For Proccie, as promised (96)

I think you are missing the point here.

Technology may have improved, but the overall effect of that technology when used by the average driver does not affect the overall average stopping distances at various speeds.

What I find a little worrying is the frequent "I can prove brakes are better" and "you give me proof I still need the same distance to stop" seem to me to imply the writer(s)believe they can ignore the Highway Code on this rule as they have faith in their superior stopping power.

What other rules do they think don't apply to them?

If your opinion of me is based on what others have told you, then your mind is but a shadow and the opinion has no value.

The research that shows that modern drivers are stopping no quicker than their counterparts in 1946.

Quoting the DVA/ Higway code will not do as you are a part of that industry and as I said in my very first post on this:

So in brief WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU

Zen S&M: The sound of one hand slapping.
'()_/)
(>'.'<)
(")_(") < MINE!

Edited 15 Aug 10, 8:46 AM by proccie

I think you are missing the point here.

A = B + C

If C gets smaller then A must get smaller unless B gets larger.

Stopping Time = Reaction Time + Braking Time

Breaking Time has reduced.

Has Reaction Time increased? There is no evidence that it has, and the decrease in accidents over time despite the increase in vehicle performance suggests that it hasn't.

Therefore Stopping Time has to have reduced due to the improvement in braking.

This is born out by my own experience driving a multitude of vehicles over many years. Stopping distance has definitely and significantly improved in the time I have been driving, let alone since the 1940s.

International man of mystery
Keep calm dear, its only a web post

You naughty man Prunesquallor, you are not allowed to stop faster than the highway code says, it's a rule and the dom has spoken.

Zen S&M: The sound of one hand slapping.
'()_/)
(>'.'<)
(")_(") < MINE!

I appreciate that all the factors they mention are valid, but they are qualitative instead of quantitative. There's no real mathematical evidence to verify any of their claims and it is just guesswork.

I think the point I agree with most out of this is that our roads are so much busier that we have so much more to analyse.

I think logically those who dispute the results have a very fair point, but, for the sake of 20m difference between then and today when stopping at 70mph I think we should cut the authorities some slack.

This signature has been left blank intentionally.

Given that that phenomenon was painfully evident with the introduction of ABS (references on wikipedia et al), I can't imagine an administration wanting an increase in the frequency and severity of accidents on their watch, even if it has the best of intentions.

"In general, someone is a thing of value if and only if he or she is willing to submit to whatever degradation and abuse is required to preserve that position. Anything less betrays a lack of commitment." -- Steve Albini.

Edited 15 Aug 10, 5:22 PM by beady

This signature has been left blank intentionally.

To be fair, I think the Highway Code produced by Her Majesty's Government with all their resources, is a good start, and the burden of proof should be upon those who think it's wrong. There's more than a whiff of conspiracy theory going on I think. Yes, brakes have improved but that is only one of many pertinent factors. Cars now are different in so many ways from Ford Prefects etc - most notably in size and weight, (so they need more braking) but also more subtle factors like suspension and streamlining. Roads have also changed and so have drivers and their attitudes. (E.g. few people slow down for bends nowadays, compared to 50 years ago when it was normal). Drivers feel safer because of seat belts etc which may well affect their willingness to conduct emergency braking.

Doesn't anyone else think life would be better if we all stopped hurrying so much?

Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est. http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/226772/

Anyone who has been driving for a few years has empirical proof that the stopping distance of modern vehicles is significantly better than the vehicles they drove years ago. I have two motorcycles, one 32 years old and one 10 years old, guess which one stops quicker?

International man of mystery
Keep calm dear, its only a web post

An emergency stop in an old Landrover Defender (not this one, but a bit like it) causes barely enough internal g-force to spill a relatively full drink in a cup holder.

In comparison an emergency stop in a Mark 3 Ford Mondeo makes everything loose inside the car go flying forward and will lock the inertia seatbelts of any occupants who aren't bracing themselves.

Obviously both cars need to be driven pretty damned differently.

This signature has been left blank intentionally.