|
This subject tends to raise a lot of passions, which sadly obscure the good points on both sides of the discussion. It doesn't help either that a number of posts stray well away from the topic.
I am no speedster. I am generally in favour of speed cameras, 20mph limits in cities, and a number of other things which tend to incur the wrath of those who dislike restraints on motoring. Since I joined the Back Room in 2003, I have participated in a number of heated threads on such topics. In the early days I was often a lone voice, but in the last few years I have found that there is a more diverse set of voices here.
I don't post so often any more, but this topic caught my eye. I now spend much of time living a campervan on a farm in Ireland which I am restoring after decades of abandonment, so a lot of my driving is on country roads. The roads around my way, even the R-class second-tier trunk roads, are not good: tight bends, humps and dips, poor sightlines, dodgy surfaces, and in many places too narrow for a HGV to fit on their own side of the white line.
My campervan is powerful enough to happily cruise well in excess of the 75mph limit on Irsh motorways, with plenty of voomf left for overtaking, but I have to take care on my local roads. I have neither the cornering abilities nor the short braking distances of a modern car, so I often find myself doing stretches of five or ten miles when I am lucky to ever touch 40mph, even tho the limit is on R roads is 50. Meanwhile, if I get stuck behind a tractor I can be stuck at 20mph for many miles in a situation where overtaking would be unacceptably dangerous.
So I see it from both sides. To many other drivers, I am a crawler, but I encounter many others who are going too slow for me. I drive at a speed which is safe for my vehicle in the prevailing conditions, and a minimum speed for a car would be dangerously fast for me ... but the same applies to the agricultural vehicles which impede me.
I take a simple line on this. Blocking other road-users is anti-social, and it is not in my interest to have a driver behind me who is in a hurry to pass. They are likely to drive too close to my tailgate, and to risk an overtaking maneouvre which would imperil both of us. So I let them through whenever I can, by pulling in if possible and by pulling off the road if needed. It makes little difference to my journey times, but helps others and makes us all safter. Win-win all round.
I find it sad that too many of those who block my progress don't do the same, but I don't let them annoy me, because that would achieve nothing and make my own journey more dangerous. (Some posters in this thread sound like they have anger management issues). So I would support some rule that would require slow drivers to let others pass whenever it is safe to do so; too many slow drivers seem unaware of how they disrupt others and tempt them into danger.
A minimum speed is dangerous on anything except a motorway (or some dual carriageways), because on other roads there is often no choice of route; the road north from my farm is between a mountain and a lake, and there is no alternative to it. If a minimum speed limit was applied on that road, who would it be set for? A modern saloon car, a van, a tractor, or a lorry loaded high with hay bales? The latter should have a maximum speed of 15mph or less, and that's a useless minimum for cars.
So the only solution seems to me to be have a pull-over-when-safe-to-do-so rule. But implementing such a rule would be difficult, because far too many roads have few spaces where it is safe to pull in. The road between which I described above has many stretches of several miles where there is nowhere safe to pull in, so tailbacks are unavoidable. There are many places where I know that if a faster vehicle appears behind me, it may be up to five miles before I can let them through.
For this to work, roads need to be modified, with many more passing places (like those provided on single-track roads in the Scottish Highlands) and more stretches where an extra lane is provided to allow overtaking.
In the meantime, those who are angry at slow drivers should try driving a slow vehicle themselves, and learn firsthand how difficult it can be to safely let others pass.
|
The Association of British Drivers is the UK's leading campaign group for drivers who can THINK for themselves.
Gosh, I'd better join. If they can think for themselves, they must be really clever and couldn't possibly make mistakes.
The quote should be finished off with:
The Association of British Drivers is the UK's leading campaign group for drivers who can THINK for themselves and like to blow smoke up each other's sphincters.
It's a minority pressure group, not unlike C18, though there are probably more people who support C18.
Most pressure groups are minorities with membership bases being a fraction of the population yet environmental and anti-car ones are extremely loud and our Government seems to listen to them and councils make sweeping policy changes based on the wishes of about three people so perhaps they should do the ABD the same courtesy? The difference with the ABD is they represent the silent majority as it were, theres 32 million motorists in the UK and i reckon if you put the ABD's reading material (minus this bizarre press release) through every letterbox at least half would agree with 90% of it. But its so politically incorrect to be a motorist that the kicked majority just take the abuse, sit in the corner and never fight back. Theres plenty of minority tree hugging pressure groups who the Government listen to despite their memberbase being three eco warriors in Devon and a pensioner. But eco lobby groups are extremely loud is the problem.
