Major contribuition to road safety and reducing aggressive driving.

[L00b 441]

I think there needs to be a clear(er) delineation between aggressive driving and fast driving, if the two topics get debated jointly in the context of this speed-themed thread.

 

Strictly speaking, they're not synonymous. Driving at or below the speed limit, but then weaving to hinder an overtake manoeuvre by a following car (without due cause), is as aggressive as tailgating and the like in my book.

 

Likewise, it's perfectly possible to driver fast(er) according the performance available as you say, without being aggressive with it as well, regardless of how that is perceived: the acid test in my book, is whether the slower drivers rightly feel threatened/endangered (as opposed to being merely annoyed/offended) by one's overtaking manoeuvres.

 

There's something to be said for a barely-muted v8 caning it past in a motorway tunnel, all that said 

Edited April 10, 2019 by L00b

[Cyclone 10]

Agreed, I'd rather someone drive fast than drive close behind me, or drive in an unpredictable way (weaving, accelerating to stop overtakes, etc).

[Cyclone 10]

5 minutes ago, L00b said:

I think there needs to be a clear(er) delineation between aggressive driving and fast driving, if the two topics get debated jointly in the context of this speed-themed thread.

 

Strictly speaking, they're not synonymous. Driving at or below the speed limit, but then weaving to hinder an overtake manoeuvre by a following car (without due cause), is as aggressive as tailgating and the like in my book.

 

Likewise, it's perfectly possible to driver fast(er) according the performance available as you say, without being aggressive with it as well, regardless of how that is perceived: the acid test in my book, is whether the slower drivers rightly feel threatened/endangered (as opposed to being merely annoyed/offended) by one's overtaking manoeuvres.

I suspect that some drivers are startled or surprised when overtaken, possibly due to a lack of observation of what's happening behind them.  And this surprise makes them conclude that the other driver is at fault.

[Obelix 11]

10 hours ago, Justin Smith said:

The most aggressive drivers are Audi drivers, not all of them by any means, but a higher percentage than drivers of other cars. Anyone who does any reasonable amount of driving must know this. As it happens, partly because certain people * argued with me I did some research on it and I know for a fact it`s true.

 

The list  from least aggressive to most aggressive is (excluding young drivers of "rorty" hatchbacks, they`d obviously be the worst) :

 

All drivers (the average)

Male drivers.

Drivers of German cars.

Audi drivers

Audi R8 drivers

 

* The petrolhead brigade. I don`t know why they felt they should defend Audi drivers (and to a lesser extent German car drivers), other than they :

A - Will argue with anyone who supports speed cameras and stuff like that

B - Most of them drive German cars themselves.

 

 

Wow..

 

I've got a BMW, I know you love to hate them...

 

I've also got a Landrover, and a Ford. Do you think my driving magically changes dramatically depending on the vehicle im in (with the obvious exception of driving off road in the Landrover)

[Justin Smith 10]

15 hours ago, L00b said:

It's all the more baseless, as it doesn't translate well to other countries: most people here in Lux drive German cars, other countries of manufacture are the exception rather than the norm; over the border in France, most people drive French cars, other countries of manufacture are again the exception rather than the norm.

 

Stereotyping based on car make driven is pretty idiotic.

 

If I were to base an opinion about aggressive drivers on empirical, personal observation, like Justin allegedly did, then over the course of the past 14 months or so, the most aggressive drivers over here are young French and Lux women in either Renaults (clios & megane coupes) or Fiats (500); the most courteous ones are late middle-aged gents in German luxobarges (7-series, A6/A8, E/S classes); and speeders (as in, very noticeably over the limit) are invariably driving high performance sports cars (Mustangs by the lorry-load, lambos & similar exotics, BMWs M-something, Hyundais stingers, Alfas Q4s) but never tailgating.

 

I.e. the complete opposite of Justin's findings.

Say what you want, certainly in this country it, when it comes to German cars (and particularly Audis) it`s a fact none the less.

I often wonder if people who argue this particular point are actually driving on the same roads as the rest of us.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Justin Smith

[DT Ralge 10]

21 hours ago, L00b said:

I didn't think we were in disagreement 

 

...but you're not going to convince me that there is a "disproportionately  huge difference" to the force of an impact at 31 mph relative to 30mph, because physics: KE=1/2m(v^2).

 

For instance, your KE difference between 30 & 31 mph is +6.7%, and +2.2% between 90 & 91 mph (eg).

 

It's a different kettle of fish  once you get into 4-5mph over the reference speed (+36% at 35 mph, +11% at 95 mph), for sure, since the relationship is non-linear.

