrong, most times I am spot on or just below the limit – possibly 95% of the time or more. However sometimes by simple neglect, more often by intent, I go past the stated figure. But not by much – 10% at most. And only when I feel it’s utterly safe, if not safer than the posted limit – or the limit is so poorly posted (behind a tree, for example) that I simply miss it. So why is it that so many other cars are zooming past me, irrespective of road conditions or surrounding environment? Don’t they see the risks? Do they know something I don’t?
When I was a newbie driver I regularly pushed the limits. I thought it got me there quicker. However I did feel constant frustration with other drivers who did not share this urge to get there quicker. I also enjoyed the thrill of fast cornering and of the world flying past. I am mostly talking of 15-20km/h over the limit, sometimes waaay more (although it was actually legal to exceed 110kmh on de-restricted roads back then, too).
I soon recognised a few things. Firstly my time gains were often eroded by untimely fuel stops, roadworks or traffic signals. Too often that car or truck I just overtook is back in front again. At best I was gaining minutes – and not very many, even on a long trip.
I also could see that feeling frustrated if not downright angry was not a good feeling, especially when driving. Much of this came about because cars kept pulling out of cross streets or changing lanes right in front of me. What were they thinking? I saw them as being in the wrong, which technically they were, but I didn’t see that by being even just 10kmh over the stated limit I was increasing the risk of someone pulling out too late, and by a sizable margin. I was simply closing the gap too quickly for their orderly, planned traffic-merging. But I didn’t see it as my fault, did I?
Gradually – it took about a year of regular daily driving – I got the message. The real shock was when a dog ran out of a car yard on a highway, straight in front of 6 busy lanes of traffic. I didn’t hit the dog but someone else did. It brought things to a head, gave me pause to reflect as it were. If I slow down I can avoid trouble better. If I look around and ahead I can plan for a smooth run in traffic. If I anticipate what could happen I’ll have a nicer, smoother run. Importantly, I found that by sticking closer to the limit I’d reduce my risk of inadvertent lane-merging ‘incidents’ and run less risk at intersections.
So I slowed down. (Not so easy to do at 20 or 21, but there you go.) My frustrations eased, people stopped pulling crazy death-defying stunts at intersections (well a lot of ‘em did, anyway) and I had a lot more time to deal with the unexpected. I also gave myself more room between myself and the car in front. All in all it cost me very little in time and saved me fuel, wear and tear and angst. When the road was truly safe, as free of unnecessary risk as anyone could reasonably imagine I still gave (and give) the car a bit of a fang. I still have some fun, as it were. But it’s calculated.
So why are all of these people passing me? What are they thinking? If you habitually speed, do you do it in suburban streets lined with houses, kids and dogs? Or around blind suburban corners littered with driveways? Do you do it when there are intersections left and right? Do you find yourself swerving around from lane to lane, dodging slower cars? Do you tailgate these infuriatingly ‘slow’ drivers? Do you ever wonder why you get so aggro when you drive?
Or do you just speed and let everyone else do their level best to avoid your accident?
Filed under cars, drivers, driving by Rob.
The topic of governing a car’s speed comes up whenever a rash of crashes occurs and gets aired; these are usually fatal crashes and involve families, or young drivers in modded cars. It gets noticed. First thought, it’s a statistical anomaly – just get over it. Second thought, it could be me one of those anomalies runs into next time.
So is governing good? Rules are made to be broken (or so the story goes!) and in the heat of driving some rules get conveniently ‘forgotten’. Whilst we tend to cool down as we get older, it still happens – especially to guys. “None shall pass” can be a rule to die for, beyond any road rules that may apply. You see it all the time – well I do – on the roads around Sydney. One car has to get past another, just because. To get ahead. To avoid a potential delay – even if the delay would be zilch by the end of the trip. You see a gap, a way to get ahead of everyone else and you take it. Forget manners, or concern for others. It usually involves some extra degree of risk, too. Some extra speed, an unnecessary lane change, some late braking or going ’round a curve a bit faster than is absolutely safe. We all do it, even if it’s by accident.
So will governing a car car fix it? Nope, not as we understand governing. Governing as it stands will cut additional torque delivery when you hit a certain speed, irrespective of local limits. You can still speed, still do crazy last-minute manoeuvres. What we really need, if we are serious about stopping injuries on our roads is a major attitude change all round.
Cars could be made safer, even if that means you make it harder to get into it and harder or more uncomfortable to drive. Yes, harnesses, rollbars and helmets – all modded to suit road use, but all designed to make the car safer in an accident.
Smart cars could monitor local limits and let us know of dangers – and yes, possibly even govern our speed if we appear to have ‘missed’ a speed sign. But only ‘smart’, GPS, Cellphone or RFID-based governance would work, not the crude stuff we use locally on trucks in Australia.
Drivers should be better at driving. They should be better trained, better disciplined, more thoroughly monitored. Even if that impinges on so-called liberties and actually makes it harder to get a licence and keep it.
