Cycling UK Forum

Nissan (and I think other car manufacturers) are working to develop technologies which aim to reduce certain types of accident (More here http://news.zdnet.com/2424-9595_22-214693.html )

What do we think of this. Could it make our lives safer, or is there the danger that drivers will be further lulled into complacency.

Personally I agree with the author (can't remember where I read it) that said if you wanted drivers to drive carefully you would give them a paper mache car with a large spike in the middle of the steering wheel.

Most of these things seem to be aimed at making car drivers safer from each other rather than making vulnerable road users safer.

It'll instil a sense of safety, give the driver even more time to enjoy their comfy surroundings and make no difference if a small child runs out. (Cheap emotional tug - sorry).

Perhaps one day we'll have true intelligence and sensors to vehicles which will make life safer for everyone but in the meantime get the drivers back to what they should be doing, concentrating on the road.

kwackers wrote:
Perhaps one day we'll have true intelligence and sensors to vehicles which will make life safer for everyone but in the meantime get the drivers back to what they should be doing, concentrating on the road.

Well said. Most modern advances in vehicle technology have made the plight of vulnerable road users worse ( seat belts, ABS, etc encourage risk-taking).
One piece of science which I'd welcome would be some kind of sci-fi detector-override on the steering/braking system of cars which would refuse to allow the vehicle to collide with a warm-blooded mammal (i.e. me on my bike). One day, maybe ?

kwackers wrote:Most of these things seem to be aimed at making car drivers safer from each other rather than making vulnerable road users safer.

It'll instil a sense of safety, give the driver even more time to enjoy their comfy surroundings and make no difference if a small child runs out.....

Perhaps the time has come for my '6 points and your banned' policy (rather than the current 12), hey Kwackers?

JQ666 wrote:

kwackers wrote:Most of these things seem to be aimed at making car drivers safer from each other rather than making vulnerable road users safer.

It'll instil a sense of safety, give the driver even more time to enjoy their comfy surroundings and make no difference if a small child runs out.....

Perhaps the time has come for my '6 points and your banned' policy (rather than the current 12), hey Kwackers?

As opposed to removing distractions and giving control back to the driver???

The legality isn't what's being discussed here. As I've said before, a bad driver can be a bad driver and totally within the law.

kwackers wrote:
As opposed to removing distractions and giving control back to the driver???

The legality isn't what's being discussed here. As I've said before, a bad driver can be a bad driver and totally within the law.

No, we're discussing road safety, especially protecting vulnerable road users. There is no way a government can legislate against safety and comfort gizmos in cars (let alone legislate all cars must have a spike on the steering wheel rather than an airbag), therefore tougher enforcement of existing motoring legislation is required. I propose:

6 points = ban (have to pass a driving test at own expense to get license back - which gets over your losing job / house argument, and introduces education).
Removal of fixed speed cameras and replaced with unmarked mobile speed cameras.
Uninsured driving to be treated as an anti-social crime - i.e. punished with tag and curfew (as well as the fine, ban and car crushed).

All of these can be implemented without a huge investment into more traffic police (the mobile speed cameras should arguably generate more revenue that the bright yellow fixed ones and so pay for the extra staff needed to run them). At the end of the day, like it or not, there is not going to be a sudden investment into more traffic police on the streets to enable enforcement of good driving standards (see the thread about the state of current police force), so I only make recommendations of what could be done to improve road safety, given the current limited resources.

You have to agree that the above 3 points would result in safer driving over time.

JQ666 wrote:<snip>

Vulnerable road users are best protected by drivers paying attention.

All my near misses, and others I observe occasionally on the roads are due to lack of attention not law breaking - hence I don't see that my safety will improve if law breaking drivers are removed.

However I realise that some people believe that the people who repeatedly break the law are the same who don't pay attention. I don't.

