OT. UK Police Accident Causes stats

On or around Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:19:17 +0100, "Oily" enlightened us thusly:

that's the only way to drive 'em, if you've not got your foot to the floor, it won't accelerate at all, and you have to stand on the anchors to make it stop anyway.

well, on mine, you have to stand *twice* on the anchors. Have to track down the excess play sometime...

odd thing is that all the shoes (2 on each wheel, 11" brakes) adjust up 'til they touch the drums - one in fact just touches at the end of the travel. There doesn't seem to be air in the system; it's not spongy, just lots of pedal travel. I've an idea that I replaced the master cylinder, too, so that shouldn't be faulty. might be worth a check of the master cylinder pushrod play...

Reply to
Austin Shackles
Loading thread data ...

On or around Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:02:00 +0100, "Autolycus" enlightened us thusly:

now that's a good point. I don't believe entirely the "speed causes accidents" mantra - apart from anything else, it's way to simplistic. Some "accidents"[1] are principally caused by going too fast FOR THE CONDITIONS, which is of course NOT the same as "exceeding the arbitrary speed limit" - a lot of my driving is on roads where the "national speed limit applies", yet the roads are for the most part such that to drive at 60 mph would be criminally reckless.

However, the energy in the collision is a major aspect, and there speed makes a huge difference as you say. double the speed gives you 4x the energy to dissipate, and as you point out, 40% (ish) more speed doubles the energy.

[1] Actually, I dislike the term "accident" as applied universally to road collisions. It implies a lack of fault which is in the vast majority of cases absent. I prefer the term "collision". It's only a genuine accident if a reasonable person could not have foreseen or avoided it, and that's not at all common.

There are very few collisions where the driver(s) are all not at fault - certainly, such collisions with both scenery and other vehicles as I've had, I can't in all honesty say that I was blameless in any of them - by the same argument, I've only once seriously damaged a vehicle (in a collision with scenery) where it was entirely my fault. Such collisions as I've had with other vehicles, while I've never been blameless, there has always been another party partly to blame as well.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

distraction

I wouldn't mess with the master cylinder adjustment if it has a small amount of free play, that's how it should be, but the two most common faults are getting the shoes mixed up on the back, i.e. leading shoes on the back, as the adjusters are at slightly different positions so they cannot be adjusted properly and failure to bleed out the front cylinders completely but this would give a slightly spongy pedal.

Martin

Reply to
Oily

30MPH in a built up area is the safe limit, 31MPH will kill children apparently. So that'll be why the stopping capability of the vehicle isn't relevant then, e.g. a light sports car on fat grippy tyres has the same speed limit as an 80-tonne articulated truck.

The problem however is that given the simplistic argument of some who rant on about "dangerous" driving, it's quite plain that some extremely simple means of controlling speed is required to take into account some people's extremely simplistic nature. While I don't like the speed limits and speed cameras, it's hard to think of anything else that'll work other than electronically limited cars as so many of the drivers can barely summon up enough brainpower to start the car in the first place. Driver education only works if the driver can be educated.

My biggest disappointment I ever experienced in growing up is finding that adults are at least as dumb as kids.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

Probably best not to actually, when I fixed the drums on my pinz I ended up wiping my nose on the windscreen a few times as I'd gotten so used to pumping the brakes!

.. also that the master cylinder and slave cylinder have the right capacities, it's possible that the master was replaced with one too small or the slave with one too large, I've seen that before.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

I reckon the problem is that as we get older we have the dumbness reaffirmed at every stage. Being taught what to think, rather than how to think.

Reply to
Mother

I reckon that's a symptom rather than a cause, or is that what you are saying? That we were never taught to think for ourselves in the first place?

I *hope* that things are improving on that front, I know that the most obedient, non-thinking, do-as-we're-told people that I meet are generally older than me with those my age being more likely to question than those older, and a fair few younger people think they know everything and won't listen to a thing I say ;-)

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

On or around Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:27:29 +0100, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:

however, the current system (although marginally better than when I did my test) doesn't really make any pretence of training drivers.

what's needed is something more like the bike test process now is: basic machine-handling followed by on-road supervised training, then a competence test and then a restricted licence for 2 years, unless you do advanced training and an advanced test.

When I did mine, it was really a farce. I could learn to satisfy the examiner in the driving school metro, then go out the next day in a 7.5ton truck or a Porsche. They've addressed the former part now, but there's still nothing to stop you going from a 50 bhp learner-box to a 500 bhp supercar and writing yourself off. Now, if you could guarantee that they only wrote themselves off, that would be good Darwinian selection, but what would actually happen is they'd kill some other poor sod and get away with it themselves.

I'd like to see more training, graded licences, probably repeat tests at intervals - something between 5 and 10 years. You could have a licences as follows:

Grade 1 which allows you to drive a car up to say 70 BHP which is plenty for everyday use (maybe instead a power-to-weight ratio) and small trailers,

Grade 2 which goes up to 140 BHP and trailers up to 3.5T.

Grade 3 up to 210 BHP

Grade 4 unlimited.

Probably have a minimum time gap twixt each, say at least 6 months.

Each grade is subject to a test, in a suitable vehicle and to a suitable standard.

All licences are subject to a 7-year re-test and renewal - if you fail the test at your current grade, then you drop a grade until you re-take the higher grade successfully.

