Jump to content
chrisg

Perth drivers - again....

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

No one here has mentioned ABS except you.

 

Yes. My claim that... in general, "improved" brakes do not reduce crashes. If a car is able to lock up the brakes, like all modern cars do, then improving the brakes isn't going to make the car stop significantly quicker in an emergency situation... applies only to cars with ABS. As I have said many times. If your car doesn't have ABS then better brakes will improve your emergency stopping performance.

And when you do a defensive driving course, they disable the ABS!

Its definitely time for you to do another defensive driving course. Are you sure you didn't do some type of track day / performance driving course?

It's for you learn how to brake in a situation where ABS will kill you (such as 3 wheels on gravel, 1 on paved road).

Haha, that's a useful skill to learn. "Oh no, I'm about to get in an accident, but 3 of my wheels are on gravel and 1 is on paved road, let me turn off the ABS and then emergency brake!"

 

"Maximum brake and nothing else"

 

So, just hit the anchors and don't bother trying to steer around that cow that wandered onto the road?

My bad. I meant "nothing else" with regards to braking. Just maximum force on the brake pedal. I don't recall any of them having a problem with also steering at the same time :P

Edited by ResidentNeville

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

eg why would you be highlighting probable results of unmodified braking setups at the end of the straight on a track? Of course standard brakes/tyres/suspension etc will give you grief if you push them well beyond normal driving conditions - what's your actual point there? Make yer mind up, willya?

 

Well, the "modified brake" thing isn't going to come up in 'Mum and Pop' scenarios, so the only people to take into account here are people who like cars.

The reason I mention the end of a straight on a track, is because that's where it's relevant. A place where insurance ALREADY doesn't cover. So why should better brakes be a negative to your insurance?

 

My followup point was that, on a track, "Diving a corner" is almost identical to an emergency brake. Often a little steering to avoid the obstacle a bit, braking as hard as you can, avoiding a lockup.

 

Knowing how to power out, take an apex or, I don't know....oversteer? are all 'track only' things, but a normal corner dive is something that a sudden crash in front of you forces you to either know how to do, or pray!

 

 

And just because someone hasn't had or reported having a prang in x-decades of driving does not mean they're inherently a better driver and deserve cheaper insurance risk/deserve cheaper premiums.

Apart from your noted aged nitwits on the phone, for all your weekly driving how many clowns do you observe on a daily basis that demonstrate they really need serious slapping around the head 'n shoulders? You going to tell us for all the mileage you clock up (even here in BrizVegas) that you don't encounter a good percentage of mobile dickheads right across the age spectrum, on both two and four wheels?

 

Oh, of course not.

Every demographic is well and truly represented by a dickhead group, no argument.

 

But as a dashcam junkie (both my own, friends, and youtube), and as someone who has to observe peoples personal habits, or die (when on the bike) I maintain that the older is more unpredictable.

 

Maybe the younger have more serious accidents when they do?

I don't know, I've only been on site for a single youth accident (a few dead unfortunately) but that was a car-on-pole scenario.

 

But if I had to take the little things, like not indicating, not shoulder checking, slowing below the limit to merge, forgetting their indicator is on, braking unpredictably, or two-foot driving so you can't tell when they ARE braking, the award goes wholeheartedly to my parents generation.

I'd say probably 5:1 of "did that guy even LOOK?" goes to old:young.

 

it seems my opinion isn't shared, but hey, different life experience leads to different opinions.

 

And when you do a defensive driving course, they disable the ABS!

Its definitely time for you to do another defensive driving course. Are you sure you didn't do some type of track day / performance driving course?

 

Yep. Certain.

Mt Cotton Driver Training School; I've done nearly everything they offer (and DD more than once).

There is a "Skid Control" day, but that was YEARS ago, like, 5+ years that was done.

 

I remember the ABS so specifically, because I asked why the light was on, and to paraphrase as best I can;

"No point learning anything if you just magically expect the car to do it, what if your ABS fails?"

I'm going to take the professionals logic and advice, as well as my own personal experience, to be blunt.

 

 

3:30 you can see emergency braking and avoidance training.

I can assure you that Honda Accord has pretty advanced ABS, notice its off?

The one i've done is more recent than that.

 

What center leaves it on? I'll give them a call and ask why.