Roads should be funded by actual recoveries and fuel priced to reflect the real costs involved (ie go up in price, not down!). Let’s stop subsidising fuel and road infrastructure – price it to reflect the real social and environmental costs.
With the possible exception of some of the ‘smart car’ stuff little of this will happen, simply because we like our ‘liberties’ too much. We don’t want safer cars, we want ease of access, ease of use, a car at the door and to the door with little effort required. We want the thrills and the risks coupled with the “right” to drive.
But we don’t want to have to earn that right, do we? Apparently not.
Filed under cars, driving by Rob.
The topic of governing a car’s speed comes up whenever a rash of crashes occurs and gets aired; these are usually fatal crashes and involve families, or young drivers in modded cars. It gets noticed. First thought, it’s a statistical anomaly – just get over it. Second thought, it could be me one of those anomalies runs into next time.
So is governing good? Rules are made to be broken (or so the story goes!) and in the heat of driving some rules get conveniently ‘forgotten’. Whilst we tend to cool down as we get older, it still happens – especially to guys. “None shall pass” can be a rule to die for, beyond any road rules that may apply. You see it all the time – well I do – on the roads around Sydney. One car has to get past another, just because. To get ahead. To avoid a potential delay – even if the delay would be zilch by the end of the trip. You see a gap, a way to get ahead of everyone else and you take it. Forget manners, or concern for others. It usually involves some extra degree of risk, too. Some extra speed, an unnecessary lane change, some late braking or going ’round a curve a bit faster than is absolutely safe. We all do it, even if it’s by accident.
So will governing a car car fix it? Nope, not as we understand governing. Governing as it stands will cut additional torque delivery when you hit a certain speed, irrespective of local limits. You can still speed, still do crazy last-minute manoeuvres. What we really need, if we are serious about stopping injuries on our roads is a major attitude change all round.
Cars could be made safer, even if that means you make it harder to get into it and harder or more uncomfortable to drive. Yes, harnesses, rollbars and helmets – all modded to suit road use, but all designed to make the car safer in an accident.
Smart cars could monitor local limits and let us know of dangers – and yes, possibly even govern our speed if we appear to have ‘missed’ a speed sign. But only ‘smart’, GPS, Cellphone or RFID-based governance would work, not the crude stuff we use locally on trucks in Australia.
Drivers should be better at driving. They should be better trained, better disciplined, more thoroughly monitored. Even if that impinges on so-called liberties and actually makes it harder to get a licence and keep it.
Roads should be funded by actual recoveries and fuel priced to reflect the real costs involved (ie go up in price, not down!). Let’s stop subsidising fuel and road infrastructure – price it to reflect the real social and environmental costs.
With the possible exception of some of the ‘smart car’ stuff little of this will happen, simply because we like our ‘liberties’ too much. We don’t want safer cars, we want ease of access, ease of use, a car at the door and to the door with little effort required. We want the thrills and the risks coupled with the “right” to drive.
But we don’t want to have to earn that right, do we? Apparently not.
Filed under cars, driving by Rob.
Let’s define terms – by speeding we mean to say excessive, deliberate or inadvertent velocity beyond a posted speed limit. Legally it’s anything above the speed limit, be it 1kmh or 5 kmh. But let’s be generous and define excessive speed at anything beyond 5kmh above; although a case could be put for 10kmh, or perhaps more logically a 5-10% buffer above the posted limit. I’d recommend no more than 5% myself and would back 100% compliance if pushed, but it’s open for debate. I’m simply allowing for some variation in attention, practical effects imposed by local hills (both going up and down) and inaccuracy in speedometers.
OK, so why is excessive speeding bad? Plenty of people do it. I stick pretty rigidly to the limit, as probably do “most” people, by what I see. But maybe 30% of drivers either miss a sign – or choose to ignore it. By that I mean 60-70 in a 50kmh zone (past my house!) is pretty common. And 120-130 in a 100kmh zone, for another example. Hey, it happens, sure. Sometimes you just have to get someplace and are running late. But do you understand the risks and the impact on others, or do you just think the law’s an ass and are out to get you for no good reason?
Here are my top reasons to slow down and stick to the posted limit:
1. Traffic is more predictable when it flows at the same rate; by speeding at whatever rate you choose you are by nature unpredictable and are the cause of disturbance and risk to all traffic. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s ‘safer’ to speed, no matter what the stats supposedly say! (There are lies, damned lies and statistics… you can correlate something with anything if you try hard enough!)
2. Other drivers cannot as easily judge a speeding vehicle’s closing distance and will seemingly jump out in front of you at intersections and make ‘sudden’ and inopportune lane changes or other manoeuvers. Slow down, let people come out of their driveways and intersections without having to guess what speed you may have chosen today. Let me guess, currently you are blaming them for your poor judgement!
3. Speeding screws up the traffic; by gaining on the cars ahead you eventually meet them and cluster in a group, forming an unnecessary bottleneck, especially when a hazard or delay is reached. Why not stay back, don’t gain on those ahead, stay at the same pace and let the traffic flow?
