carl

Yes, and despite what it says in 'Roadcraft', a locked wheel will not stop in the same distance as an unlocked one (i.e. ABS or a v.skilful driver) on a dry road, as the melting rubber forms a lubricant between the tyre and the road surface.

[Edited by carl - 11/5/2001 8:14:50 PM]

mutant_matt

CraigD,

The point is that the current attitude towards road safety/driver taining is: Speed is Bad - drive within the speed limits and you'll be safe.

If you think about this, it's an utter load of rubbish!!!!! You will never find this kind of advice in any Advanced Driver Training - the phrase drummed into people then is: Always use appropiate speed and always travel at a speed where you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear.

Basically, it's just common sense - pay attention and travel at a reasonable speed for the conditions. That does not mean, travel at a speed which somebody has deemed to be the "safe" speed (and displayed on a metal disc by the roadside), it means you make a sensible descision. Therefore, I drive down my road (and others like it) at 20mph because it's quite narrow and full of parked cars restricting any kind of view of the pavement, drive past schools at 3.30pm on a weekday sometimes at < 20mph, drive on a nice straight wide open country A-Road at speeds, sometimes in excess of 60mph.....

The sooner this message is put across, the sooner our roads *may* start getting safer!!!!

And to answer your question, my point is also that if you are paying attention, you will have seen the child, anticipated they may step into the road and have taken the neccessary action before they even do so - which is much more likely to avoid the accident than travelling at any given pre-determined "safe" speed.

Matt

[Edited by mutant_matt - 11/8/2001 8:36:51 AM]

dba

I really must jump to the defence of Craig here and say I find the reply that accuses him if being stupid to be rather rude-he is entitled to an opinion without abuse imo.
Anyway,as a member of the ABD and committed driver I am fairly knowledgable about the arguements for "appropiate speed",its a shame some of you are not.
Noone disputes the valid arguements relating to excessive speed,particularly relating to blanket speed restrictions,but the advert was in A BUILT UP AREA WITH CARS PARKED EITHER SIDE.Therefore the safe speed could have been no higher than 10/15 mph.How many of you take this into account before driving through similar urban areas?

The car was moving to fast,children do silly things,child gets killed.Simple.The arguement aginst innapropiate speed also means you allow for SLOW speeds when the location and conditions require it and not a blanket arguement that speed limits are dangerous.Which of course they are-the driver is the best judge of what speed to use-not a static sign at the roadside.This means drivers should also drive SLOWLY when needed.

Excessive speed DOES kill when used innappropiately i.e where cars are parked on a bust highstreet.The driver should allow for the possibility that a child could run out and allow for this distance when choosing his speed.This driver did not.

Everyone here is committed to safe driving,not "speed for speedsa sake".We believe that speed limits,gatsos etc are not the be-all-and-end-all for road safety.

If one child is saved due to a driver deciding to slow down when near risk such as a school or busy highstreet then the ad was valid imo.

The ABD website gives all the info and I suggest some of you go there before slaging someone off because they don't agree with you.You can still enjoy driving and believe that certain conditions dictate slow speeds-they are not mutually exclusive.

[Edited by dba - 11/9/2001 4:09:53 PM]

mutant_matt

You remember that thread back in the summer about the advert where the car slides in slo-mo into a child crossing the road (whist not looking I might add )????

Well, I did a search and can't find the thread but Mike Tuckshop, a few others and I wrote a letter of complaint to the ITC. I've finally had a response which I've posted below.

The response (in my opinion ( )), is not an adequate one!! I will be writing back to them because I think that:

1. Whilst the Agency states that the stats used were accurate, they don't mention where they came from (bound to be incorrect!!)
2. The point about ABS not really shortening stopping distances in the dry is utter rubbish (IMO) - if someone just stands on the brake pedal (like in the advert) then the wheels would lock up and the stopping distance would be increased....ABS would counter this.
3. They "assure" me that the car's rear brakes had not been disconnected but why then, are the wheels still turning? Aren't the rears more prone to locking than the fronts? (due to weight transfering towards the front???)

So, your opinions would be most welcome, before I conside my response. Mike T, have you had a letter yet and was is the same?

Cheers,

Matt

navigator

i got the same reply i am not expert enough to argue further ............but I thought of the mg complaint and how they got the advert amended... are the itc consistent?
How many of us got this reply ? come on guys and gals do tell!

mutant_matt

Nav,

ITC is for Independant Television, ASA is for Advertising - different areas of control I believe so don't expect any kind of consistancy...