 

But KE is still always proportional to the speed all the same, since speed is a factor of the equation.

 

I get that speed awareness courses need to shock-therapy their attendees. I've never attended one, nor been in circumstances wherein the choice could have been given. I served a 6 months driving ban in my misspent youth, however: back to walking and public transport in my late teens, was quite the (re)formative experience.

The videoed exercise we used to show in Derbyshire speed courses gave minimum impact speeds of 11, 18 and 26mph from 32, 35 and 40 mph as distinct from no impact from 30mph. 

I.e. the set up involved:

- a well-maintained car (tyres pumped up optimally - most vehicles on the road that I check exhibit under-inflated tyres 

- Class1 police driver not messing about with the brake pedal as distinct from some of the drivers I’ve sat with in emergency response (heavy braking) training who were alarmed by ABS kicking in and took their foot off the brake. 

- a disused airfield with flat, dry, high-grip surface (how many roads are like that?)

- braking at a known point from 30, 32, 35 and 40 mph I.e. NO reaction time needed so the videoed exercise shows nothing more than different braking distances and minimum impact speeds.

if you are still with me, these were 0, 11, 18 and 26 mph - as I wrote, “disproportionately huge” difference to the force of impact from every single mph. 

 

Speed courses stopped using blood and gore shock tactics years ago - they may occasionally tug at you emotionally but the videoed exercise centres on Laws of Physics far better than an equation!

 

At the impact speeds above, the injuries sustained by a pedestrian are obviously many and varied (and occasionally randomly insignificant) but range in speed from smashed legs, to the same with head injuries to the same with organ damage (and increasing levels of injury and mortality).

[DT Ralge 10]

20 hours ago, L00b said:

I think there needs to be a clear(er) delineation between aggressive driving and fast driving, if the two topics get debated jointly in the context of this speed-themed thread.

 

Strictly speaking, they're not synonymous. Driving at or below the speed limit, but then weaving to hinder an overtake manoeuvre by a following car (without due cause), is as aggressive as tailgating and the like in my book.

 

Likewise, it's perfectly possible to driver fast(er) according the performance available as you say, without being aggressive with it as well, regardless of how that is perceived: the acid test in my book, is whether the slower drivers rightly feel threatened/endangered (as opposed to being merely annoyed/offended) by one's overtaking manoeuvres.

 

There's something to be said for a barely-muted v8 caning it past in a motorway tunnel, all that said 

I agree.  

Aggressive driving, for me, is not necessarily about absolute or relative speed, it’s about margins I.e. space and time. 

I meet drivers regularly who rush towards closing gaps and don’t appear to have worked out where the decelerator or brake is.  

I also see amber and even red light running increasingly.   Good job there’s a time gap between their red and someone else’s green. 

and so on ...

None of this aggressive driving is necessarily at an illegal speed.  It is just carried out with too small a margin for (their or others’) error. 

Edited April 11, 2019 by DT Ralge

[L00b 441]

7 hours ago, Justin Smith said:

Say what you want, certainly in this country it, when it comes to German cars (and particularly Audis) it`s a fact none the less.

I often wonder if people who argue this particular point are actually driving on the same roads as the rest of us.

It's not a fact. It's your subjective observation.

 

And until Feb'18, I'd been driving on UK roads, moreover mainly in/around Sheffield, for 20 years. In all that time, I can't objectively say that I'd ever noticed German car male drivers to be more aggressive drivers than reps in Fords or Vauxhalls, nor than 20-something yobbos in souped-up <insert French, Japanese, British-German make> hatchbacks.

 

Probably because I'm rarely the slowest about on the road generally, and because I don't particularly care whether another driver is aggressive or not, save as to give them more attention/room for my own safety: they can go wrap themselves around a tree on the next bend for all I care, so long as it's far enough ahead of me to not take me out. For the rest of it, I'm not a policeman, nor a wannabe one, so live and let live.

[Cyclone 10]

7 hours ago, Justin Smith said:

Say what you want, certainly in this country it, when it comes to German cars (and particularly Audis) it`s a fact none the less.

I often wonder if people who argue this particular point are actually driving on the same roads as the rest of us.

It simply isn't.  You claiming it doesn't make it true.

3 hours ago, DT Ralge said:

The videoed exercise we used to show in Derbyshire speed courses gave minimum impact speeds of 11, 18 and 26mph from 32, 35 and 40 mph as distinct from no impact from 30mph. 

I.e. the set up involved:

- a well-maintained car (tyres pumped up optimally - most vehicles on the road that I check exhibit under-inflated tyres 

- Class1 police driver not messing about with the brake pedal as distinct from some of the drivers I’ve sat with in emergency response (heavy braking) training who were alarmed by ABS kicking in and took their foot off the brake. 

