 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I read somewhere that if you put more road safety features in, people
feel safer and so take more risks, resulting in the same level of safety
as before. And now I read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
Apparently the idea is that because it looks more dangerous, people pay
more attention.
Call me cynical, but I can't help feeling it's only a matter of time
before some twat driving a Subaru Impreza comes along and starts trying
to drive like it's a rally circuit... :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:08:44 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
Heidbanger! not you but Hans Monderman.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I read somewhere that if you put more road safety features in, people feel
> safer and so take more risks, resulting in the same level of safety as
> before. And now I read this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
>
> Apparently the idea is that because it looks more dangerous, people pay
> more attention.
Jeremy Clarkson once said that he wanted there to be a big spike on your
steering wheel rather than an airbag.
> Call me cynical, but I can't help feeling it's only a matter of time
> before some twat driving a Subaru Impreza comes along and starts trying to
> drive like it's a rally circuit... :-P
Well why not, if he can see there's nobody else about and he's not going to
harm anyone else - isn't that the whole point?
It should be illegal to drive in a dangerous manner, not to fall foul of
some arbitrary rule someone has made up, but then that would mean actual
police needed rather than machines ;-) For example, I can overtake a police
car at 80mph in pouring rain within a few metres of the car infront of me
and that's apparently fine. Yet if I drive the same road at 5am when it's
completely empty and I can see for 4 miles, I get fined for going 90mph.
How is that teaching me to drive safely?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Jeremy Clarkson once said that he wanted there to be a big spike on your
> steering wheel rather than an airbag.
That sounds like something Clarkson would say...
>> Call me cynical, but I can't help feeling it's only a matter of time
>> before some twat driving a Subaru Impreza comes along and starts
>> trying to drive like it's a rally circuit... :-P
>
> Well why not, if he can see there's nobody else about and he's not going
> to harm anyone else - isn't that the whole point?
No - the point is that people who buy Subarus seem to think it's
completely OK to drive that way no matter who else is on the road.
> It should be illegal to drive in a dangerous manner, not to fall foul of
> some arbitrary rule someone has made up, but then that would mean actual
> police needed rather than machines ;-)
Yeah, that's the one.
The *other* problem being that if everything is a judgement call, it's
much harder to prosecute people. That's kinda why they made it
explicitly illegal to use a mobile phone while driving - to make
absolutely sure people know they WILL be prosecuted and they can't
wriggle out of it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The *other* problem being that if everything is a judgement call, it's
> much harder to prosecute people.
Just hand them a fine for dangerous driving, they can contest it in court if
they don't agree. There was a guy who was filmed doing 120mph or something
on an empty road by the police and was fined/banned/whatever for dangerous
driving. He went to court and the judge agreed with him that what he did
couldn't possibly be dangerous driving because the camera clearly showed a
huge distance ahead on the motorway that was totally clear.
That's how it should be, maybe in future more stuff can be detected
automatically by cameras rather than just if you are over the fixed speed
limit (tailgating should be fairly easy, as should driving too fast in
fog/rain/heavy traffic).
> That's kinda why they made it explicitly illegal to use a mobile phone
> while driving - to make absolutely sure people know they WILL be
> prosecuted and they can't wriggle out of it.
Yeh I think it was more to make people stick to the law rather than making
it easier to prosecute. Wasn't there some woman prosecuted for eating an
apple whilst sat waiting at a red light?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> The *other* problem being that if everything is a judgement call, it's
>> much harder to prosecute people.
>
> Just hand them a fine for dangerous driving, they can contest it in
> court if they don't agree. There was a guy who was filmed doing 120mph
> or something on an empty road by the police and was
> fined/banned/whatever for dangerous driving. He went to court and the
> judge agreed with him that what he did couldn't possibly be dangerous
> driving because the camera clearly showed a huge distance ahead on the
> motorway that was totally clear.
>
> That's how it should be.
Probably, yeah.