7.5T goods remains separate as now. You don't have to do it at all if you don't want to drive 'em. In the same way, if you happy to stick with a low-power car, then you can stay at grade 1 forever, but you still have to pass the grade 1 test every 7 years, and if you fail, you're off the road until you pass again.

Anyone busted for dangerous driving, or DD, or other such, would lose their licence completely and have to work up through the grades again. You could keep the points system something like the one we have now and have degrees of licence-loss: for 6 points in any 3 years, say, you go down a grade; for

12 points you go down 2, and so on. If you run out of grades to go down you're off the road entirely until you pass the grade 1 again.

This scheme will of course provide much employment: you'll need more instructors, more examiners, more staff to administer it, plus it'll do wonders for the trade in secure long-term parking for the Ferraris that eejits can't drive for 2 years 'cos they lost their licence.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

On or around Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:11:32 +0100, "Oily" enlightened us thusly:

I was going to check it. I'm well aware that it should have some play, otherwise it doesn't work.

now that could be a possibility - I need to look at one of 'em, anyway; it's either worn down or wrongly assembled as you say. Although the offending shoe can be made to touch the drum, just it won't lock without boinging over the end of the cam. So it shouldn't really be generating half-a-pedal's worth of movement. All the others are adjusted up nicely though, so that's the next thing to look at.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

On or around Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:30:01 +0100, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:

I don't think you can do that on a 109". Unless maybe it's got

6-cylinder/V8 slaves on, if that's possible.

The master cylinder is correct, but single-circuit. could be that a conversion to dual-circuit would be an idea, but it should nonetheless work with a single circuit.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

|| This scheme will of course provide much employment: you'll need more || instructors, more examiners, more staff to administer it, plus it'll || do wonders for the trade in secure long-term parking for the || Ferraris that eejits can't drive for 2 years 'cos they lost their || licence. --

Plus a lot of buying and selling cars as people ricochet up and down the gradings. Ebay should do well.

Reply to
Richard Brookman

[ stuff deleted ]

The problem with all of that of course is that a lot of people wouldn't be able to drive much, so we'd have to have a decent public transport system, which for some reason we're determined not to have!

Not to mention the hundreds of other vehicles that people can't drive because of the multitude of other traffic offences that people don't have a hope of avoiding, e.g. the congestion charge farce in which you have to pay before or on the day of travel, which is of course only known to those who live in the zones in which it is in effect. Such tosh is projected to appear in at least one more city within the next

5 years or so. Then there's unrealistic speeding offences, people parking in places without proper limiting signage and not being up to challenging it properly, or having double-yellows painted around their cars etc etc etc..
Reply to
Ian Rawlings

I've seen them with both trailing shoes fitted on one side and both leading shoes fitted on the other!, believe me, that is the most common fault if you don't know. I think IIRC that the adjuster for the leading shoe is lower on the brake plate than the adjuster for the rear (trailing) shoe and this corresponds with the pins on the shoes themselves. And another thing, make sure that the bottom spring (on the rears) is fitted in the upper holes, if not it will pull the shoes up and wear the top bit of the linings out first.

Reply to
Oily

On or around Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:10:47 +0100, "Richard Brookman" enlightened us thusly:

well, yeah. But you wouldn't have to sell your car - you could store it...

It's all about making life difficult for those who drive stupidly.

Going with it is an abolition of pretty nearly all fixed speed limits, adequate signage of hazards, and possibly relocate the gatsos to useful places, like outside schools, with a 20mph limit in force ONLY when relevant, for schools, for about half an hour morning and afternoon. If this was a universal policy then there'd be no gripes about "I didn't know there was a limit/camera".

Variable limits are a different issue. The ones on the M25 seem to work fairly well for traffic management, at least some of the time - there should be scope for such things to be applied to major congestion points.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

= im sure that the shoes i just fitted from richard came with only one with a pin for the adjuster - so you cant get em wrong.

Now that you mention it though im not totally sure so will probably check them! :p

I'm still chasing some play in my braking system. I've got it even now so that it doesnt pull either way but i think i still need to adjust them all up a bit. It was really 'headbutt the windscreen' good when i first did the servo and stuff so hopefully i can get it back like that!

Reply to
Tom Woods

Agreed, the vast majority of children are extremely bright and intellegent. But kids have the abilty for free thought and their inate abilty to learn beaten out of them through the school process such that by the time they become adults they *think* they can only do the, very limited, things they have been taught.

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

Agreed. Vehicles don't crash themselves, there is a driver involved somewhere, a driver that has made an error.

Someone has already mention that there ought to be a regular update/retest, I support that. It's crazy that someone can pass their test at 17 and not have any further formal examination as to their abilt= y to drive (physically and mentally) for the next 40+ years. If nothing else the legislation will have changed in that time. Retest, theory and =

practical every 5 years and charge =A350.

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

We were talking 109" rear brakes, yours must be 88", different animal. If yours *is* 88" then it *does* only have one adjuster pin, on each leading shoe and no spring connected to the top of the trailing shoes.

Martin

Reply to
Oily

phew.. im not quite so blind/stupid then! :)

Reply to
Tom Woods

Had you been drinking?. Impaired vision?. Austin *did* say 11" brakes (I think). Maybe blinded by fermented fog but not stupid. ;-)

Martin

Reply to
Oily

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.