Since this thread was about the use of technology in cars to make the roads safer and we've both obviously been down the technological driving aids bit (you use them, I think they're bad) then it's probably best to leave it there rather than turn this into a continuation of the Cash Cows thread (I believe we'd both decided it had run it course. )

While agreeing with the comments about this sort of technology making car driver feel safer and more comfy etc. there is no doubt in my mind that development of this sort of technology will, at points in its development, benefit cyclists and pedestrians.
And no doubt most of us drive as well and you never know when we might also benefit from some technological improvement in safety. Or would we rather drive a car with no seatbelts, airbags, and a spike in the steering wheel? (I didn’t think so)

petercook80 wrote:While agreeing with the comments about this sort of technology making car driver feel safer and more comfy etc. there is no doubt in my mind that development of this sort of technology will, at points in its development, benefit cyclists and pedestrians.
And no doubt most of us drive as well and you never know when we might also benefit from some technological improvement in safety. Or would we rather drive a car with no seatbelts, airbags, and a spike in the steering wheel? (I didn’t think so)

I think it's important that the development of the technology continues. I'm sure eventually everyone will benefit from the results, my concerns are for the intermediate period when the technology is immature and used by drivers as a substitute for good driving.

A friend who's an RAC patrol guy was telling me how they were towing more and more people out of ditches who were convinced their car had failed.
Basically they drive too quickly through bends and the traction control / stability control takes care of getting them round safely. Then one day they overcook it just a little and the computer can't fix it, so off they spin.
In the 'old' days you'd have a feel for getting close to the limit of traction and be more aware, these days modern cars flatter the mediocre drivers on our roads.

kwackers wrote:

JQ666 wrote:<snip>

Vulnerable road users are best protected by drivers paying attention.

All my near misses, and others I observe occasionally on the roads are due to lack of attention not law breaking - hence I don't see that my safety will improve if law breaking drivers are removed.

However I realise that some people believe that the people who repeatedly break the law are the same who don't pay attention. I don't.

Since this thread was about the use of technology in cars to make the roads safer and we've both obviously been down the technological driving aids bit (you use them, I think they're bad) then it's probably best to leave it there rather than turn this into a continuation of the Cash Cows thread (I believe we'd both decided it had run it course. )

But not paying attention on the road, leading to dangerous driver IS law-breaking. The problem is there are no road police about to enforce it (and that won't change). I agree with you, that the roads would be safer if:

Drivers were more attentive, more considerate, better educated. How this will be rectified by a removal of driver aids, I can't see. The most recent examples of very bad driving I've seen were from a guy in a 'banger' (so I'm assuming minimal driver aids), numerous 'white vans' (not exacly your BMW levels of comfort, etc), and a police patrol car (astra I think - also assume not an advanced driver since it wasn't road police) speeding on the wrong side of the road, at a blind bind (and hidden dip) with blue lights flashing.

But, with my suggestions, drivers will have to assume at all times there is a mobile speed camera around the corner, so average speeds should fall (not a bad thing in itself anyway). The 6 point system emphasises this to maximise compliance. A driver concentrating on his / her speed is a driver concentrating (rather than mind wandering), so more attentive (whatever their level of driving ability). Those that are banned get re-educated, since they need to pass test to get licence back, and re-educating looks at all aspects of driving, not just speeding.

Or, you could take away the gizmos, the safety aids, the comfort aids, remove seatbelts, and stick a spike in the middle of the stearing wheel! Since we're unravelling motoring technology we might as well remove cat-converters, fuel efficiency technology, particulate filters, etc, whilst we're at it - hey, go the whole hog and scrap unleaded petrol. Pedestrian NCAP ratings (which you're very fond of) - what are they. Infact scrap all safety testing! Oh, but we'll still put the same idiots in the driving seat!! There you go, the roads are much safer now.

kwackers wrote:I think it's important that the development of the technology continues. I'm sure eventually everyone will benefit from the results, my concerns are for the intermediate period when the technology is immature and used by drivers as a substitute for good driving.

A friend who's an RAC patrol guy was telling me how they were towing more and more people out of ditches who were convinced their car had failed.
Basically they drive too quickly through bends and the traction control / stability control takes care of getting them round safely. Then one day they overcook it just a little and the computer can't fix it, so off they spin.
In the 'old' days you'd have a feel for getting close to the limit of traction and be more aware, these days modern cars flatter the mediocre drivers on our roads.

That may well be true, but perhaps these technologies have also saved many an accident. I know there are no figures to support this so we will never know, but I feel that there is a strong likelihood of it being the case.
I would rather have the technology than not.

JQ666 wrote:

kwackers wrote:
As opposed to removing distractions and giving control back to the driver???

The legality isn't what's being discussed here. As I've said before, a bad driver can be a bad driver and totally within the law.

No, we're discussing road safety, especially protecting vulnerable road users. There is no way a government can legislate against safety and comfort gizmos in cars (let alone legislate all cars must have a spike on the steering wheel rather than an airbag), therefore tougher enforcement of existing motoring legislation is required. I propose:

6 points = ban (have to pass a driving test at own expense to get license back - which gets over your losing job / house argument, and introduces education).
Removal of fixed speed cameras and replaced with unmarked mobile speed cameras.
Uninsured driving to be treated as an anti-social crime - i.e. punished with tag and curfew (as well as the fine, ban and car crushed).

All of these can be implemented without a huge investment into more traffic police (the mobile speed cameras should arguably generate more revenue that the bright yellow fixed ones and so pay for the extra staff needed to run them). At the end of the day, like it or not, there is not going to be a sudden investment into more traffic police on the streets to enable enforcement of good driving standards (see the thread about the state of current police force), so I only make recommendations of what could be done to improve road safety, given the current limited resources.

You have to agree that the above 3 points would result in safer driving over time.

It would probably also result in more disqualified drivers just carrying on driving without tax insurance etc. so not improving safety.

JQ666 wrote:But not paying attention on the road, leading to dangerous driver IS law-breaking. The problem is there are no road police about to enforce it (and that won't change). I agree with you, that the roads would be safer if:

Drivers were more attentive, more considerate, better educated. How this will be rectified by a removal of driver aids, I can't see.

So taking the example (that was after all the start of this thread) of a braking system that will slow the car down when presented with a large metallic object in front of it (i.e. another car) will improve pedestrian safety?

You don't think that perhaps it would just allow people to drive that bit closer or even simply feel more secure and less alert.
The only thing a motorist has to worry about is hitting another car - if they cared about hitting cyclists they'd give us more room.

The most recent examples of very bad driving I've seen were from a guy in a 'banger' (so I'm assuming minimal driver aids), numerous 'white vans' (not exacly your BMW levels of comfort, etc), and a police patrol car (astra I think - also assume not an advanced driver since it wasn't road police) speeding on the wrong side of the road, at a blind bind (and hidden dip) with blue lights flashing.

At odds with what I see, which is generally large cars - 4x4's in particular.

A driver concentrating on his / her speed is a driver concentrating (rather than mind wandering), so more attentive (whatever their level of driving ability). Those that are banned get re-educated, since they need to pass test to get licence back, and re-educating looks at all aspects of driving, not just speeding.

Concentrating on your speed isn't the same as concentrating on the road. Cyclists and pedestrians aren't more visible to a speed concious motorist.

Or, you could take away the gizmos, the safety aids, the comfort aids, remove seatbelts, and stick a spike in the middle of the stearing wheel! Since we're unravelling motoring technology we might as well remove cat-converters, fuel efficiency technology, particulate filters, etc, whilst we're at it - hey, go the whole hog and scrap unleaded petrol. Pedestrian NCAP ratings (which you're very fond of) - what are they. Infact scrap all safety testing!

Well argued.

Pedestrian NCAP - which you rightly say I'm fond of, and why not? Since it's the only safety feature you've mentioned that benefits other road users rather than the driver (and doesn't have any impact on driver psychology.)

Particulate filters, cat-converters, fuel efficiency, unleaded petrol??? What on earth are you talking about - how do they effect safety or driver psychology?

Oh, but we'll still put the same idiots in the driving seat!! There you go, the roads are much safer now.

Not to worry though, with the use of technology they'll become smarter and pay attention to what they're doing eh?

ianr1950 wrote:
It would probably also result in more disqualified drivers just carrying on driving without tax insurance etc. so not improving safety.

Hence the harsher punishment of someone driving without insurance! Your argument leads me to believe you're against banning persistant motoring offenders. I don't quite understand this.

JQ666 wrote:

ianr1950 wrote:
It would probably also result in more disqualified drivers just carrying on driving without tax insurance etc. so not improving safety.

Hence the harsher punishment of someone driving without insurance! Your argument leads me to believe you're against banning persistant motoring offenders. I don't quite understand this.

I have not said that at all but I also do not agree with your proposal but if thats what you want to believe then who am I to try and argue against you.

They will still drive without insurance etc however harsh the punishment as they will not be able to afford the premiums and so will not bother.
So it will not improve safety.