Trouble is, some people geniunely don't give a **** about anybody except
themselves. It's their personal road, and if anybody else gets in their
way, that person has absolutely no right to continue to be alive. If it
was up to these people, they'd drive *everywhere* at 120 MPH, and if
somebody gets killed... well that's their fault, right?
We have rules about speed limits so these people can't get away with it.
(Also... apparently the difference in fatality rates for collisions at
30 MPH vs 35 MPH are surprisingly large. The people who set the speed
limits will have access to all this data - whether they use it right is
another matter, obviously. But most drivers don't have this data.)
> maybe in future more stuff can be detected
> automatically by cameras rather than just if you are over the fixed
> speed limit (tailgating should be fairly easy, as should driving too
> fast in fog/rain/heavy traffic).
I'm still impressed at that guy who decided to overtake me over the
crest of a hill, on a bend, in the dark, in dense fog, at twice the
speed limit. Obviously, this person will never be prosecuted.
>> That's kinda why they made it explicitly illegal to use a mobile phone
>> while driving - to make absolutely sure people know they WILL be
>> prosecuted and they can't wriggle out of it.
>
> Yeh I think it was more to make people stick to the law rather than
> making it easier to prosecute.
Well, possibly both.
> Wasn't there some woman prosecuted for
> eating an apple whilst sat waiting at a red light?
That's a little silly. The worst thing that can happen is that you fail
to notice the lights change, and hold people up a little. Big deal.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Trouble is, some people geniunely don't give a **** about anybody except
> themselves. It's their personal road, and if anybody else gets in their
> way, that person has absolutely no right to continue to be alive. If it
> was up to these people, they'd drive *everywhere* at 120 MPH, and if
> somebody gets killed... well that's their fault, right?
>
> We have rules about speed limits so these people can't get away with it.
But the speed limit rules only stop a very small proportion of dangerous
driving, a lot of dangerous driving happens below the speed limit, and a lot
of safe driving happens above the speed limit.
> (Also... apparently the difference in fatality rates for collisions at 30
> MPH vs 35 MPH are surprisingly large. The people who set the speed limits
> will have access to all this data - whether they use it right is another
> matter, obviously. But most drivers don't have this data.)
Of course, but there is *a lot* of confusion and mis-use of accident
statistics the whole time. For example, is that 30 and 35 MPH you mentioned
the speed of the vehicle before they start to take avoiding action, or is
that the speed of one car the instant they impact, or the differential speed
between the two cars? If you're driving at 70mph you're less likely to have
an accident - so speed up!
> I'm still impressed at that guy who decided to overtake me over the crest
> of a hill, on a bend, in the dark, in dense fog, at twice the speed limit.
> Obviously, this person will never be prosecuted.
Oh I think they will, they can't live their life doing moves like that
without a) ending up dead or b) ending up in a non-fatal accident and being
prosecuted for dangerous driving.
> That's a little silly. The worst thing that can happen is that you fail to
> notice the lights change, and hold people up a little. Big deal.
Yet it's illegal to use a mobile phone while sat stationary in traffic...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> It should be illegal to drive in a dangerous manner, not to fall foul of
> some arbitrary rule someone has made up,
In the USA, laws left entirely up to the judgement of the law
enforcers/courts are frowned upon. It's in the constitution and everything.
You're supposed to be able to read a law and know whether you're breaking
the law without having to actually get arrested first.
One of the problems with the anti-monopoly laws is that they are (or at
least were) very vague in these areas, to the point where it's impossible to
know before getting complained at that there's something wrong.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Yet it's illegal to use a mobile phone while sat stationary in traffic...
There's a reason to this:
Phone calls distract you, that's plain fact (the mistake the legislation makes
here is IMO that it distracts you no matter whether you use a handsfree unit or
not, but that's another story).
So here you are, concentrated on your phone call - all the more (!) since you're
in stationary traffic so what can possibly happen - and the car in front of you
starts going again. Being in the middle of conversation, you kind of
instinctively follow, but your attention is possibly still in the conversation,
and your instinct is focused on gearing up again.
Now if the person driving in front of you has a reason to hit the brake - and
hit it fast! - you and your instincts may not be attentive enough to hit the
brake yourself in time, so what you hit instead is the car in front.
Not that I'd consider such an accident dramatic, but it it's an argument that
can be made.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> In the USA, laws left entirely up to the judgement of the law
> enforcers/courts are frowned upon. It's in the constitution and
> everything. You're supposed to be able to read a law and know whether
> you're breaking the law without having to actually get arrested first.
>
> One of the problems with the anti-monopoly laws is that they are (or at
> least were) very vague in these areas, to the point where it's
> impossible to know before getting complained at that there's something
> wrong.
...so it's like Set Theory?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yet it's illegal to use a mobile phone while sat stationary in traffic...
>
> There's a reason to this:
>
> Phone calls distract you, that's plain fact (the mistake the legislation
> makes
> here is IMO that it distracts you no matter whether you use a handsfree
> unit or
> not, but that's another story).
And also talking to a passenger distracts you too.
> So here you are, concentrated on your phone call - all the more (!) since
> you're
> in stationary traffic so what can possibly happen - and the car in front
> of you
> starts going again. Being in the middle of conversation, you kind of
> instinctively follow,
At which point you are using the phone whilst moving, which should be
illegal.
It being illegal to use it while stationary in a car is just ludicrous, in
what possible way is it dangerous to be using a phone in a stopped car? The
worst possible thing that can happen if you are using a phone in a stopped
car is that it stays stopped when it should be moving - at which point
someone will honk you and you'll go (compared to say if your car broke down
and you would be stuck there for much longer).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In the USA, laws left entirely up to the judgement of the law
> enforcers/courts are frowned upon. It's in the constitution and
> everything. You're supposed to be able to read a law and know whether
> you're breaking the law without having to actually get arrested first.
How do you define "dangerous driving" in the USA then? I don't see how you
can cover every possibility without some sort of "wooly" clause like "any
deliberate action likely to cause serious human injury or death".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> And also talking to a passenger distracts you too.
I've heard claims that one difference there is that the passenger knows
what's going on. If all of a sudden three cars are coming at you from three
directions, the passenger is likely to STFU until you're clear of the
situation.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> How do you define "dangerous driving" in the USA then?
I don't know, offhand. We probably call it "reckless driving" here. I never
figured out how they know it's reckless if you don't wreck. It's usually
something about how much above the speed limit you're going than is
appropriate. If you're less than the speed limit and collide with something,
it's obviously also dangerous.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I've heard claims that one difference there is that the passenger knows
> what's going on. If all of a sudden three cars are coming at you from
> three directions, the passenger is likely to STFU until you're clear of
> the situation.
*Clearly* you've never been in a car with my mother. ;-)
(It was really hard to resist saying Singapore there!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> *Clearly* you've never been in a car with my mother. ;-)
My wife's somewhat like that too. Or worse, she'll gasp and cringe when the
guy a quarter mile ahead hits the brakes, like I'm not even looking out the
window or something. Or she'll shout "Watch out!" when she sees someone
walking thru a parking lot we're driving past.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> *Clearly* you've never been in a car with my mother. ;-)
>
> My wife's somewhat like that too. Or worse, she'll gasp and cringe when
> the guy a quarter mile ahead hits the brakes, like I'm not even looking
> out the window or something. Or she'll shout "Watch out!" when she sees
> someone walking thru a parking lot we're driving past.
My grandmother is like that. She generally won't let us drive on
motorways because it's too "dangerous".
Actually, most accidents happen at junctions. You've got people
starting, stopping, changing direction, and generally weaving around. On
a motorway, everybody's heading in the same direction.
Also, on lots of roads you get people, children and even small dogs
wandering across the road and getting mowed down. Generally doesn't
happen on motorways.
Admittedly what you *do* have on motorways is people who think they own
the road and it's OK to push other people off it. But they're a minority.
It's really quite distracting when every time anybody changes lane, the
women jumps out of her skin.