BTW - what do you mean when you say the MG complaint was amended? Do you mean 1 person complained and got it banned???

Matt

SDB

It is actually very possible (even likely) that you would only lock up the fronts as most old road cars have a dramatic biad towards the front to avoid oversteer under braking. So it is likely that there was no tampering there..

But..

this is one of the main reasons why good ABS will reduce braking distances compared to a car such as shown on the advert, as it allows all 4 wheels to brake to their (averaged) optimum, rather than just the fronts.

In addition, the things that wound me up, were the blanket "X MPH = Y Feet Longer stopping distance".

There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY you can state a fact like that.

Every car / tyre model / tyre pressure / tyre wear / tyre temperature / road surface / weather conditions / driver combination will have a completely different stopping distance and will exhibit totally different characteristics as speed increases.

This was the thing that wound me up, as it took away the entire power of the advert.

All the best

Simon

Shark

I was of the opinion that ABS on a dry/clean road in a straight line had a longer stopping distance. (Only slight mind you) I would welcome some definite answer to this question.

Also why do vans etc have brake compensators for the rear wheels. To stop them locking up when unloaded? Thats what I always thought.

David

Ian Griffiths

Countered quite easily I'd have thought...

astraboy

With regard to the brake issue, I always thought that compensators were fitted too. This prevents the back brakes locking up when the fronts do and stops the car spinning by eliminating the chance of all four locking up.
That i why you have to be careful lowering 80s cars. by taking the back down you fool the compensator into thinking that there is loads of weight over the back end and it feeds extra power to the rear brakes. In the wet I have had the rears lock up (very) occasionally. all I do is jam the pedel down, tranferring the weight to the front and free up the rears.
IIRC that is
astraboy.
P.S. the ad still stinks.
How about producing our own ad? "At 35mph, a Subaru Impreza fitted with 330mm AP 6pots and 235 section Bridgestone SO2's on 18" wheels will pull up 8-10 feet shorter than an average family ****box saloon"
you can call it "Missing the chld, hitting the point"

SDB

Shark

There is no dead straight answer, but really good 4 channel ABS allows the rears to brake as hard as they car before locking as well as the fronts.

In a non-ABS road car, there tends to be huge bias towards the front so you don't end up using all of the braking ability of the rears.

All the best

Simon

Mike Tuckwood

Hi Matt.

Yep, I have EXACTLY hte same letter as you (aprt from the address). :-)

I have already "roughed" a reply which will be along the foillowing lines:

Thank you for your reply to the complaint that I lodged in relation to the DETR “Think Speed” advertising campaign.

I find your reply based on the explanation given being that the intention of the commercial was to address the specific issue of motorists exceeding the speed limit, to be at direct conflict with your codes of practice on the grounds that it supports a popular myth.


Your own guidelines prohibit the narrow view and distorted impression that this view presents to the general public and I would appreciate your comments on why you have allowed this to occur.

What does this wide ranging programme consist of, is it more of exactly the same misguided and innacurrate viewpoint which it appears that the ITC have allowed to be indoctrinated into the general public.

Regardless of the part it is playing within any programme, it still directly conflicts with your code of conduct.

It does not; as it appears you have accepted from the advertisers, simply intend to demonstrate anything, as the point it is putting across is a wholly unbalanced and 'fringe’ view of a marginal problem, this is perpetuating a false impression that motorists can make a direct impression upon these accident statistics.

Transport Research Laboratory statistics do not in any way support the view as being significant.

I also disagree with the comments that viewers will understand anything particularly in the face of the the shock tactics used by the advertisers in the making of the advertisement. There is a clear “shock” approach to the advert which does not give any impression at all of it being part of a bigger picture!


Why would anybody undertake an advertising campaign which is not the primary or principal concern of the advert itself? You state in your reply letter that it is completely acceptable to focus on one specific issue in that manner; for the reasons I have stated above I suggest that this matter has been overlooked in the casual and uninformative explanation from the advertisers, that you seem to have gushingly accepted as fact (in error)!


I am sorry but I see no evidence from the advertisers other than a reassurance to you, that what they did was correct, they are bound to hold that opinion.


I doubt their opinion that the stopping distances were either accurate or up to date and would like to see the results of the testing, including all of the test criteria and the precise test conditions that the tests were conducted under. Were the tests carried out at/by an independent test facility?

I presume that you will already have this information yourself and that you would not have just simply accepted the advertisers reassurance that their figures were accurate?


Your comments on the way ABS works are also inaccurate. It also allows control of a vehicle to be maintained and gives the opportunity to steer around an obstacle, contrary to the dramatic, out of control car used in the advert.

With the above points in mind, I would request that you review your decision in this case to take into account the points that I have raised in this second letter and the direct comparison to the specific elements of your own code of conduct.


And here goes for another 2 month wait!

Mike.

mutant_matt

Nice response Mike!! I may (once again) have to jump on your coat tails (well, perhaps nick a few choice quotes anyway ) when I write my response (must get round to that!!)

BTW - thanks for responding to my mail

Matt

CraigD

Mutant-matt et al
Forgive me if I’m being dim as I am missing the reasoning behind your argument. Please explain again why you are so upset.
Irrespective of the technical details you surely cannot be disputing that the slower a given vehicle with a given driver is travelling then the quicker it will be able to stop. If the advert saves the life of just one child (even if the accident is the child's fault) then the advert must be justified. ???
Craig

Jerome

In my view, the danger of the advert is that the general public will think that driving at the speed limit means they are safe. This would mean they would drive at the speed limit when it is not safe to do so (like past a school at 3.30pm). There is the added danger that because they think they are safe at the speed limit that they will concentrate less on their driving than before.

Mike Tuckwood

CraigD

The practicalities of life are that kids will have accidents, some will die.

Your argument while accurate is also stupid and short sighted (as is the view put across in the advert we are discussing here).

In the same vein, you could also say that if we banned all cars, there would never be another needless death anywhere in the world caused by (involving) a car.


I got knocked down as a kid outside my school.... why because I was stupid. I drive around that now, but it could still happen to me. Or any pedestrian.

The process of travelling/commuting is a necessity the benefits of which cause/allow the whole civilised world to revolve.


Mike.

TonyG

As far as I can tell, the figures used in the advert were calculated from the same formula that is used to give the stopping distances on the back of the Highway Code. This is...

Thinking distance = 1 foot per mph
Stopping distance = x squared divided by 20 where x is speed in mph
Total stopping distance - add the two together.

Using this does give the difference of 21 feet (actually 21.5 feet) in total stopping distance between 30 mph and 35 mph.
However, this formula has been in use for as long as I can remember (andI first found out about it at school so it's pre 1978 - suspicion is that it dates from the fifties) and does not take into account the improvements in tyre/brake/suspension technology since then. On the other hand, if you do adhere to these thinking/stopping distances it will give you a safety margin, after all you're in control of upwards of a half ton of metal.
I fully agree about the driving to the conditions - there's streets where I live that I consider anything faster than 20 mph in the dry is unsafe.

Jerome

A good example of using appropriate speed from last weekend:-

I was on an Army base driving a minibus. The speed limit was 20mph for the whole base. I was driving past a line of coaches that where ready to pick up loads of Army cadets, who where milling around on the pavement. I crawled past all of the coaches and, as I was just reaching the front of the last coach, a young cadet ran right in front of my minibus without looking. Because I was driving at maybe 4-5mph, I was able to stop without hitting the child. If I had been driving at - or even near - the speed limit, I would have hit the child.

Just because there is a speed limit, it doesn't mean you can drive to it. This anti-speeding campaign will make drivers feel that driving at the speed limit means they are safe. As the above example shows, that is a dangerous attitude to have.

What we need is a campaign that encourages drivers to drive at an appropriate speed for the conditions. Drivers need to think about what they are doing, not be bimbling along in a daydream.

CraigD

Mike Tuckwood
End of discussion with you then!
ps Perhaps children are knocked down because they do not appreciate the danger rather than because they are stupid, although I cannot comment on your particular case.

Matt
I share your sentiments entirely. What you say is spot on. BUT most drivers, including some of us no doubt, do NOT use appropriate speed but may obey a speed limit.

Craig

jon hill

Although i go along with this in theory, the reality (at least in London where the DOT and the publicity folk are based) is that _everyone_ drives significantly faster than the 30 limit. In conditions where 10 or 20mph is too fast the problem is not people sticking to 30, its people flying along at 45. By tower bridge, where i live, people get up to an easy 50 or 60 down the Highway if its clear.

So the point here is that (i guess) if people paid attention to the limits then there speed would generally be more appropriate. The "appropriate speed" deal is the ideal situation, but as 90% of drivers are complete muppets, the fact is that it'll never work, so the only option is blanket limits.

Not sure if this really makes sense...

jon

Jza

OHMYGOD!!!