 

 

 

Haha, that's a useful skill to learn. "Oh no, I'm about to get in an accident, but 3 of my wheels are on gravel and 1 is on paved road, let me turn off the ABS and then emergency brake!"

 

and no, thats daft.

Anyone who's read their owners manual will hopefully be intelligent enough to know that the reason cars come with an ABS\STAB on\off button, is because its meant to ALREADY be off on unpaved, or mixed condition roads.

 

So will have turned it off at the start of their trip.

No accounting for ignorance. Let natural selection handle that.

 

Better brakes can reduce crashes. If no other variables are changed then it's almost a certainty.

Well, better brakes certainly don't increase crashes.

 

So then why ask you to pay more if you have them?

 

That's the whole point of this discussion.

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember the ABS so specifically, because I asked why the light was on, and to paraphrase as best I can;

"No point learning anything if you just magically expect the car to do it, what if your ABS fails?"

I'm going to take the professionals logic and advice, as well as my own personal experience, to be blunt.

Well that's hugely concerning. I just gave them a call to confirm, but it seems like they were out of office.

 

 

Anyone who's read their owners manual will hopefully be intelligent enough to know that the reason cars come with an ABS\STAB on\off button, is because its meant to ALREADY be off on unpaved, or mixed condition roads.

Well, congratulations, it took a few dozen posts, but you finally came up with a decent argument. I wasn't considering unpaved roads in my "regular driving conditions". If you want to consider unpaved roads to be "regular driving conditions" then please mentally replace all prior instances of "regular driving conditions" with "regular driving conditions (on paved roads)".

 

Of course, unpaved roads are regular for some people, and in that case they should turn off ABS (if they can) and when ABS is off then bigger brakes can help. But then, to circle back around to the original question of "why do insurance premiums increase when I upgrade the brakes?"...

 

It probably comes to something roughly like: They've chosen to upgrade the brakes, which only improved emergency braking performance if they're on unpaved roads with ABS turned off. If they've gone to the effort of upgrading the brakes they're probably on unpaved roads a lot. Driving on unpaved roads is risker than paved roads, do the upgraded brakes outweigh this risk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It probably comes to something roughly like: They've chosen to upgrade the brakes, which only improved emergency braking performance if they're on unpaved roads with ABS turned off. If they've gone to the effort of upgrading the brakes they're probably on unpaved roads a lot. Driving on unpaved roads is risker than paved roads, do the upgraded brakes outweigh this risk?

 

 

But if you DONT upgrade them, and drive on unpaved roads, then you're still OK to have it cheap.

Logical to me </sarcasm>.

 

See, I'm in Brisbane.

I only need to drive 20km out of time to find unpaved but commonly used roads.

Samford is largely unpaved around the mountains.

Parts of Tambourine is wooden bridges (even worse again, nothing is slipperier).

Beaudesert has a lot of unpaved.

Jimboomba isn't much better.

Hell, there's even a couple of unpaved backroads in Redland Shire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if you DONT upgrade them, and drive on unpaved roads, then you're still OK to have it cheap.

Logical to me </sarcasm>.

You raise an interesting point, and we start to circle back to the fundamentals of insurance. The two relevant facts of insurance are a) they can't know everything about you, b) they [effectively] operate on averages.

 

They have no real way of knowing (until we get in-car sensors) how much you drive on paved/unpaved roads. They can use other factors to estimate this, like no Ferrari has ever been offroad, and Patrol's probably spend more times off road, but there's a huge class of people that insurers have no idea about and what ends up effectively happening is that the same average gets used for everyone.

 

We've covered that upgrading your brakes doesn't really do much to reduce crashes on paved roads, so telling your insurer that you've got upgraded brakes basically tells them "hey, i spend more time on unpaved roads, charge me more!" If it doesn't tell them that in particular, it can tell them a number of other worrying things, like "i enjoy spirited driving!" or perhaps even "i overestimate the emergency braking performance of my car on unpaved roads."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

I suppose I should take offense, Being I'm over 65 and I do agree some drivers of my generation are awful but MS, I was an instructor for many years and taught a lot of DD courses, some you can teach, some are so aarrogant you just give up...