Do i agree with all of what this lot say? No, as i said earlier legislation for this sort of thing wouldnt work, as someone else said you'd still have the slower vehicles limited by mechanical capabilities for it to make any difference so i'd put this one in the no column but any lobby group or pressure group with the politically incorrect aim of speaking for the motorist should get our support rather than ridicule. Theres precious few groups fighting for the motorist these days, most have been stamped on by minority environmentalist and anti-car politics so in principle we should support them. If i had enough money to bankroll a more coherant campaign for them to get the public onside i would.
On the subject of this slow driver thing itself its great to see so many people replying and the general theme seems to be any legislation wouldnt work and i have to agree, whats needed in some areas is better road improvements to make everybodies life a bit easier, in my view the doddery codger going too slow is a very minor issue and even if you got rid of them it wouldnt solve much, if anything.
Issues we should focus on more is the endless taxing of the motorist to pay for unprofitable public transport systems. They make no bones about 'we'll use extra money from the motorist to pay for our bus route' yet the next minute cycling groups say 'we all pay for it out of general taxation' council leaders seem to disagree. The idiotic idea of the workplace parking levy (a tax on going to work), Thames Valley Police perverting the course of justice with speed awareness courses, road safety organisations like Brake covering up speed camera statistics, local authorities refusing to release speed camera data, anti car lefties like Ken Livingstone purposely making London impossible for the motorist. Anti-car councils going out of their way to put extra speed bumps, lower speed limits etc to make motorists journeys longer (a study in 2002 saw journey times by car had risen by over 15% yet traffic levels remained static) the new parking regulations, over exaggeration of the safety of our roads (safer than our hospitals, fact, but Brake have us believe its endless carnage) and not to mention the billions of pounds poured into pseudo science down the years to try and convince us our cars are killing the planet, when independant scientists believe the particulates from buses are the main cause of air pollution in UK cities and removing cars and putting on more buses will only worsen the problem. Etc etc etc etc theres millions of more important issues we need to take down before we focus on codgers in a Honda going too slowly.
|
No, as i said earlier legislation for this sort of thing wouldnt work, as someone else said you'd still have the slower vehicles limited by mechanical capabilities for it to make any difference
Legislation need not be complicated. A vehicle travelling at less than the speed limit for a road could be required to pull over and let another vehicle pass where it is safe and legal to do so (e.g. no stopping on double yellow lines or driving into a ditch). Another way of framing the rule would to follow the example of Texas, where the requirement is to pull in if there are 3 vehicles behind you.
That would apply both the farmer in a tractor going flat out at 20mph, and the sunday scenery-admirer doing 35 when everyone else is doing 50. It is what courteous drivers of slow vehicles do all the time.
|
|
Yes agreed theres plenty of places where such rules are in place but i just think too much legislation undermines respect for the law. Also to properly police it you need police out on the roads to do it and frankly they have (or i hope they do) better things to do than tell a Honda to pull in. The codgers in Honda's doing 20 just shouldnt be on the road, and that comes back to my point of the elderly having a more in depth examination to determine their driving ability at 70, perhaps not an actual test but definately something to test reactions and awareness. Theres too many old drivers on the road who if given a proper examination would have their licence revoked, sadly that doesnt happen until after they kill someone. Family members daren't tell them they cant drive anymore and i understand that, its better for everyone if the doctor can be the 'bad guy' and take the licence away.
I just feel theres many roads which need alot of improvements made before any such law for slow people to pull over would actually make a noticeable difference. Its very cart before horse etc. Tractors dont bother me so much because i know that when i pull out to overtake them they wont speed up to leave me stranded on the outside like has happened with the odd Honda who finally see they're going too slow just as i pull out. I agree courteous drivers would pull over, i'd hate to have an entire county following me backed up to France, all swearing at me and all pointing at me, i can only imagine those who cause this dont care or even worse, dont notice.
|
|
|
|
Assuming ABD represent the silent majority is tosh. The ABD was probably conceived in a pub by a group of arran sweatered middle aged men, airing their latest gripes about the state of the roads and how it isn't like back in the day. Probably all members of Neighbourhood Watch and CamRA too.
