Mobile phones

Anything that doesn't fit elsewhere - doesn't have to be AD related.
IcedKiwi
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:06 pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Mobile phones

Postby IcedKiwi » Tue Nov 08, 2016 11:26 pm

24.14mph?

sussex2
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:43 am

Re: Mobile phones

Postby sussex2 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:10 am

If general distraction is a problem it's surely time for the manufacturers to stop making their vehicles so...Err Distracting.
As it stands even simple things such as adjusting the heating often require you to take your eyes off the road.
I'd never try it on the move but our van requires the use of no less than three different switches to simply change the time.
The switch to adjust the headlights is so well hidden that it is impossible to see it from a normal driving position; however the bright light prompting you to change gear at unrealistic speeds is right there 'in yer face'.
The last can be de-activated once you have gained a masters degree in computer logic :)

JohnP
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri May 13, 2016 9:24 am

Re: Mobile phones

Postby JohnP » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:35 am

Horse wrote: A minor correction, something which you may know but others may not appreciate: adding 10mph doubles the impact force. So not simply 'harder'.


I don't think so.
Impact force at 11 mph must be more than twice that at 1 mph
I doubt that at 70 is twice that at 60.

User avatar
M1ke H
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 pm
Location: Cotswolds / Torbay

Re: Mobile phones

Postby M1ke H » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:51 am

Going back to my school and college days, many years ago now, impact force quadruples with a doubling of velocity. The premise that 10mph doubles the impact can therefore only be true at one speed. As IcedKiwi suggested above, it's 24.14mph (and 34.14mph) only where there is a doubling of impact force (349kN and 698kN respectively, assuming a 1500kg car).

To JohnP above, there is approximately a 120-fold increase in impact force between 1mph and 11mph, and a 1.4-fold increase between 60mph and 70mph.

User avatar
Horse
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Horse » Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:33 pm

OK, I'll admit to not be a science guru :) But it's still not as simple as Silk suggested as being 'harder'. A small increase in speed can be a substantial increase in either braking distance or impact force.

However, if someone can drive a car smoothly and constantly at 1mph I'll be impressed ;)
Your 'standard' is how you drive alone, not how you drive during a test.

Silk
Posts: 386
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2015 9:24 pm
Location: South Glos.

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Silk » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:31 pm

Horse wrote:OK, I'll admit to not be a science guru :) But it's still not as simple as Silk suggested as being 'harder'.


Semantics aside, an increase in speed results in a proportional increase in risk. An increase in distraction does the same.

So, my question is, why is it acceptable to increase risk for fun but not acceptable to increase risk in order to make life a bit more convenient?

fungus
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 5:26 pm
Location: Dorset

Re: Mobile phones

Postby fungus » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:01 pm

Silk wrote:
Horse wrote:OK, I'll admit to not be a science guru :) But it's still not as simple as Silk suggested as being 'harder'.


Semantics aside, an increase in speed results in a proportional increase in risk. An increase in distraction does the same.

So, my question is, why is it acceptable to increase risk for fun but not acceptable to increase risk in order to make life a bit more convenient?


Are we actually saying that it is acceptable to increase risk for fun though.

Most of us on this forum have times when we drive for fun. We probably, in fact, undoubtedly concentrate on the task to a higher degree than most drivers, which means that we probably adapt our driving to conditions earlier than the "average driver" which in turn means that we have the situation under control in good time. A distracted driver who is not paying attention may take two seconds or more to react. Therefore at 30mph our distracted driver who reacts in two seconds travels 88ft before reacting. Our driver who concentrates and reacts in .75 sec. (Highway Code typical reation time), will only have travelled 33ft before reacting. Our concentrating driver may well have stopped thier car before the distracted driver even reacts. Of course the distracted driver is probably travelling at an inapropriate speed.

Nigel.

Triquet
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:32 pm
Location: Occupied North Berkshire

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Triquet » Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:06 am

I had the misfortune to be driven by a colleague a few weeks ago. He is one of those people who is totally incapable of driving from a to b without the aid of a satnav even on routes he had driven many times before. His car has an in-built satnav. He was consulting this and changing the settings every few minutes. At the same time he was fiddling with his phone using a satnav app and continually comparing the two results. At one point he actually said "keep an eye on the road while I sort this out" .....

Astraist
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:41 pm

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Astraist » Thu Nov 10, 2016 11:23 am

fungus wrote:A distracted driver who is not paying attention may take two seconds or more to react. Therefore at 30mph our distracted driver who reacts in two seconds travels 88ft before reacting. Our driver who concentrates and reacts in .75 sec. (Highway Code typical reation time)


The Highway Code Reaction Time is a bit hopeful. Even a none-distracted driver could take more than a full second to react. A distracted or impaired driver could take as much as three seconds.

Anyhow, being more concetrated and applying smaller forces through the car to get the desired outcome, could offset a (relativelly small) increase of speed to the point where it is equally safe or safer.

With phones, I accept with a lot of people that I meet/work with that they will not be able to stay entirely off of the phone (hands free, obviously) while driving.

The solution we usually work out is to have them simply slow down to match their prolonged reaction time and do something repetitive (e.g. mirror checks) while driving to keep their main focus on driving the car. In situations that require added focus on the road, they just need to learn to stop the flow of the conversation ("just a second" or something like that).

Silk
Posts: 386
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2015 9:24 pm
Location: South Glos.

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Silk » Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:11 pm

fungus wrote:
Silk wrote:
Horse wrote:OK, I'll admit to not be a science guru :) But it's still not as simple as Silk suggested as being 'harder'.


Semantics aside, an increase in speed results in a proportional increase in risk. An increase in distraction does the same.

So, my question is, why is it acceptable to increase risk for fun but not acceptable to increase risk in order to make life a bit more convenient?


Are we actually saying that it is acceptable to increase risk for fun though.


If not for fun, then the only reason to drive faster is to reduce journey time. Using a mobile phone whilst driving has a similar effect as it saves time stopping in order to make/take the call. I'll ask again, why is the first an acceptable risk but the second deserving of tar and feathers?


Return to “General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests