Road safety

[Herainestold]

Another way to discourage automobile use would be to make it more difficult to obtain a driving licence.

[lpm]

Or a lot easier to lose a licence. 71 mph on the motorway and...

[plodder]

Or a lot easier to lose a licence. 71 mph on the motorway and...

OK so this is a good one.

For starters, speed isn't the problem, it's momentum - the heavier the car the more oomph in the accident. So a genuine speed limit based on safety would allow lighter vehicles to travel more quickly and heavier ones to travel more slowly. We see this to some extent with HGVs being limited to 56mph but these are old school rules based on old school technology.

A really simple metric we can use to judge how much momentum a given vehicle has is how much fuel is being used to get it to that speed (over, say, the last 5 mins). Therefore speed limits should be scrapped and should be replaced with kW/hour or similar, i.e. fuel consumption.

Cap each vehicle to the same rate of power consumption and the speed freaks can continue whizzing about, just in lighter & less dangerous cars.

[shpalman]

Or a lot easier to lose a licence. 71 mph on the motorway and...

OK so this is a good one.

For starters, speed isn't the problem, it's momentum - the heavier the car the more oomph in the accident. So a genuine speed limit based on safety would allow lighter vehicles to travel more quickly and heavier ones to travel more slowly. We see this to some extent with HGVs being limited to 56mph but these are old school rules based on old school technology.

A really simple metric we can use to judge how much momentum a given vehicle has is how much fuel is being used to get it to that speed (over, say, the last 5 mins). Therefore speed limits should be scrapped and should be replaced with kW/hour or similar, i.e. fuel consumption.

Cap each vehicle to the same rate of power consumption and the speed freaks can continue whizzing about, just in lighter & less dangerous cars.

There are good reasons to make cars lighter but kinetic energy goes as speed squared.

But trains must be very dangerous, they're really heavy.

[nekomatic]

This is true. We should do something to make them less likely to crash into things. Maybe there should be some sort of mechanical guidance system so they can only run along pre-set… “courses”, or “tracks”.

[lpm]

Or a lot easier to lose a licence. 71 mph on the motorway and...

OK so this is a good one.

For starters, speed isn't the problem, it's momentum - the heavier the car the more oomph in the accident. So a genuine speed limit based on safety would allow lighter vehicles to travel more quickly and heavier ones to travel more slowly. We see this to some extent with HGVs being limited to 56mph but these are old school rules based on old school technology.

A really simple metric we can use to judge how much momentum a given vehicle has is how much fuel is being used to get it to that speed (over, say, the last 5 mins). Therefore speed limits should be scrapped and should be replaced with kW/hour or similar, i.e. fuel consumption.

Cap each vehicle to the same rate of power consumption and the speed freaks can continue whizzing about, just in lighter & less dangerous cars.

Wrong.

Speed isn't the problem. Momentum isn't the problem. Disregard for the rules of the road is the problem.

[shpalman]

My car has a mass of almost exactly 1000 kg which I'm sure is below average these days, and I've also never been at fault in an accident (I've had morons run into the back of me a few times) so yes I expect most accidents are caused by people with heavier cars than mine.

[plodder]

Wrong.

Speed isn't the problem. Momentum isn't the problem. Disregard for the rules of the road is the problem.

Well yes, but the rules themselves are also stupid.

[plodder]

My car has a mass of almost exactly 1000 kg which I'm sure is below average these days, and I've also never been at fault in an accident (I've had morons run into the back of me a few times) so yes I expect most accidents are caused by people with heavier cars than mine.

Risk = likelihood x consequence.

At the moment speed limits are pretty clumsy on the consequence bit.

[lpm]

Wrong.

Speed isn't the problem. Momentum isn't the problem. Disregard for the rules of the road is the problem.

Well yes, but the rules themselves are also stupid.

Yes, but loyalists to a cause obey stupid rules.

Like an army private who commits to polishing his boots twice a day can also be expected to obey more serious orders such as gun safety rules.

A stupid rule like "you must wear a blue hat while driving" is a signifier - people who obey it will be highly likely to obey all other rules of the road. People who say "this is a rule for idiots, I'll ignore it" will be likely to ignore other rules they personally consider pointless, such as giving cyclists proper space when overtaking or turning off the engine while parked outside a school. Taking licences off 71 mph drivers would cull the roads of the more cavalier drivers, even though 71 mph is an arbitrary and imperfect measure of safety.

[plodder]

So we enforce a stupid rule, like 70mph for everyone, in order to ensure they stick to a more sensible rule, which is 70mph for everyone?

Hang on, I'm just going to turn around again before I sit down, like a dog. I'm sure there was something there...

[lpm]

All rules correlate, though. The tw.t who tailgates will also be the tw.t who overtakes recklessly.

I bet you could correlate "tw.t who blasts music out the stereo at midnight in a residential area" with "tw.t who road-rages at cyclists". So taking away the music blaster's licence would be likely to make it safer for cyclists.

You came up with the innovative fuel consumption limits, based on the theory that it's not speed but momentum that matters. I'm saying it's not speed or momentum, but twaticity levels. So I instead of allowing lighter cars to go faster, I'd allow rule-obeyers to go faster. Instead of giving tailgaters 3 points on their licence, give them 10 mph off their speed limits.

[plodder]

In that case, capital punishment for litter. Job done.

However I like the idea of speed limiters for dickheads, all stuck in the nan lane unable to overtake mopeds.

[Millennie Al]

Wrong.

Speed isn't the problem. Momentum isn't the problem. Disregard for the rules of the road is the problem.

The laws of physics beat the rules of the road any day. And the problem isn't speed, momentum, or anything else like that: the problem is hitting things.

But, of course, no debate on road safety would be complete without a bunch of people all proclaiming that if only everyone else obeyed their favourite rule everything would be wonderful, along with suitably extreme suggestions for achieving compliance.

[Martin_B]

Or a lot easier to lose a licence. 71 mph on the motorway and...

OK so this is a good one.

For starters, speed isn't the problem, it's momentum - the heavier the car the more oomph in the accident. So a genuine speed limit based on safety would allow lighter vehicles to travel more quickly and heavier ones to travel more slowly. We see this to some extent with HGVs being limited to 56mph but these are old school rules based on old school technology.

A really simple metric we can use to judge how much momentum a given vehicle has is how much fuel is being used to get it to that speed (over, say, the last 5 mins). Therefore speed limits should be scrapped and should be replaced with kW/hour or similar, i.e. fuel consumption.

Cap each vehicle to the same rate of power consumption and the speed freaks can continue whizzing about, just in lighter & less dangerous cars.

But many (most?) accidents on the road are caused by speed differential. Two objects travelling in the same direction at the same speed will never hit each other. HGVs being limited to 56 mph on a road where other road users can travel at 70 mph legally (and often, it seems, 100 mph illegally) can cause issues, especially if the drivers of the faster vehicles are distracted, tired, there is poor visibility, etc.

As risk = likelihood x consequence, the way to reduce the risk of road accidents is not to try and reduce the consequence of an accident (whilst increasing the likelihood), but to have everyone travel at the same speed, so the likelihood of an accident reduces to zero. But essentially this means smart, computer-controlled cars, which the speed-freaks won't like.

[plodder]

We were talking about motorways so I was thinking about the classic ‘cut up by a beemer’ scenario tbh.

Absolutely is a scenario where tech is used to increase control, that’s one of the main things tech is for, right?

[Woodchopper]

Posts on road safety moved here from the railways thread.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Cheers chops

[JQH]

A stupid rule like "you must wear a blue hat while driving" is a signifier - people who obey it will be highly likely to obey all other rules of the road. People who say "this is a rule for idiots, I'll ignore it" will be likely to ignore other rules they personally consider pointless, such as giving cyclists proper space when overtaking or turning off the engine while parked outside a school. Taking licences off 71 mph drivers would cull the roads of the more cavalier drivers, even though 71 mph is an arbitrary and imperfect measure of safety.

Alternatively: people realise that the blue hat rule has no effect on safety so come to the conclusion that Government safety rules in general are arbitrary and pointless so decide to ignore all of them.

[lpm]

Yes. The Dominic Cummings approach to rules. The roads are packed with people who think they are the best judge of safety rules and can pick & choose which ones to obey.

The current world is one where every idiot believes they are an expert and actual experts can f.ck off. It manifests itself as Brexit and lockdown breeches and tailgating.

[Martin Y]

If you push too hard with a rule you increase the number of people who just flout it.

If you make it hard for people to comply (hard to get a licence or easy to lose one, hard or really expensive to get insurance) in order to produce some benefit, part of the equation is you'll get more people driving without a licence or insurance.

[lpm]

It's 2021 mate. We don't need bobbies on the beat checking windscreens for expired tax discs. Technology solves all this.

Just have a drone flying over the M6. When it sees an uninsured car driving along it unleashes a couple of Hellfire missiles.

In the 2030s we need to transition from petrol tax (a good proxy for tax per mile driven) to a new form of tax, in order to properly cost the pollution/congestion/road maintenance we all cause by driving. This will be some sort of toll per mile driven and it will need new technology to collect. A sensible system will cover bad driving as well as tax and insurance.

[Lew Dolby]

to me, a large part of the problem isn't weight, momentum, dick-heads - it's the vanishingly small chance that dickheadery will ever be caught and punished. Much higher levels of policing the roads would go a long way to making them safer - how to achieve that is another matter.

[and collisions are rarely accidents. They're usually the result of dickheadery or deliberate rulebreaking or whatever. The police rarely call them accidents]

[El Pollo Diablo]

to me, a large part of the problem isn't weight, momentum, dick-heads - it's the vanishingly small chance that dickheadery will ever be caught and punished. Much higher levels of policing the roads would go a long way to making them safer - how to achieve that is another matter.

[and collisions are rarely accidents. They're usually the result of dickheadery or deliberate rulebreaking or whatever. The police rarely call them accidents]

Robotic police. Shoot to kill. All the -topian visions come true.

Choose your preferred prefix.

[plodder]

It's 2021 mate. We don't need bobbies on the beat checking windscreens for expired tax discs. Technology solves all this.

Just have a drone flying over the M6. When it sees an uninsured car driving along it unleashes a couple of Hellfire missiles.

In the 2030s we need to transition from petrol tax (a good proxy for tax per mile driven) to a new form of tax, in order to properly cost the pollution/congestion/road maintenance we all cause by driving. This will be some sort of toll per mile driven and it will need new technology to collect. A sensible system will cover bad driving as well as tax and insurance.

My suggestion (taking vehicle momentum into account) is a stealth control on energy use that avoids the need for regressive taxes.