|
|
@ davmal Well thats exactly what Brake and cycling organisations would have you believe. The fact the anti-car press give so much airtime to the ABD despite a low memberbase shows how frightened they are of the public actually reading their stuff impartially and agreeing with them. If they werent afraid of them they wouldnt give them so much airtime or feel the need to constantly run them down. And they do have some MP's as their patrons currently also, mostly Conservative Party ones i think. Ive not had time to read all their things but alot of it makes alot of sense and does link to other sites of interesting independant studies but its bizarre releases like this one which lets them down. Are they biased? Of course they are, all campaign groups are biased, no more so than environmental lobby groups are biased. Bias should be assumed as the status quo with any lobbying group. In my opinion the ABD should rename and rebrand, get people on board with proper marketing and media experience to coherantly put their views across properly, their amateurish style leaves themselves too open to being shot down by tree huggers. As i said if i had the money to bankroll it i'd do it. Theres many good points and information buried in there sadly obscured by unproffessionalism, preventing the useful information coming through.
|
|
|
|
No, that's IAM you're talking about. Self important twits!
|
|
The IAM are an absolutely useless organisation. And as for the 'lobbying' of the AA and the RAC who have practically converted into anti-motoring organisations who put the Government under zero pressure in the interests of the motorists whatsoever leaves them totally useless to us as well. At least the ABD just say what they think and never say anything to please a crowd and i can respect that about anybody regardless of what they say or how right or wrong it is.
|
|
Can somebody explain to me this fabled 'art' of overtaking that is apparently only understood by about six people in th entire country?
The ease of overtaking depends on only two factors: The density of traffic on the opposite side of the carriageway-and how much power you have at your disposal.
Overtaking a car travelling at 45 mph requires a lot of roadspace if your own car isn't very powerful. There's no 'art' that can overcome simple Newtonian physics-in spite of what IAM will have you believe!
|
|
How come so many people can make a pigs ear of it though. Not leaving enough space, not checking mirror, not indicating, not changing down, blindly following someone else and so on.
|
|
These are all prerequisites to safe overtaking. But this doesn't get round the fact that you need only a trifling amount of horsepower to maintain a nice 60mph but you need an awful lot more to accelerate past someone doddering at 45.
I often carry my elderly grandparents around and manage not to be an obstruction to other cars. It's sharp cornering, accelerating and braking that infirm passengers find disconcerting. The cruising speed isn't relevant to them.
|
|
|
|
The IAM are an absolutely useless organisation.
400,000 people taking the advamced driving test is "useless"?
You have an interstingly creative notion of "useless".
|
|
Well, it depends on what comprises the advanced driving test. Of the clips that I've seen, I have to say that it looked a bit like a vanity exercise; you pay some money for someone to tell you that you're an advanced driver!
|
|
|
|
Precisely unthrottled, its nothing to do with 'advanced driving' its just an exercise of nonsense based around getting a fancy certificate.
400,000 people learning how to shuffle the wheel like a moron is hardly productive. The IAM have turned into another anti-motoring organisation, towing the politically correct line, one look at the readers sections on their articles will confirm this. The AA are an embarassment and the RAC are a joke as well.
Edited by jamie745 on 16/08/2011 at 19:50
|
|
The ABD seeks formal recognition that the UK needs to better maintain and significantly improve its road infrastructure. Congestion and delays caused by inadequate roads impose a massive cost on the economy and quality of life.
Toll roads are the answer, not government spending disproportionate amounts on roads. Ever used the French Peage Roads? An absolute delight, but you have to pay.
The ABD calls for the use of sensible speed limits that are based upon well established scientific road safety principles, not political correctness, emotive hysteria, or vociferous local activists.
Speed limits are never going to suit everyone. Emotive hysteria is just what the ABD are aiming for, but as a knee jerk reaction. Why are they so opposed to activists, that's just what they are? So they say I can be an activist, but you can't because you disagree with me.
The ABD demands an end to the abuse of speed cameras for extorting money from drivers; and a return to the 3 E's of road safety — Education, Engineering, & Enforcement.
Speed cameras are not vindictive. They record the details of people who flout the regulations. They are not secrets, we all know that if you're found to be speeding, you may be fined. Don't want to pay a fine, don't speed, simples. Whether they have any effect on safety is irrelevant. If a town centre CCTV camera caught someone vandalising your car and that person was fined in court as a result, would that be extortion?