Im sorry guys but your going way, way to far on this one....

It's an advert designed to make people think about "whatever they want to" about speeding and hitting pedestrians (stupid, young, old it doesnt matter). If you hit a kid at 25mph rather than 35mph then surely the injuries are lessened???? At 55mph the kid gets killed......

If one person who's seen the advert and slows down in say a built up area (because they were shocked by the advert and thought better of the speed related issues) saves one life then surely it was worthwhile???

The advert was very good at putting the view (and as a viewer you can make your own conclusion as to the point of the advert in your own way).

It was very shocking and has certainly at the very least made me conciously slow right down near schools (more than i would have done before - i was not speeding before of course - but i definately go slower)

Now your writing complaints because the front wheels locked and the rears didnt???? And all the other points you make...... what!!!?????

So if they re-filmed it with perfect ABS, both wheels locking up etc... you would have been happy??? Would it have made any difference????

It was a damn good advert, and now your kicking up a stink... whats wrong with you lot - nothing better to do????? Nothing you say is going to alter anything - so why not put your energies to something a little more productive

Im really tempted to tell you to all get a life, but i wont

Flippin eck!!

Jza

matt d

In a recent edition of Porsche Post they tested stopping distances and found that an 1980s 911 stopped quicker from 40mph than the distance the average car supposedly took to stop from 30mph.

Since a 1980s 911 takes longer to stop than my car, I will interpret the ad to imply that I can safely do 40mph in 30 zones and be much safer than 95% of cars obeying the speed limit (j/k)

Jza

But why not do 30mph and then you'll save a life if you do hit someone as you'll only be doing 20mph

Cant see the point of arguing about this one. Better braked or not - dont try and justify speeding in built up arears!!!

Jza

Jerome

Jza,

The point isn't that doing the speed limit isn't safer - of course it is. The point is - IMO - that the advert implies that by doing the speed limit you are safe. So Joe Public then drives everywhere at the speed limit - even when the speed limit isn't safe. Also, because they are doing the speed limit - and by the adverts definition driving safely - they concentrate less on their driving. Result, Joe Public ploughs into a child at 30mph because he wasn't reading the conditions and didn't see little Johnny playing football at the side of the road.

Beemer_Deano

Another interpretation is that they're saying if you hit a kid and you're doing the speed limit, then it's not your fault and you're somehow absolved of blame?

Dean

jon hill

yes, but then you come to my point which is that joe public is not doing 30 outside the school thinking its safe; Joe has his foot buried and is doing 45 outside the school thinking it safe. So 30 is an improvement

Got to go with jza on this one - the point of the ad was to get over the fact that the faster you go the more damage you're going to do if you hit something. An awareness of a speed limit is at least the beginning of an awareness of speed in general

jon

speedking

If the Highway Code stopping distance is such that at 30mph you could stop; if you're doing 35mph your impact speed will be 13mph!
If the ad makes people debate these things, then it has done it's job.

dsmith

"If one child is saved due to a driver deciding to slow down when near risk such as a school or busy highstreet then the ad was valid imo."

But what if for every child saved 2 are killed because drivers do 30 mph where its not safe simply because the entire spin from the government is "the speed limit is safe" NOT "appropriate speed is safe" and hence encourage drivers not to apply thought to individual conditions.

Dean

dba

I'm not arguing about the "entire spin".I've paid my £20 to the ABd cus I'm very much on their side.I'm simply saying that the "innapropiate use of speed" arguement means that drivers must use the appropiate speed for the conditions which could mean 10/15 mph outside a school for eg.
It is simply not valid to umbrella the arguement for HIGH speeds by using the "speed limit" arguement in all circumstances.You have to argue the other way or the arguement falls down.
I accept that the Governments arguement is flawed and the anti-speed campaign is biased with weak arguement.But taking the advert ON ITS OWN MERITS and not lumping it in with the wider arguement of road safety,I am happy with the ad.

I can't comment on the braking thing,I know nowt of this subject!

just my 2p,an emotive subject.

matt d

dsmith - exactly

People are annoyed because, yet again, the road "safety" lobby have produced an ad that does not focus properly on the important issue, which is speed appropriate to the conditions.

The ad would have been much more effective if it had showed someone driving with parked cars etc outside a busy school at 3pm, killing a child, then getting sent down for causing death by dangerous driving despite him obeying the limit at 30mph.

It's also the responsibility of government information adverts to use facts that are reasonably accurate, and not use hopelessly outdated stopping distances.