Stop the radar reduces accidents

Transport and new transport: energy, pollution, engine innovations, concept car, hybrid vehicles, prototypes, pollution control, emission standards, tax. not individual transport modes: transport, organization, carsharing or carpooling. Transport without or with less oil.
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1

Stop the radar reduces accidents




by bernardd » 03/10/10, 10:30

Concrete British experience:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/203 ... asualties-

The first comment: "it's because now we pay more attention to the road than to our speedometer".
0 x
See you soon !
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 03/10/10, 15:45

If governments really want to reduce road accidents, they must first reduce the number of vehicles in circulation, and this, by putting in a disadvantageous tax system against motorists in favor of public transport.

"Automated sanction control" is just the application of a policy that is now the norm everywhere: tackle the consequences, not the root causes.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Alain G
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3044
Registration: 03/10/08, 04:24
x 3




by Alain G » 04/10/10, 06:04

Hi Bernard!

Here in Quebec City there are no more police officers at the entrance to the Quebec City and Pierre Laporte bridges during peak hours because there were too many accidents, they even lowered the speed on the Quebec City bridge to 50 km / h instead of 70 and it created huge traffic jams and they revised each other.


Proof that it is better to let the traffic flow take care of itself !!!!

They have placed photo-radars in places where there are never any accidents by trying to make us believe that it is for our security but it is only to inflate the state coffers!
0 x
Stepping behind sometimes can strengthen friendship.
Criticism is good if added to some compliments.
Alain
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 04/10/10, 08:31

Hello Alain,

Alain G wrote:Here in Quebec City there are no more police officers at the entrance to the Quebec City and Pierre Laporte bridges during peak hours because there were too many accidents, they even lowered the speed on the Quebec City bridge to 50 km / h instead of 70 and it created huge traffic jams and they revised each other.

Proof that it is better to let the traffic flow take care of itself !!!!


Completely agree, one of the only accidents that I almost had was during a climb of the A6 north of Lyon towards Paris, where they placed a speed camera in the left lane, and I did not didn't know it.

The line at 110km / h froze instantly for no foreseeable reason: I was happy to have my safety distance. One guy braked in front of the radar, but I didn't understand until after.

I think the one who chose this site should be in prison for life threatening.

Alain G wrote:They have placed photo-radars in places where there are never any accidents by trying to make us believe that it is for our security but it is only to inflate the state coffers!


It is above all that obviously, those responsible for the roads have not understood that it is the density of vehicles that governs speed. Lowering speed to a narrowing (bridge, tunnel) is exactly what you should not do, because the slowing "wave" will go upstream, like a tidal bore at the mouth of a river on the sea .

On the contrary, it is necessary to accelerate to compensate for the loss of section.

In fact, it is especially important to drive with those behind you in mind, and few have understood this.

Certain Amerindian peoples think that we go backwards in life, because we always keep the past before our eyes.
0 x
See you soon !
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 04/10/10, 09:12

This well-liked article by Bernardd only confirms the evidence that there is a causal relationship with an accident-causing effect, through certain measures beforehand supposed to reduce accidents.

Worse about radars, the numerous cases of over-accidents!

It becomes difficult to have rational reasoning when passion gets involved. I am a motorist by obligation for my work, but the car is not an end in itself, just the way to get from one point "A" at one point "B".
What we often forget for the self-employed is that it is practically impossible for them to use public transport, because it is the network that imposes the position of the point "A" and from the point "B". Therefore, not only are you penalized by the transport time, but also by the additional connection and waiting times: it becomes unbearable economically speaking.

For those who know Asia in the tropics where temperatures are very high, there is hardly a bus stop or there are no motorbikes that take over to take you to your destination for three under...

We have the feeling that certain transport policies are there first to avoid getting angry with the automotive lobbies at all costs.
But also and above all: to hinder the progress of SMEs, in order to preserve the prerogatives of large groups which overcome the problems of transport by different means.

Let us come to pragmatic reasoning
Too much security kills security. It is a fact that has been studied, calculated, quantified ... Supporting death and accident statistics.
When we study "Tree of causes" ...>, there is a known threshold, beyond which any new safety measure, can reduce the vigilance of the operator or the driver and then become a fully-fledged cause of accident. This is the time when, in the standard deviation of a Gaussian curve, we fall back on the other side of the slope which can become abysmal ...

In addition, multiply the prohibitions and constraints, "disempowers" people, who are no longer able to adapt to traffic when it becomes really necessary.

So the problem is not so much whether this or that measure will be the one that will be too much, but to prioritize those that are necessary. And there the traffic engineers have their work cut out for them, creating accident-causing situations through traffic restriction measures!
We can clearly see the height of security drifts. We force people to walk to sleep and we place slowdown thresholds and baffles to ... keep them alert!

We are completely in the utopian paradigm of believing that the solution is in the "Empowerment" (it's not won, eh ...!) : Mrgreen: Instead of relying on the : Arrow: 'responsibility' (which costs nothing, since it comes from "personal will") !!!

As for radars, besides the fact that they bring in money => it is a form of resignation from the public authorities. Moreover they are totally useless with current GPS-type technology.

We should rather wait for incentives to develop a "Culture of prevention" (in the sense mentioned above) that new constraints - again and again - which go to the opposite end since they cause new areas of challenge and misunderstanding when they are poorly planned ...

Why not force / generalize, for example the manufacturers, to implement systems allowing to regulate automatically the maximum speed of the vehicle according to the place where it drives (it already exists I know, but it is not yet automatic) ... So drivers could focus all their attention on the road, not on the signs ... In addition, with the latest generation GPS, which will be precise to a few centimeters, we can avoid almost all collision situations. then radars are very expensive and outdated...
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15989
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5187




by Remundo » 04/10/10, 09:57

hence the definition of speed cameras ...

Rsurrounding Accidentogenic with Djoin our Amusants and Rfast ... automatic
0 x
Image
User avatar
I Citro
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5129
Registration: 08/03/06, 13:26
Location: Bordeaux
x 11




by I Citro » 04/10/10, 13:22

Obamot wrote:As for radars, besides the fact that they bring in money => it is a form of resignation from the public authorities. Moreover they are totally useless with current GPS-type technology.
Why not force / generalize, for example the manufacturers, to implement systems allowing to regulate automatically the maximum speed of the vehicle according to the place where it drives (it already exists I know, but it is not yet automatic) ... So drivers could focus all their attention on the road, not on the signs ... In addition, with the latest generation GPS, which will be precise to a few centimeters, we can avoid almost all collision situations. then radars are very expensive and outdated...
I only ask that, but the manufacturers are not ready to put it in series, the government would even be able to make "lobbiying" to prevent this progress which would deprive it, in the long term, of the receipts of the radars ...

I bought a GPS first price this summer and I must admit that the gadget is great, it is a real co-pilot which, even if it sometimes crashes, provides a very useful help, especially given the current traffic evolution and of the network. I estimate that the 80 € it cost me is amortized by the announcement of speed cameras and the overspeed alert bell.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 04/10/10, 16:03

Absolutely Citro, technology is already starting to make up for the State's shortcomings in this area, that's for sure!

I also have a TomTom® which does the same, and I am delighted with it (but I still cannot do without Google map ...). In traffic it is too precious a help, especially when you are in a city that you don't know, and even more so when it comes to not missing the highway exit that you shouldn't not ... (... ooooppps already gone, slim ...: did you know that?) : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen:

In the future with Galileo, we should achieve a precision never reached (<1m) with the American system. For once it's us who will be the lucky ones! : Cheesy: It will even be possible to go down to an accuracy below 10 cm! (According to contracts and using "standard" earth stations) : Shock:
0 x
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 04/10/10, 20:08

Obamot wrote:there is a known threshold, beyond which any new safety measure can reduce the vigilance of the operator or the driver and thus become a fully-fledged cause of an accident. This is the time when, in the standard deviation of a Gaussian curve, we fall back on the other side of the slope which can become abysmal ...


There you describe an indirect consequence.

But when drivers in the left lane brake to death because they have seen a speed camera, it is a direct and predictable consequence.

Obamot wrote:Why not force / generalize, for example the manufacturers, to implement systems allowing to regulate automatically the maximum speed of the vehicle according to the place where it drives (it already exists I know, but it is not yet automatic) ...


You might as well put small vehicles on a rail, and build a vacuum tube around it: you gain in safety, fatigue, speed, energy, noise for local residents, and the cost of investment and maintenance.
0 x
See you soon !
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 05/10/10, 08:05

bernardd wrote:
Obamot wrote:there is a known threshold, beyond which any new safety measure can reduce the vigilance of the operator or the driver and thus become a fully-fledged cause of an accident. This is the time when, in the standard deviation of a Gaussian curve, we fall back on the other side of the slope which can become abysmal ...


There you describe an indirect consequence.

But when drivers in the left lane brake to death because they have seen a speed camera, it is a direct and predictable consequence.

It's clear! We can even say that in accidentology there is only one set of circumstances - mainly indirect - which when they are synchronized temporally and geographically, lead to an accidentogenic occurrence.

At least these conditions are necessary for an accident to occur:
- the presence of something in motion (object and / or person). And sometimes also "an absence - or insufficiency - of movement".
- the presence of another obstacle (or another object and / or person movement [ie also absence or insufficiency of ...]).
- a geographic / local location (given and favorable)
- the temporal data which leads to the synchronization of the previous conditions ... and leads to the accident.

So in your case, even the radar is an indirect consequence. It is the lack of sufficient movement of the vehicle in front of you that could have been the direct consequence of the collision, right?

That brings us back to somewhere in 9/11 (I didn't dare talk about it in the other thread, because it's too serious a subject to be "sullied" by the controversy) but if we consider all the circumstances that 'it would have been necessary - so that in such a short time - did not happen what one knows without "necessary external contribution", I am absolutely certain that one would explode all the statistics known to date, on the matter. Maybe a counter-inquiry should also draw inspiration from this science after all?

bernardd wrote:
Obamot wrote:Why not force / generalize, for example the manufacturers, to implement systems allowing to regulate automatically the maximum speed of the vehicle according to the place where it drives (it already exists I know, but it is not yet automatic) ...


You might as well put small vehicles on a rail, and build a vacuum tube around it: you gain in safety, fatigue, speed, energy, noise for local residents, and the cost of investment and maintenance.

Excellent and great idea! This would then require standardization of a maximum size of the vehicles.

Would we then be the owner of our own electric shuttle? If so, this would require an ad hoc technical self-check of the vehicle before making it enter "the tube" (by cameras and or robotics? Non-compliant vehicles being rejected) but apart from this point it would be fabulous, since 'arrived at your destination, you could continue your journey in the same car / shuttle!

And if we start from the assumption that sometimes looms, according to which one would not in principle be the owner of its accumulators but that these would be rented. We would be relieved of the weight of these during the whole journey and we would find others fully charged on arrival ..!
:D
0 x

Back to "New transport: innovations, engines, pollution, technologies, policies, organization ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 218 guests