Re: Another wrist slapping

spindrift said:

The legal system seems unfairly balanced towards the belief that
people have a right to drive.

The problem isn't the right to drive, it's the road-use culture and
conventions that we have created and which we foster. There is no room
for human frailties and human error.

In most communal situations where "accidents", caused by human error,
were prevalent, measures have been taken to make human errors less
likely, or to tolerate them. On the roads we rely on ever increasing
penalties for the contraventions of ever increasing numbers of technical
offences. It is no wonder that the roads aren't getting significantly
less dangerous.

On the railways we don't rely on the punishing of train drivers to keep
trains safe. When a driver fell asleep at the controls we didn't assume
that baying for his blood would prevent that sort of thing ever
happening again. We devised a control system that would apply the
brakes if the driver stopped reacting.

Would you ban a person from using a factory machine, if in so-doing they
had accidentally, or even negligently, caused an event, in which someone
else lost their life? Would you, nevertheless, allow everyone else to
continue to use it with no other process modifications? No, you'd
investigate the event, establish the root cause, and stipulate
appropriate modifications to the process, to the machine, and to the
environment, so that a similar event could not happen again - even if
you could retrospectively punish the perpetrator.

Now why can't we apply that sort of logic to the design of our road and
road-use system?

--
Matt B

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

spindrift said:

The legal system seems unfairly balanced towards the belief that
people have a right to drive.

The problem isn't the right to drive, it's the road-use culture and
conventions that we have created and which we foster. There is no room
for human frailties and human error.

In most communal situations where "accidents", caused by human error, were
prevalent, measures have been taken to make human errors less likely, or
to tolerate them. On the roads we rely on ever increasing penalties for
the contraventions of ever increasing numbers of technical offences. It
is no wonder that the roads aren't getting significantly less dangerous.

On the railways we don't rely on the punishing of train drivers to keep
trains safe. When a driver fell asleep at the controls we didn't assume
that baying for his blood would prevent that sort of thing ever happening
again. We devised a control system that would apply the brakes if the
driver stopped reacting.

The advantage a train has in this situation is that its path is
predetermined by 2 things, 1) The track and 2) a man in a signalbox

Many of the "safety" (and other) devices introduced to cars can add further
dangers.

Abs makes stopping on Ice and driving on Snow increadibly dangerous

Power Steering removes a significant amount (if not all) feeling of the
road. Dads Laguna frightens me as when I drive it i don't know what the
surface feels like.

Big Windscreens reduce the sensation of speed without providing any more
visibility (large screen on Laguna and I can more out the heavily curved
windscreen on the Saab 99), I once thought I was doing aroudn 50 in the
laguna, the speedo disagreed with me.

Thick pillars introduce extra blind spots, I have lost cars, yes whole cars
in the lagunas A Pillar (thats scary)

Automatic Gearboxes if they fail result in rapid deceleration and eventual 4
wheel lock up, chances of getting to hard shoudler on M-Way is around 50/50
if you know the indications that its about to happen

ESP and Traction control, don't have particularly big dangers in
comparasson, there is allways the risk of the system failing and the driver
suddenly discovering that their car which happily went round corners at
60mph without a complaint now has no traction at half the speed.

Trucks now have line sensing equipment, but crucially despite it being
capable of driving the vehicle it does not.

If you want to make cars "safer" a perverted course could be to make them
more "dangerous".
If you took todays drive train standards and put them on vehicles with
bugger all power, [censored] acceleration, coach built open top body etc etc.
Drivers would probably [censored] themselves at the first corner or junction and
never drive the things again.

Niall

Niall Wallace said:

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

spindrift said:

The legal system seems unfairly balanced towards the belief that
people have a right to drive.

The problem isn't the right to drive, it's the road-use culture and
conventions that we have created and which we foster. There is no room
for human frailties and human error.

In most communal situations where "accidents", caused by human error, were
prevalent, measures have been taken to make human errors less likely, or
to tolerate them. On the roads we rely on ever increasing penalties for
the contraventions of ever increasing numbers of technical offences. It
is no wonder that the roads aren't getting significantly less dangerous.

On the railways we don't rely on the punishing of train drivers to keep
trains safe. When a driver fell asleep at the controls we didn't assume
that baying for his blood would prevent that sort of thing ever happening
again. We devised a control system that would apply the brakes if the
driver stopped reacting.

The advantage a train has in this situation is that its path is
predetermined by 2 things, 1) The track and 2) a man in a signalbox

I agree. I used that as an example, from another context, of a strategy
designed to improve safety rather than to punish "offenders".

Quoted message said:

Many of the "safety" (and other) devices introduced to cars can add further
dangers.

I agree. But perhaps a suitable strategy for improving road safety
would be to design roads to tolerate or reduce the likelihood of human
error, the biggest cause of collisions. Another step would be to make
collisions more survivable - not just for vehicle occupants, but for
vulnerable road users they may collide with.

Quoted message said:

If you want to make cars "safer" a perverted course could be to make them
more "dangerous".

I agree with that too. "Risk compensation" works both ways.

--
Matt B

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(''matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com') said:

In most communal situations where "accidents", caused by human error,
were prevalent, measures have been taken to make human errors less
likely, or to tolerate them.  On the roads we rely on ever increasing
penalties for the contraventions of ever increasing numbers of technical
offences.  It is no wonder that the roads aren't getting significantly
less dangerous.

For once Matt is talking sense. In any other sphere, measures would be
taken to make human errors less likely. Measures like, for example, only
highly qualified professionals being allowed to drive motor vehicles; or
better still, requiring that every motor vehicle be preceded by a person
on foot carrying a red flag. Both seem eminently sensible and practical
suggestions, and Matt is to be congratulated for pointing this out.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When all else fails, read the distractions.

Simon Brooke said:

For once Matt is talking sense. In any other sphere, measures would be
taken to make human errors less likely. Measures like, for example, only
highly qualified professionals being allowed to drive motor vehicles;

Indeed. The permission to drive a motorcar is gained altogether too
easily.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(''matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com') said:

In most communal situations where "accidents", caused by human error,
were prevalent, measures have been taken to make human errors less
likely, or to tolerate them. On the roads we rely on ever increasing
penalties for the contraventions of ever increasing numbers of technical
offences. It is no wonder that the roads aren't getting significantly
less dangerous.

For once Matt is talking sense.

You flatter me. :-)

Quoted message said:

In any other sphere, measures would be
taken to make human errors less likely.

As indeed is happening on the roads in the Netherlands. Since the early
1990s they have had a policy which mandates the adherence to a
sustainable road safety design philosophy. One aspect is road design.
Roads are designed to minimise the likelihood of human error causing
incidents. Their fall-back is also to minimise the "damage" likely to
arise from any unavoidable conflicts. They also distinguish between
criminal intent and honest mistake in there interpretation of crash causes.

Quoted message said:

Measures like, for example, only
highly qualified professionals being allowed to drive motor vehicles;

/Or/, more often, designing the equipment so that unskilled operators
van use it safely.

Quoted message said:

or
better still, requiring that every motor vehicle be preceded by a person
on foot carrying a red flag.

:-) But seriously, there is something to be said for the modern-day,
less labour-intensive, version of that requirement.

Quoted message said:

Both seem eminently sensible and practical
suggestions, and Matt is to be congratulated for pointing this out.

I'll accept the credit for pointing-out the principles (again), if not
for your specific interpretation of the best implementation strategy.

--
Matt B