She also won't let anybody drive at more than about 40 MPH...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> *Clearly* you've never been in a car with my mother. ;-)
>>
>> My wife's somewhat like that too. Or worse, she'll gasp and cringe
>> when the guy a quarter mile ahead hits the brakes, like I'm not even
>> looking out the window or something. Or she'll shout "Watch out!" when
>> she sees someone walking thru a parking lot we're driving past.
>
> My grandmother is like that. She generally won't let us drive on
> motorways because it's too "dangerous".
>
> Actually, most accidents happen at junctions. You've got people
> starting, stopping, changing direction, and generally weaving around. On
> a motorway, everybody's heading in the same direction.
>
> Also, on lots of roads you get people, children and even small dogs
> wandering across the road and getting mowed down. Generally doesn't
> happen on motorways.
>
> Admittedly what you *do* have on motorways is people who think they own
> the road and it's OK to push other people off it. But they're a minority.
>
> It's really quite distracting when every time anybody changes lane, the
> women jumps out of her skin.
>
> She also won't let anybody drive at more than about 40 MPH...
I once stopped the car and had my mother drive the rest of the way home
- it was safer that way because I was not distracted by her panics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> My grandmother is like that. She generally won't let us drive on
>> motorways because it's too "dangerous".
>>
>> It's really quite distracting when every time anybody changes lane,
>> the women jumps out of her skin.
>>
>> She also won't let anybody drive at more than about 40 MPH...
>
> I once stopped the car and had my mother drive the rest of the way home
> - it was safer that way because I was not distracted by her panics.
My grandmother can't drive. (Never has done.)
I _would_ make my mum drive - except that she *insists* on never
changing gear, and then wondering why the car is handling badly. Hint:
you're not supposed to take roundabouts in 5th gear! :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> *Clearly* you've never been in a car with my mother. ;-)
My gf is the opposite of me, she'll need to be talking to someone the whole
time to stay concentrated. When she drives by herself she says that she
easily loses concentration on the road. It's then hard when I'm driving at
160 km/hr and some guy pulls out ahead doing 110 to overtake a truck doing
80 while some guy behind is doing 200, and she's trying to hold a full on
conversation with me!
> My wife's somewhat like that too. Or worse, she'll gasp and cringe when
> the guy a quarter mile ahead hits the brakes, like I'm not even looking
> out the window or something. Or she'll shout "Watch out!" when she sees
> someone walking thru a parking lot we're driving past.
Hehe my gf is like that too, now I play the game where when she says
"Brake!" I see if actually I can get away with not braking at all and not
crash, surprisingly a few times I can, and then she says "Oh I thought they
were stopped up there". But then she was also surprised when I told her I
usually look about 10 cars up the road so can see if they are really
stopping or not.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I don't know, offhand. We probably call it "reckless driving" here. I
> never figured out how they know it's reckless if you don't wreck. It's
> usually something about how much above the speed limit you're going than
> is appropriate. If you're less than the speed limit and collide with
> something, it's obviously also dangerous.
So this would be OK then, so long as you were under the speed limit and
didn't hit anything? :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXMbAtR5Bz0
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> *Clearly* you've never been in a car with my mother. ;-)
>
> My wife's somewhat like that too. Or worse, she'll gasp and cringe when
> the guy a quarter mile ahead hits the brakes, like I'm not even looking
> out the window or something. Or she'll shout "Watch out!" when she sees
> someone walking thru a parking lot we're driving past.
>
I have come to believe that a passenger does see more than the driver.
Driving really takes a lot of coordination and concentration.
When I ride as a passenger I find that I can see things a lot sooner
than when driving. I've often thought - "wow, I don't think I would
have caught that if I was driving."
But the passenger isn't watching what is coming from behind, or watching
how fast they are going, or where the feet are, or trying to plan what
is going to happen in 4-5 seconds as you get close to a car or intersection.
I have come to value a passenger - especially at night on a road with
lots of animals.
I've trained my wife to not just suck in her breath in panic when she
sees a deer, but to actually say 'deer' so that I know what to look for.
But my passenger also lets me drive and doesn't panic when I don't stop
as quickly as she thinks I should.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:27:44 -0500, Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
>I've trained my wife to not just suck in her breath in panic when she
>sees a deer, but to actually say 'deer'
LOL
"Yes, my dear?"
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> when I told her I usually look about 10 cars up the road so can see if
> they are really stopping or not.
That's my biggest annoyance with the big SUVs and pick-ups that are popular
here in the last tens of years. You can no longer look to see what the
traffic is doing in front of them, because their windshields are 5' higher
than yours are.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> So this would be OK then, so long as you were under the speed limit and
> didn't hit anything? :-)
I don't know. As I said, I never really figured it out. Each state is
different, and until the intartubes came along, it was rather a pain in the
butt to look up the actual written statutes.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:39:49 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> And also talking to a passenger distracts you too.
>
> I've heard claims that one difference there is that the passenger knows
> what's going on. If all of a sudden three cars are coming at you from
> three directions, the passenger is likely to STFU until you're clear of
> the situation.
When I'm on the phone while driving, the person (or people, sometimes
it's a conference call) are aware that I'm driving - I make sure of
that. If they ask a question and I don't immediately respond, they know
why.
I think it has to do with how people focus their attention - I find that
I can concentrate on driving very well while talking to my wife on the
phone, for example, because the way I talk with her on the phone is as if
she was in the car with me.
*Always* on handsfree (with my headset), though. Both hands firmly on
the wheel. No exceptions.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:45:43 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> when I told her I usually look about 10 cars up the road so can see if
>> they are really stopping or not.
>
> That's my biggest annoyance with the big SUVs and pick-ups that are
> popular here in the last tens of years. You can no longer look to see
> what the traffic is doing in front of them, because their windshields
> are 5' higher than yours are.
Add that to the list of my pet peeves. Along with people who drive
through a parking lot, see your lights indicating you're reversing, and
try to squeak behind you anyways even though there's no way you could
possibly see them past the H3 that parked next to you (at least it didn't
park on top of you!).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:39:49 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>
>> scott wrote:
>>> And also talking to a passenger distracts you too.
>> I've heard claims that one difference there is that the passenger knows
>> what's going on. If all of a sudden three cars are coming at you from
>> three directions, the passenger is likely to STFU until you're clear of
>> the situation.
>
> When I'm on the phone while driving, the person (or people, sometimes
> it's a conference call) are aware that I'm driving - I make sure of
> that. If they ask a question and I don't immediately respond, they know
> why.
>
> I think it has to do with how people focus their attention - I find that
> I can concentrate on driving very well while talking to my wife on the
> phone, for example, because the way I talk with her on the phone is as if
> she was in the car with me.
>
> *Always* on handsfree (with my headset), though. Both hands firmly on
> the wheel. No exceptions.
>
> Jim
Just did this today - was talking with someone on the phone and told him
to waid if I pause for a few seconds - driving and merging and the like.
Tho, only 1 hand on the wheel.
I don't think it is the phone itself, but getting into the conversation
that causes the problems.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:09:43 -0500, Tom Austin wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:39:49 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> scott wrote:
>>>> And also talking to a passenger distracts you too.
>>> I've heard claims that one difference there is that the passenger
>>> knows what's going on. If all of a sudden three cars are coming at you
>>> from three directions, the passenger is likely to STFU until you're
>>> clear of the situation.
>>
>> When I'm on the phone while driving, the person (or people, sometimes
>> it's a conference call) are aware that I'm driving - I make sure of
>> that. If they ask a question and I don't immediately respond, they
>> know why.
>>
>> I think it has to do with how people focus their attention - I find
>> that I can concentrate on driving very well while talking to my wife on
>> the phone, for example, because the way I talk with her on the phone is
>> as if she was in the car with me.
>>
>> *Always* on handsfree (with my headset), though. Both hands firmly on
>> the wheel. No exceptions.
>>
>> Jim
>
> Just did this today - was talking with someone on the phone and told him
> to waid if I pause for a few seconds - driving and merging and the like.