4. By speeding you reduce your reaction time to the unexpected. Unless you are on a road with no other traffic, no potholes, no animals, no driveways, no intersections and no other unexpected obstacles, what makes you think it’s safe to choose any speed you like?
5. Faster means more energy expended; so not only are you burning more gas and making more air and noise pollution you have raised the energy level in any collision that occurs. Instead, slow down, reduce the cost of your travel and reduce any impacts that may occur. Don’t imagine it’s more ‘efficient’ to go faster – any open road gains are lost above about 80kmh and in city driving any speed gained in quickly lost as heat when you apply the brakes for the next red light. Slow down, anticipate traffic flows and see the $ benefit yourself!
6. Other people live here too. Just because you can get away with it, why is it right to speed past other people’s homes, workplaces, parks or whatever? It may seem ‘safe’ but only because other people fear death or injury and have learned to lock their kids and pets away from the roads and to shut doors and windows to keep the noise and fumes out
7. In summary, speeding is plain selfish and simply bad manners – why do you think that you can cause disruption to traffic, get ahead of everyone else, cause undue noise and fear and raise the risk of injury for everyone?
In answer to that last question, you are probably not even thinking about it, just doing what you see done to you. Whilst we respect each other when we meet face to face and usually don’t push into queues, when sealed in our steel capsules the normal rules and niceties go out the window and it’s open season on civilised behaviour. Why not set an example and buck the trend?
Let’s define terms – by speeding we mean to say excessive, deliberate or inadvertent velocity beyond a posted speed limit. Legally it’s anything above the speed limit, be it 1kmh or 5 kmh. But let’s be generous and define excessive speed at anything beyond 5kmh above; although a case could be put for 10kmh, or perhaps more logically a 5-10% buffer above the posted limit. I’d recommend no more than 5% myself and would back 100% compliance if pushed, but it’s open for debate. I’m simply allowing for some variation in attention, practical effects imposed by local hills (both going up and down) and inaccuracy in speedometers.
OK, so why is excessive speeding bad? Plenty of people do it. I stick pretty rigidly to the limit, as probably do “most” people, by what I see. But maybe 30% of drivers either miss a sign – or choose to ignore it. By that I mean 60-70 in a 50kmh zone (past my house!) is pretty common. And 120-130 in a 100kmh zone, for another example. Hey, it happens, sure. Sometimes you just have to get someplace and are running late. But do you understand the risks and the impact on others, or do you just think the law’s an ass and are out to get you for no good reason?
Here are my top reasons to slow down and stick to the posted limit:
1. Traffic is more predictable when it flows at the same rate; by speeding at whatever rate you choose you are by nature unpredictable and are the cause of disturbance and risk to all traffic. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s ‘safer’ to speed, no matter what the stats supposedly say! (There are lies, damned lies and statistics… you can correlate something with anything if you try hard enough!)
2. Other drivers cannot as easily judge a speeding vehicle’s closing distance and will seemingly jump out in front of you at intersections and make ‘sudden’ and inopportune lane changes or other manoeuvers. Slow down, let people come out of their driveways and intersections without having to guess what speed you may have chosen today. Let me guess, currently you are blaming them for your poor judgement!
3. Speeding screws up the traffic; by gaining on the cars ahead you eventually meet them and cluster in a group, forming an unnecessary bottleneck, especially when a hazard or delay is reached. Why not stay back, don’t gain on those ahead, stay at the same pace and let the traffic flow?
4. By speeding you reduce your reaction time to the unexpected. Unless you are on a road with no other traffic, no potholes, no animals, no driveways, no intersections and no other unexpected obstacles, what makes you think it’s safe to choose any speed you like?
5. Faster means more energy expended; so not only are you burning more gas and making more air and noise pollution you have raised the energy level in any collision that occurs. Instead, slow down, reduce the cost of your travel and reduce any impacts that may occur. Don’t imagine it’s more ‘efficient’ to go faster – any open road gains are lost above about 80kmh and in city driving any speed gained in quickly lost as heat when you apply the brakes for the next red light. Slow down, anticipate traffic flows and see the $ benefit yourself!
6. Other people live here too. Just because you can get away with it, why is it right to speed past other people’s homes, workplaces, parks or whatever? It may seem ‘safe’ but only because other people fear death or injury and have learned to lock their kids and pets away from the roads and to shut doors and windows to keep the noise and fumes out
7. In summary, speeding is plain selfish and simply bad manners – why do you think that you can cause disruption to traffic, get ahead of everyone else, cause undue noise and fear and raise the risk of injury for everyone?
In answer to that last question, you are probably not even thinking about it, just doing what you see done to you. Whilst we respect each other when we meet face to face and usually don’t push into queues, when sealed in our steel capsules the normal rules and niceties go out the window and it’s open season on civilised behaviour. Why not set an example and buck the trend?
|
|