We reveal the scientific truth behind the scare stories about climate change, and the impact cars have on health and the environment. We call for technological solutions, not punitive restrictions.
That paragraph is just white noise. No one knows for sure what is driving climate change. Many pointers are that air pollution is one factor, and cars do pollute in many ways. We should be doing something to obviate this, as for calling for technological solutions, why haven't the car industry thought of this with DPFs, Cats, ECU control, live tuning.... Oh yes they did, didn't they and will continue to do so.
So, what ale best goes with pork scratchings?
|
|
I seem to remember a combine harvester driver get points and a fine because he wouldn't move over to let a queue past.
I was late for a job once on the A66 and a big horsebox caused a HUGE queue and wouldn't move over. I must confess I gave them a blast on my super-loud airhorn right in their faces when I at last overtook. Sorry horse-lovers but that behaviour was unacceptable. Yeah yeah I know I shouldn't use an airhorn, don't bore everyone to death.
Finally chaps, please bear in mind the electronic keyboard is the enemy of concision.
|
Toll roads are the answer, not government spending disproportionate amounts on roads. Ever used the French Peage Roads? An absolute delight, but you have to pay.
We already pay an absolute fortune to use our roads already, toll roads are not the answer. The M6 Toll for instance just forces hauliers to use the roads which the M6 was made for them to avoid because its too expensive.
Why are they so opposed to activists, that's just what they are? So they say I can be an activist, but you can't because you disagree with me.
So could you not apply the same argument to the activisits? And ask them why they're so opposed to the ABD? You need to show some consistency. The 'activists' in question are the loudest most unreasonable group in the World, if you dare to disagree with them they shout and scream at you like a banshee and throw strawman arguments your way, they're no better mate. If you're going to criticise the ABD for bias you need to criticise the likes of Brake for the same thing. I do hate one rule for one and one for another etc Bias is a given in activism and yes they will disagree with each other. Live with it. I dont think they're opposed to the activists as such, i think they're opposed to the Government paying far too much attention to them despite zero evidence to back themselves up.
Speed cameras are not vindictive. They record the details of people who flout the regulations. They are not secrets, we all know that if you're found to be speeding, you may be fined. Don't want to pay a fine, don't speed, simples. Whether they have any effect on safety is irrelevant.
That is where you're wrong because the Government constantly tell us speed cameras are there to improve safety, so whether it has an impact on safety is quite clearly VERY relevant. The point the ABD and many other pressure groups are trying to make is that organisations such as Brake frequently cover up speed camera statistics and the Govt still refuse to release the data they used to justify some of them being put there in the first place, obviously they have something to hide. Statistics show road deaths have levelled out since the cameras were introduced, despite being on a heavy downward trend in the decade before that, take from that what you will. They're not reducing accidents, but they are raising alot of money, so yes i'd call them extortion. Especially as a study from DfT showed that a pedestrian is 13 times more likely to be struck down by a Bus than by a car, yet a Car is 15 times more likely to break the speed limit than a bus. So pedestrians are more at risk from the slowest vehicles on the road, another shot in the arm of the one-size-fits-all road safety policy. Also theres far more cars on the road than buses yet you're still more likely to be run over by a bus. Why? Debate that amongst yourselves. That study itself was Govt commissioned in 2004 and clearly they didnt get the answer they wanted from it, they were hoping it'd show the car to be a baby killing rampaging carnage causing monster, but instead the Bus came out as most dangerous on nearly all counts. So surprise surprise they've not paid for a similar study to be done since then. If you say it doesnt matter if the cameras reduce accidents then you are admitting they're there purposely and solely as a revenue raiser.
But that in itself isnt the issue, the issue is that the funds raised from speed awareness courses are being redirected by the Police into the speed camera fund to keep them on. Since the Govt withdrew funding for them theres been a massive increase in drivers being given a Speed Awareness Course instead of prosecution for their offence. If you dont think police deciding to pervert the course of justice for financial gain to pay for a private company to put more camera's up is extortion then you need serious help.
That paragraph is just white noise. No one knows for sure what is driving climate change. Many pointers are that air pollution is one factor, and cars do pollute in many ways. We should be doing something to obviate this, as for calling for technological solutions, why haven't the car industry thought of this with DPFs, Cats, ECU control, live tuning.... Oh yes they did, didn't they and will continue to do so.
I dont think the 'solutions not restrictions' bit is aimed at the car industry, you clearly have no ability to read. If you read through their other material you'll find alot of data on how the car industry is making great strides to reduce pollution and has done a very good job already. That paragraph was aimed at Govt and local authorities who's only mission is to get rid of cars because they hate them. If you're right that 'no one knows for sure what is driving climate change' then why do we have so many anti-car policies and restrictions and propaganda all against the car in the name of saving the planet? Surely if 'nobody knows' then we shouldnt be doing anything so rash? The Guardian, the Greens, the Governments are all pretty convinced on what is driving global warming and they feel its 100% the car, that is the problem. Funny, the most popular form of transport, essential for most people which most people will pay through the nose in tax money to keep using is the one the Govt thinks is to blame? Funny that. Im not cynical at all.
According to the UN, the UK contributes less than 2% of the Worlds man-made co2 emissions, and only 20% of that comes from road travel, so British motorists are 'causing' very little pollution indeed, merely an insigificant spec, you could take all Britains cars off the roads today it'd make no difference. Yet Govt policy is consistently based around removing the car. Cars are alot cleaner now than they were in the 80s, theres alot more of them now but pollution from cars has remained static or dropped, proving what a great job the industry is doing. In contrast buses still kick out PM10's like theres no tomorrow, up to 75 times more per mile than a petrol car, all independant studies show buses pollute more per mile than cars in terms of properly dangerous gases (because the Govt is so focused on co2, a natural, normal, lifegiving gas of which 95% of it in the atmosphere is natural) yet this fact frequently gets ignored. A study from Bristol university found the worst air in cities is behind buses, in a bus-free street even full of cars their scientific fancy machines found practically nothing in the air to worry about. Yet despite these facts, anti-pollution and 'green' policies revolve around banning cars and putting more buses on. Further increasing dangerous pollution, ministers blame cars for it to make an excuse to tax cars even more and buses get off the hook scott free. 'Green' policy against the car is based more out of communistical idealogies about how we should and shouldnt live rather than any science to back it up. They want you in buses to cut your independance, they hate personal mobility, thats the issue here. And if you want to talk about unreasonable activists, have one look at 'green' campaigners, one of whom recently described the motorcar as 'the last bastion of freedom which needs abolishing' you cannot reason with nutjobs like that. The majority of the UK's pollution comes from household electricity sources but you dont get 170% tax on that do you? No, only on petrol, which is a minority cause. Not that i believe extra tax would solve anything even if it was true.
You've taken one page and drawn conclusions without reading in depth, typical Guardian trick to discredit anybody they dont like. As i said, the ABD smack of unprofessionalism but good points are buried in there somewhere. They need renaming and rebranding and to launch a coherant campaign, but obviously to do that they need alot of money. Green campaign groups get alot of Government money to bankroll their 'campaign' and have enough cash to force any rubbish down your throat, unfortunately the rest of us dont get that luxury. Daring to tell the truth and go against the politically correct ideals comes at a serious price. A huge one.
Edited by jamie745 on 17/08/2011 at 15:50
|
Especially as a study from DfT showed that a pedestrian is 13 times more likely to be struck down by a Bus than by a car, yet a Car is 15 times more likely to break the speed limit than a bus. So pedestrians are more at risk from the slowest vehicles on the road, another shot in the arm of the one-size-fits-all road safety policy. Also theres far more cars on the road than buses yet you're still more likely to be run over by a bus. Why? Debate that amongst yourselves. That study itself was Govt commissioned in 2004 and clearly they didnt get the answer they wanted from it, they were hoping it'd show the car to be a baby killing rampaging carnage causing monster, but instead the Bus came out as most dangerous on nearly all counts. So surprise surprise they've not paid for a similar study to be done since then.
Road death statistics are released every year, in great detail and are freely available on the DFT website. So, for example, I can see that in 2008 buses and coaches killed 35 pedestrians and cars killed 310.
|
|
Theres far more cars on the road than buses and coaches so you'd expect the individual figures to be higher. That doesnt mean anything in terms of probability and you know it. And i said 'run over' i didnt say killed more people survive being hit by a car than by a bus. Full link to the study please because you're obviously hiding something and fabricating it so i'd like to study it for myself please.
|
Full link to the study please because you're obviously hiding something and fabricating it so i'd like to study it for myself please.
In that case, what are you hiding / fabricating? I don't see any links to the studies you quote.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/227755/rrcgb2009.pdf
|
|
Page not Found.
Funny that.
|
|
Ok despite the fact your link is false i'll give you the benefit of the doubt. What i want to know is out of those 310 how many of the motorists were uninsured, unlicenced, drunk, on drugs, in an untaxed or un-MOT'd car and were speeding? Or have ALL of those already been discounted in order get a figure of 310?
I also want to know which is the most frequent in urban areas and what the traffic flow volume is like from car to bus and how many of these happened in open traffic in comparison to crossings, traffic islands etc. I want statistics split up between different sorts of roads in different speed limits and evaluate them seperately. I also want to know how many of them were instances with the pedestrian at fault? If you just wander into traffic without looking you deserve to get run over. And how many of them were intentional suicides? Although people usually tend to throw themselves in front of HGV's or Trains for that, but it does happen.
Edited by jamie745 on 17/08/2011 at 18:03
|
|
The link is a PDF, that might be why you're struggling to open it. Try http://tinyurl.com/3d5r3oz
Have a look at the various statistics on the DFT website - http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/road-accidents-and-safety/, (or http://tinyurl.com/3lpgome) you should be able to find figures for at least some of that.
Edited by tmjs on 17/08/2011 at 18:25
|
|
I would love for the opposite, ban anyone from driving for going over the speed limit. It would soon get the angry boy racers off the road.
And I would also like toll roads to be introduced as I don't mind paying extra for a quieter road, I always pick the toll roads in the USA. And while they are at it also introduce larger car parking spaces which you can pay for at supermarkets etc. And increase insurance for drivers who have manual cars as they are taking their hands off the steering wheel all the time.
|
And I would also like toll roads to be introduced as I don't mind paying extra for a quieter road, I always pick the toll roads in the USA.
So long as the rate isn't set too high to force you off the road-just those in a poorer financial situation that yourself. Nice attitude.
Comparisons with turnpikes in the US are facile. In case you hadn't noticed, most of the US is empty space so building big wide roads is stright forward.
And increase insurance for drivers who have manual cars as they are taking their hands off the steering wheel all the time
If manual cars were more prone to accidents, insurance premiums woud reflect this. They aren't so they don't. Countries like the US and Canada where automatic transmission is predominant have much higher accident rates than European countries where manuals are the transmission of choice.
Safe driving is virtually solely dependant on being attentive. Clutching the steering wheel with two hands is totally redundant. The boon of the manual is that it punishes inattentive driving (in urban areas at least). Either manual or automatic can be driven badly, but it is easier to drive automatics badly.
I would ban automatics on the grounds that they encourage sloppy driving, making exceptions only on medical grounds. If you can't be bothered to change gear, how will you be bothered to constantly check your surroundings??
|
And I would also like toll roads to be introduced as I don't mind paying extra for a quieter road, I always pick the toll roads in the USA.
What a disgusting attitude. Build roads which price the normal tax paying public off of it so as you can have a quieter road. Absolute disgraceful attitude.
I would ban automatics on the grounds that they encourage sloppy driving, making exceptions only on medical grounds. If you can't be bothered to change gear, how will you be bothered to constantly check your surroundings??
I drive an automatic and do you want a kick in the face? I'd be happy to oblige. You're right i cant be bothered to change gear, why make the task of driving more difficult than it needs to be? My car does most of the work, leaving me free to observe my surroundings. I can drive a manual perfectly fine, some people cant, my mother for instance couldnt work a clutch to save her life so she has an automatic licence. The increasing popularity of automatics is slowly proving me right. By your reckoning i should be crashing into things due to not paying attention, well you'll be pleased to know i havent.
|
Either manual or automatic can be driven badly, but it is easier to drive automatics badly.
You can't argue with that Jamie! Besides , I thought you had a dodgy knee which inhibited you from driving a manual-so you're excepted. :)
|
|
I had ligament damage in my left knee over three years ago, and in response to it i traded the car i had at the time in for an automatic. Ive stuck with them since because i dont want to be in the situation where im far from home and my knee just gives way and i cant get home or something but ive done alot of work with the knee since and go out on a run once a week (yes, seriously) and have been to a good physio and im 99% certain i could drive a manual all the time now and probably be fine. I drive the fleet cars at work from time to time which are manual Astra's and i havent had any problems with it, couple of twinges and aches but nothing major.