>
> Tho, only 1 hand on the wheel.
>
> I don't think it is the phone itself, but getting into the conversation
> that causes the problems.
That's my thought as well. It's all about how you divide your attention
and what you consider is the most important task. I find I'm aware of
the vehicles around me, but I may not know exactly where I am on the road
(in terms of "am I near exit 279 or exit 281?"), but that happens to me
when I'm not on the phone as well - just comes from driving a very
familiar route a lot.
I think it also does make a difference if it's a drive that you're
familiar with - not just in terms of the roads, but also the traffic
patterns at given points along the route. I know, for example, that when
I'm driving north on I-15 between 5 and 6 PM, I can count on the traffic
slowing down around Orem center street and the average speed dropping to
about 25, and a similar slowdown most nights approaching American Fork.
Even not knowing exactly how far up the road I am (by exit), the
landmarks give me a good idea about where the traffic slowdown is going
to start.
That and the brake lights on 4 lanes of highway traffic in front of
me. :-)
I am constantly checking all around me - I think many drivers don't pay
enough attention to what's going on in the lanes to the left/right of
them, but I also tend to stick to a single lane rather than weave in and
out of traffic, especially during rush hour.
I think mobile phones can be a dangerous distraction if you drive like a
lunatic - then it becomes one more thing to keep track of. But if you
drive conservatively and not aggressively (yeah, what am I saying?) then
it becomes less of an issue and can be no more distracting than listening
to the radio or talking to a passenger.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Austin wrote:
>
> Just did this today - was talking with someone on the phone and told him
> to waid if I pause for a few seconds - driving and merging and the like.
This, by the way, is the best way to find where you're going, if you
don't have a navigator - get someone who knows the way around to phone.
Having handsfree is a big plus though.
> Tho, only 1 hand on the wheel.
I usually drive one hand on the wheel, even without a telephone (then
again, I do have a handsfree). The other one is either changing gear
(continously in towns), handling radio/ac or just resting.
> I don't think it is the phone itself, but getting into the conversation
> that causes the problems.
I agree, as long as you don't need to do 3 other things at the same time
- put a blinker on, turn on the windscreen wipers, change gear and turn
the car :).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 10:14:26 +0200, Eero Ahonen wrote:
>> Tho, only 1 hand on the wheel.
>
> I usually drive one hand on the wheel, even without a telephone (then
> again, I do have a handsfree). The other one is either changing gear
> (continously in towns), handling radio/ac or just resting.
I often do this as well when I'm not on the phone, I think I do it out of
habit when I am on the phone to help with keeping my attention focused
more on driving - it's a signal to myself, if you will....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> I often do this as well when I'm not on the phone, I think I do it out of
> habit when I am on the phone to help with keeping my attention focused
> more on driving - it's a signal to myself, if you will....
Like I said, I mostly let the other hand rest. My trip to work is 75km
in one direction, which usually takes about 40-45 minutes. The road is
pretty straight ie. not much serious movement for the hands (except if
something happens fast, which has happened once in 1,5 years). Anyone
shouting that 10-to-2 or quarter-to-3 is The Only Correct Choice can go
ahead and try keeping hands in that position for over 30 minutes and
then trying to do some quick movement with them (eg. avoid someone
changing a lane to your exact position). It's just not gonna happen,
those hand will surely be numb.
> Jim
-Aero, only human
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:21:26 +0200, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Like I said, I mostly let the other hand rest. My trip to work is 75km
> in one direction, which usually takes about 40-45 minutes. The road is
> pretty straight ie. not much serious movement for the hands (except if
> something happens fast, which has happened once in 1,5 years). Anyone
> shouting that 10-to-2 or quarter-to-3 is The Only Correct Choice can go
> ahead and try keeping hands in that position for over 30 minutes and
> then trying to do some quick movement with them (eg. avoid someone
> changing a lane to your exact position). It's just not gonna happen,
> those hand will surely be numb.
