Tyre Damage - is it safe to drive

Joe_Horner

Careful, Mikey - modern traffic makes the attitude and techniques he's advocating far MORE relevant rather than less!

alastairq

you mean, before you youngsters came along and spoilt it all by compelling the authorities to impose speed limits and stuff?

alastairq

I'm not advocating anything new.

No more than what I've been taught in the past, by my predecessors.

it's all there for anyone for anyone to see...and not just for an elite few.

Joe_Horner

alastairq wrote: »

I'm not advocating anything new.

No more than what I've been taught in the past, by my predecessors.

it's all there for anyone for anyone to see...and not just for an elite few.

Don't worry, alastaiq, you're preaching to the converted here. In almost all cases "he came out of nowhere", "couldn't foresee that" "completely unexpected" "suddenly" and so on simply mean that the driver involved failed to notice the warning signs or react appropriately to them.

In theory, put like that, there should be ZERO argument from those who believe in the unavoidable because I've allowed the get-out of "almost" all cases. It's so close to "all" cases that I've never witnessed such an unavoidable situation in an awful lot of years and miles driving everywhere from motorways to lanes where you brush both sides but I'm willing to accept I haven't seen it all so I cant rule out such a situation arising

The problem I can see here stemmed from your claim that you'd "stop faster" on your odd mis-matched tyres. That is very likely true if you include total stopping distance because you're likely to have already seen the hazard 4 cars ahead and be braking before the guy in front starts to. But it obviously won't be true for the pure braking part.

The thing is, everyone believes they have excellent reactions because they act literally as soon as they're aware of the need to. That doesn't allow for the fact that almost the whole of a reaction time is the time it takes for you to become aware after the first clue presents itself.

So the speed you're aware of reacting at has nothing to do with it and that's the bit you may well score in through improved awareness.

"I hit the brakes as soon as he pulled out but couldn't miss him" really means "I hit the brakes as soon as my brain processed the fact he was pulling out...". You have no way at all of knowing how long it took to process his movement because, by definition, you're not aware of that bit. What every driver should really be saying is "I prepared to react when I saw him approaching the junction so my awareness was already there as he pulled out allowing me to avoid his stupidity"

alastairq

As I said earlier, there is a world of difference between the results a 'test' environment produces [tyre A stops shorter than tyre B]....and what actually occurs when those tyres are fitted, and used...and may have been in situ for some considerable time.

There are too many variables.....to be able to categorically state, one tyre will stop quicker than another, throughout it's working life, and under a huge range of conditions.

The danger really lies in drivers not only having the belief that their tyres will stop quicker [than mine, perhaps?]...but that they then come to rely upon that belief.

And they factor that belief [and all the other 'beliefs]...into their overall driving style.

[we may witness this effect with the endemic tailgating that occurs....the rule rather than the exception these days?]


Take the current Michelin television advert, for example?

Designed to sell the product [obviously] the advertiser plays upon the average driver's 'safety fears, especially in the wet....by claiming that the product will stop quicker, and thus keep you and your little one's 'safer', than anything else.
In the small print at the bottom, Michelin state that the 'comparison' used was their older [how old?] tyre product.

To follow on from the conclusions drawn by contributors on here, anyone still driving on the old Michelin product should immediately rush out and scrap their tyres as 'unsafe or even, dangerous.'


Next thing I expect to see posted could be that, anyone who drives a vehicle without ABS is a 'danger to society'...?


Technology is helpful.


But relying on technology to maintain 'safety' is the real danger...........

victor2

alastairq wrote: »

But relying on technology to maintain 'safety' is the real danger...........

As is relying on your training and reaction times.
A 40 year old has slower reactions than a teenager, so when will you stop driving as you're no longer safe on the road, and don't consider investing in aids such as decent tyres to improve your ability to avoid accidents.

Joe_Horner

victor2 wrote: »

As is relying on your training and reaction times.
A 40 year old has slower reactions than a teenager, so when will you stop driving as you're no longer safe on the road, and don't consider investing in aids such as decent tyres to improve your ability to avoid accidents.

But a 40 year old is (hopefully) far less likely to need to act by "reaction" because they're already responding to the hazard before it develops.

While teaching my partner to drive I sat a few of the official practice hazard perception tests on DVD and failed most of them.

The DVD had a nice facility where you could review the clip and see where you clicked and where the hazards were. In all of the failures I'd identified the hazard and clicked before the computer thought I could, so scored nothing.

While I don't particularly agree with the tests as meaningful, those "early" clicks would have given me a consistent half to one second advantage despite my old fogey reactions - bear in mind my reaction time was already accounted for by the fact I had to react to what I was seeing in the test.

Derivative

Joe_Horner wrote: »

But a 40 year old is (hopefully) far less likely to need to act by "reaction" because they're already responding to the hazard before it develops.

While teaching my partner to drive I sat a few of the official practice hazard perception tests on DVD and failed most of them.

The DVD had a nice facility where you could review the clip and see where you clicked and where the hazards were. In all of the failures I'd identified the hazard and clicked before the computer thought I could, so scored nothing.

While I don't particularly agree with the tests as meaningful, those "early" clicks would have given me a consistent half to one second advantage despite my old fogey reactions - bear in mind my reaction time was already accounted for by the fact I had to react to what I was seeing in the test.

I'd say this is more a flaw in the Hazard Perception Test than anything.

I had the same experience, first when taking the motorcycle theory, later when taking the car theory test.

Their definition of hazard lies closer to "imminent threat" than any potential, which IMO teaches drivers to look out for the wrong things.

Joe_Horner

Derivative wrote: »

I'd say this is more a flaw in the Hazard Perception Test than anything.

I had the same experience, first when taking the motorcycle theory, later when taking the car theory test.

Their definition of hazard lies closer to "imminent threat" than any potential, which IMO teaches drivers to look out for the wrong things.

Totally agree, which is why so many drivers need to rely on the best possible tyres and ABS to stop in time

alastairq

As is relying on your training

The problem with any 'training' is that, to be meaningful it needs to continuous, rather than one-off.

In other words, to prevent skill-fade, training needs to be conducted regularly and frequently.

This is slowly coming about with the new regulations regarding vocational licence holders [CPC, etc], and is already in place with regards to ADI instructors, Examiners,as well as DSA-regitered [and equivalent] instructors.

Police, fire & ambulance...and even, some more enlightened bus companies..

It does not happen particularly with non-vocational licence holders, ie Cat B [car]..etc.....with the result that many end up learning, literally, the hard way.

[if not via collisions and crashes, then perhaps via the Courts and the legal system?]..or simply, trying to ''make things up as they go along?''



One doesn't 'rely' on training, one uses it.

If you believe there is a reliance on 'training', then you misunderstand completely, exactly what any sort of driver training is all about.



Re-action really has no place in driving either.....[being, as the word describes, an action after-the-fact.]

Pro-action being the name of the game.....'anticipation of the actions of other road users' is part of every driving test.

'Re-action' no longer has such a place.