And i can argue with anything i damn well like! :P
|
|
I would ban automatics on the grounds that they encourage sloppy driving,
I never had you down as a Luddite:) Whilst we're at it let's ban self cancelling indicators, servo brakes, power steering, door handles.....would that mean that we'd all be driving Morgans?
On the up side, autos allow poor drivers the grace of not kangarooing away from junctions- punctuated by stalling, rolling backwards on hills and being in an inappropriate gear when overtaking
|
|
When you hear silly statements along the lines of "I dread to think what would have happened if the brake servo and power steering had failed...my wife and children could have been killed" you realise that too many people are too reliant on technology and simply aren't involved enough in their driving.
My dad use to drive tractor units without power steering or synchronised gears-drivers that complained about having to spin the wheel themselves were ridiculed as big girls' blouses.
Why do people want to abdicate driving to become a steering wheel attendant? Surely taxis would be cheaper. It's an error to think that gizmos make the car safer or nicer to drive!
|
|
Oh here goes unthrottled on his whole 'its not like in the old days you know, you just had one dial and a steering wheel and it taught people to drive properly' blah blah blah. Theres nothing wrong with engineering a safer car, Volvo have been at it for decades and the S class has shown for decades what new gizmo's will end up on other cars in a few years time, the aim to engineer safer cars is nothing new.
We all know classic cars are horrific to drive the idea of 'old cars without computers are nicer' etc is total fantasy from an old man is all that is. Cars which 'do it themselves' enable more and more people to live and travel independantly, you dont need a rugby players muscles and boffin's intelligence just to move a car, you just get in, push the button, move the wheel a bit and eventually you end up at your destination. Its fantastic. Anybody who doesnt think thats good, is an idiot. ABS stops people skidding off into a ditch (and reduces stopping distances too, you could put the best driver in the World in a 1972 Ford Cortina it still wouldnt stop from 60 in the same distance a 2009 Golf can even if a total lemon was driving it).
Did they also sell a cup of tea for 5p in your day?
|
|
Trying to design a safer car car is a pointless exercise-you just instil complacency in the operator.
Imagine if you replaced the reassuring airbag in the steering wheel with a dagger blade facing the driver. Wouldn't passs an NCAP safety inspection. Lots of limp wristed health and safety officials would get into a frightful flap.
But you wouldn't have an accident with this fitted
you just get in, push the button, move the wheel a bit and eventually you end up at your destination. Its fantastic. Anybody who doesnt think thats good, is an idiot.
No, it's terrible. If people were forced to focus on their driving a bit more, accident rates would go downn.
I'm not a luddite. I applaud the advances that have taken place in electronic fuelling and ignition, not to mention the material improvements and tightening of tolerences. These make cars cleaner, safer and more efficient. But please keep the slobs' gimmicks out of the cabin!
Edited by unthrottled on 18/08/2011 at 14:38
|
|
Are you saying crashes never happened in the days before airbags, ABS etc? Because i can tell you they did, the difference is, they didnt walk away from them crashes but people do now. Which is by definition better. You may get complacent, seems as if you're speaking for yourself there more than for anyone else because i dont care how many millions of electronic safety nannies are in my car i still have no intention of crashing it. I dont get in the car and go 'ill drive blindfolded today cos it has an airbag' if you think people do that says more about you than about anybody else.
What if the poor driver with the dagger facing them was to be driving down the road perfectly sensibly and some nutter reverses out of their drive just in front of them and forces them to crash in the side and end up with two heads? That hasnt made their car safer, its just made the driver dead. Alot of people get involved in accidents which arent their fault you know, people can pull out in front of you or be going too fast or misjudge something and you have little choice other than crashing into them. You seem to think all accidents are caused by someone going 'i have airbags so lets go and crash today'.
Absolute nonsense, never heard so much twoddle in my life, and seeing as some total idiots are on this forum thats saying something. Ive heard arguments of engineering seperating the driver from the 'driving feel' for those who actually enjoy driving etc and thats fine, but to suggest we should put spikes in every car to make them 'safer' is nothing short of ridiculous.
But you wouldn't have an accident with this fitted
Wrong. See example of someone reversing out in front of you suddenly above. To say 'you wouldnt have an accident with this fitted' is like Brake saying you wouldnt have a crash at 1mph. You're right i wouldnt crash with that, because i wouldnt drive it. It'd clock up 0 miles in its life. As i said not everyone who's involved in a crash is at fault, you could say 50% of those involved were not at fault (the other car was, etc) so is it fair that 50% of people, who were not in the wrong, should have their heads stabbed? Rather than protected from idiots.