Huh, I don't have a problem with those sudden movements. I'm not an
advocate of 10-2 or 3:45, I do tend to drive with one hand at 6:00 and
one on the gear shift lever (which is odd because it's an automatic, but
I learned on a stick).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> when I told her I usually look about 10 cars up the road so can see if
>> they are really stopping or not.
>
> That's my biggest annoyance with the big SUVs and pick-ups that are
> popular here in the last tens of years. You can no longer look to see what
> the traffic is doing in front of them, because their windshields are 5'
> higher than yours are.
Yeh with those (and trucks) I just keep a bigger gap in front of me,
sometimes it amazes me how close people drive behind such vehicles when they
can't see what's going on further up the road. Sometimes you can just drive
a little more to the left of the lane and see past them, but this only works
if the road is straight or bending to the left a bit, makes me feel safer if
I can do that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> When I'm on the phone while driving, the person (or people, sometimes
> it's a conference call) are aware that I'm driving - I make sure of
> that. If they ask a question and I don't immediately respond, they know
> why.
Yeh me too, often they will ask if I'm OK to talk, if not I always say that
I'm in the car.
> I think it has to do with how people focus their attention - I find that
> I can concentrate on driving very well while talking to my wife on the
> phone, for example, because the way I talk with her on the phone is as if
> she was in the car with me.
Depends on the road for me, usually it's only on longer trips that I use the
phone, so it's on the autobahn with no crossing intersections etc to worry
about, I just stay in the slow lane with the trucks while I'm on the phone.
> *Always* on handsfree (with my headset), though. Both hands firmly on
> the wheel. No exceptions.
Yep me too (my car has a bluetooth connection so the phone call comes out
the normal speakers in the car).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:11:39 +0100, scott wrote:
>> When I'm on the phone while driving, the person (or people, sometimes
>> it's a conference call) are aware that I'm driving - I make sure of
>> that. If they ask a question and I don't immediately respond, they
>> know why.
>
> Yeh me too, often they will ask if I'm OK to talk, if not I always say
> that I'm in the car.
I think that makes a difference - for example, when I call my mom while
on the way home (not a bad time to call her generally as I'm not in front
of a computer, which means I can't remotely fix hers), she'll ask if I'm
on my way home. Kinda become a habit now for her to ask, but if she
doesn't, I let her know. Also partly because there are dead spots on the
route and sometimes the call drops.
>> I think it has to do with how people focus their attention - I find
>> that I can concentrate on driving very well while talking to my wife on
>> the phone, for example, because the way I talk with her on the phone is
>> as if she was in the car with me.
>
> Depends on the road for me, usually it's only on longer trips that I use
> the phone, so it's on the autobahn with no crossing intersections etc to
> worry about, I just stay in the slow lane with the trucks while I'm on
> the phone.
Yeah, that makes a difference. I find that I tend not to use the phone
while on city streets as well - stop and go traffic is enough to look at,
but on the freeway it's a different story.
>> *Always* on handsfree (with my headset), though. Both hands firmly on
>> the wheel. No exceptions.
>
> Yep me too (my car has a bluetooth connection so the phone call comes
> out the normal speakers in the car).
Nice....I have a bluetooth headset, but the car will be 10 years old in
April next year.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I read somewhere that if you put more road safety features in, people
> feel safer and so take more risks, resulting in the same level of safety
> as before. And now I read this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
>
> Apparently the idea is that because it looks more dangerous, people pay
> more attention.
>
> Call me cynical, but I can't help feeling it's only a matter of time
> before some twat driving a Subaru Impreza comes along and starts trying
> to drive like it's a rally circuit... :-P
I think Professor Albert Einstein once said: 2 things are infinite the
Universe and Human supidity.
U being cynic? no, I think u r just describing human (dumb-a$$) behavior.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I think Professor Albert Einstein once said: 2 things are infinite the
> Universe and Human supidity.
"...and I'm not even sure about the first one..."
:-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I think Professor Albert Einstein once said: 2 things are infinite the
>> Universe and Human supidity.
>
> "...and I'm not even sure about the first one..."
>
> :-D
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/9.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