- a disused airfield with flat, dry, high-grip surface (how many roads are like that?)

- braking at a known point from 30, 32, 35 and 40 mph I.e. NO reaction time needed so the videoed exercise shows nothing more than different braking distances and minimum impact speeds.

if you are still with me, these were 0, 11, 18 and 26 mph - as I wrote, “disproportionately huge” difference to the force of impact from every single mph. 

 

Speed courses stopped using blood and gore shock tactics years ago - they may occasionally tug at you emotionally but the videoed exercise centres on Laws of Physics far better than an equation!

 

At the impact speeds above, the injuries sustained by a pedestrian are obviously many and varied (and occasionally randomly insignificant) but range in speed from smashed legs, to the same with head injuries to the same with organ damage (and increasing levels of injury and mortality).

Which is all well and good as a reason not to exceed 30 in a 30 zone.

But how many pedestrians are we expecting to step out onto the motorway to justify the same argument between 70 and 75?

 

It's also interesting (academically) to look at the braking performance of different vehicles.  So in that test the car can stop from 30 mph, at whatever distance was chosen.  Cars vary quite considerably in their stopping behaviours though, with some performing considerably better than the average.

[DT Ralge 10]

9 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

It simply isn't.  You claiming it doesn't make it true.

Which is all well and good as a reason not to exceed 30 in a 30 zone.

But how many pedestrians are we expecting to step out onto the motorway to justify the same argument between 70 and 75?

 

It's also interesting (academically) to look at the braking performance of different vehicles.  So in that test the car can stop from 30 mph, at whatever distance was chosen.  Cars vary quite considerably in their stopping behaviours though, with some performing considerably better than the average.

Indeed but, by the same logic, the difference between stopping from 70 and not stopping (and impacting on whatever) from 80, 90 and 100 mph is remarkable.

 

Cars vary in their ability to stop, clearly, and they vary even more as a result of driver inactions and neglect and road/weather considerations. 

 

In areas where pedestrians die (20,30,40 zones) at a rate just over 1 per day (representing a quarter of all road deaths), they don’t choose to cross a road rashly based on any rationale like “it’s a Ford Anglia” or “it’s a Ferrari” coming down the road. 

[Cyclone 10]

Absolutely, but I think that using pedestrians is unfair here as nobody has argued that 30 limits should be increased except in the case where there aren't actually any pedestrians...

My personal bugbear are 60 roads reduced to 50, others have talked about motorway speeds.  I don't think anyone wants to be able to drive at 35 through a town centre.

[L00b 441]

53 minutes ago, DT Ralge said:

Indeed but, by the same logic, the difference between stopping from 70 and not stopping (and impacting on whatever) from 80, 90 and 100 mph is remarkable.

 

Cars vary in their ability to stop, clearly, and they vary even more as a result of driver inactions and neglect and road/weather considerations. 

 

In areas where pedestrians die (20,30,40 zones) at a rate just over 1 per day (representing a quarter of all road deaths), they don’t choose to cross a road rashly based on any rationale like “it’s a Ford Anglia” or “it’s a Ferrari” coming down the road. 

I'd actually typed a long-ish reply to your previous post (quoting mine), basically observing that whilst everything you wrote was perfectly acceptable, it still did not make the differentials "disproportionately huge", and making substantially the same point about pedestrians as Cyclone just now (...but my iPad ate it, when it decided to reload the page out of the blue ).

 

That is because in a driving context, speed-related (physics) relationships about kinetic energy, momentum braking, etc. are non-linear (as I previously observed): if you plot them against speed, they're curves, not straight lines. But they're always, invariably, proportional to the speed indicia.

 

The variance between differentials is remarkable, certainly. But then, that really is just 'because physics', and is part and parcel of the reasons why the speed limit in urban environments is 30 mph, not 50 nor 60: vastly more danger factors (pedestrians/cyclists, obstructed views, intersections, traffic density, etc, etc.) in those circumstances, than on single and dual carriage lanes in t'country, so vastly increased fundamental requirement for shorter stopping distances.

 

Over in France, they dropped the NSL from 90 to 80 km/h not so long ago, and there are increasing instances of urban areas dropped from 50 to 30 km/h. Tedious isn't quite the word, let me tell you. It'll soon be slow enough, that using your mobile whilst driving is actually safe enough  (...joke: it's a BIG bugbear of mine, because it's got to be one of main reasons for congestion on my daily commute - just about every last driver in the queues with their nose in their mobile, not noticing the queue moving )

Edited April 11, 2019 by L00b