Pathetic.
|
|
The decline in serious accidents has not kept pace with the rise in technological gizmos suggesting that the technolgy's contribution to road safety is virtually saturated.
Most labour saving devices seem to create more labour than they save.
I find myself overriding self-cancelling indicators so often that the feature is useless.
Electric windows are a pain. Either the window opens 1/4" or it trundles all the way down to the bottom. With a simple winding mechanism, you wind it down the exact amount that you require every time-no over corrections.
The programmable digital radio is also tedious. Far easier to move a simple dial to change station. No tiny buttons, sub menus, second functions, codes etc etc.
People clamour for this carp because they associate it with luxury and prestige.
|
The decline in serious accidents has not kept pace with the rise in technological gizmos suggesting that the technolgy's contribution to road safety is virtually saturated.
I hate selective statistic quoting. You need to remember theres 7 million more cars on Britains roads now than in 1995, and in the 70s with your favourite low rent cars there was around a quarter of what there is now. With more cars on the road theres a higher probability they're going to crash into each other, if the serious accident rate has even remained static in the last 15 odd years then that in itself shows the system is working. Also there seems to be this trend with people that if you dont 100% agree with something you must therefore 100% totally disagree, or go in the other direction. Just because 'accidents has not kept pace with technological gizmo's' doesnt mean that putting a spike on every steering wheel is going to alter those figures. I hate people who come up with arguments like that. The mistaken belief that 'this hasnt worked so the reverse must therefore be true!' i'd think someone of science would know better, clearly not.
As for the rest of your post, just because you cant work an electric window or use a radio properly doesnt mean everybody else is wrong, thick, stupid or somehow beneath you. Just because you dont like it doesnt mean you have the right to dictate how other peoples cars should be. Just because you cant operate it properly you make out its all in the car because idiots think its luxurious, a typical 'its everyone else but not me' response. I hate that as well. If you want a basic bottom of the range tragic 'poverty model' as i call the base models then you go ahead. If you want a car with a cheap grey blanking plate where you would have a button if you had more money then thats up to you, but dont try and tell me that im somehow in the wrong for choosing something else.
Ive concluded you drive a mid 90s Megane, am i right? I like electric windows, i dont have any problem with them, i was in the back of a car recently where i had to wind my own window and it was like going back in time. You're just anti-technology, but more than happy to use the useful bits that come along. No doubt if you were around when Bill Gates said he wants a computer on every desk you'd have said 'what a useless stupid idea, pen and pad is just as good!' yet now here we are.
Edited by jamie745 on 18/08/2011 at 15:55
|
|
Not at all. I have no desire to go back to 70s cars. They were dreadful. Fuel injection works better than even the best carburettor set-up. Tyre technology has made a world of difference to safety and driving performance. Monocoque body shells work far better than body-on-chassis designs. Turbos produce wonderfully flexible engines. Suspension technolgy is light years ahead of the leaf spring/live axle junk. This is the sort of technology that works and should be applauded. Electronic hand brakes otoh have contributed nothing.
If you want a basic bottom of the range tragic 'poverty model' as i call the base models then you go ahead. If you want a car with a cheap grey blanking plate where you would have a button if you had more money then thats up to you
|
|
So you're saying if you got into my Jag you wouldnt like it and you'd rather walk?
|
|
Damn site isn't working-again!
So a porsche Boxter is poverty model then? Electronic gizmos are cheap. A Citroen picasso will be full of electric everything-does that make it a luxury car? Do bulbous dashboards and cluttered centre consoles add to the driving experience? No.
It's interesting that manufacturers tried making everything digital back in the 80s and the result was horrible. It's so old hat, Jamie! Speedos, tachometers, gauges, and hvac controls returned to dials because they are more user friendly.
No, of course I wouldn't prefer to walk than take a ride in your Jag. But I don't want my car to end up up like a 1986 Opel monza in the pursuit of 'progress'.
|
|
Porsche are not a valid example, they charge you more for putting less stuff on your car. To the point where someone with no Porsche at all gets charged several million probably.
Bulbous dash is a styling issue, you like it or you dont. Personally i like a car full of buttons, lots of stuff to push although i do appreciate the BMW way of doing it which is one control and one screen to do everything.
An example of a poverty model is like a new Fiesta Studio, just tragic really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