 

There is no common ground, a lot of my younger friends are very good drivers and some of my older friends are life-long hoons, I avoid being driven by the latter.

 

But it's a zoo out there and if I could avoid being on the roads these days I would, sadly not an option...

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess at the end, ResidentNeville, you just need to write to all the car manufacturers and let them know they're wasting their money.

 

200mm single pot brakes will easily lock up any car-size wheel, so all these 4 pot's on subarus, or even 2 pots on Toyota, or, say, the something common like the 4pots on Aurions with 280mm brakes; they're all wasting their money.

Let them know their engineers are stupid, and they should fit the minimum size rotor that can lock up the wheel.

 

Yes I know that smacks of sarcasm, but if you take all opinion out of it, ask yourself;

"Why do car manufacturers fit bigger brakes?" Manufacturing cost is important to them. Gotta be SOMETHING to it.



You raise an interesting point, and we start to circle back to the fundamentals of insurance. The two relevant facts of insurance are a) they can't know everything about you, b) they [effectively] operate on averages.

 

 

 

Which is what I feel is wrong.

 

For A. They just need to take the time to ask.

and for B. I'm not a fan of that, and I disagree with it, which is why im with Shannons, and NRMA who don't do that (or at least, not nearly as much).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why do car manufacturers fit bigger brakes?" Manufacturing cost is important to them. Gotta be SOMETHING to it.

Just because bigger brakes don't improve emergency braking performance in regular driving conditions (and therefore doesn't reduce premiums) doesn't mean there aren't other advantages. Did I really have to explain that to you? You were the one that listed out various advantages in your prior posts (albeit irrelevant to emergency braking performance in regular driving conditions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Which is what I feel is wrong.

 

For A. They just need to take the time to ask.

and for B. I'm not a fan of that, and I disagree with it, which is why im with Shannons, and NRMA who don't do that (or at least, not nearly as much).

There are practical limits to the information that they can ask. The relevant one here is verifiability. There are various scales for verifiability, but for example:

 

1) Very verifiable: Your age, gender, car make and model.

2) Mostly verifiable: Whether your car has mods or not.

3) Not really verifiable: How much you drive on unpaved roads.

 

Yes it would be nice if you could tell your insurer how much you drove on unpaved roads, and they took your word for it and adjusted your premiums accordingly, but the business will fail quickly.

 

Shannons and NRMA don't average on factors that you don't want to be averaged on, which is good. But in part that might be corporate attempting to do market segmentation. Shannons is Suncorp (i.e. GIO, AAMI, APIA, JustCar, Bingle) and NRMA is IAG (CGU, SGIO, SGIC, State Insurance).

Edited by ResidentNeville

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

I suppose I should take offense, Being I'm over 65 ...

 

Cheers

Why ? unless it's you being a a blind-tail-gating-no indicating-little shit who believes it's your right to change lanes on a round-about on the whim of desire, then I wouldn't waste the emotion ;) ... up here, "P" platers are the worst for this feeling of righteousness.

And they would mostly be " millennials " brought up believing every body loves them as much as their indulging parents do ... or did .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That's the thing with millenials. The old saying went that teenagers "know everything".

With my generation you left home at a fairly early age and quickly realised how wrong that is.

 

It seems with millenials the attitude persists whether they leave home or not, and well into their thirties, just how long it will persist is yet to be seen. And it can extend to subjects that they have the most tenuous personal link with.

Edited by Rybags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

where you can do 5~6 100kmph down to 20kmph hour speed changes within a 30 second period

That seems like one of those situations where someone asks why you keep going back up to 100 if you have to keep dropping to 20 so often.

 

There's this little stretch of road going into Cairns. You've just come out of a round about ( usually bloody busy cos it's part of the highway ) onto a stretch of road going over a bridge with the road sign telling you " 100km" . You've virtually got up to speed when lo and behold road signs tell you to get back to "60km" cos you be at the next round-about. Now if you don't get up there you risk being a menace ;) But really for everybody's safety it'd be waay better to hang at around "80km" I reckon.

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Why ? unless it's you being a a blind-tail-gating-no indicating-little shit who believes it's your right to change lanes on a round-about on the whim of desire, then I wouldn't waste the emotion ;) ... up here, "P" platers are the worst for this feeling of righteousness.

And they would mostly be " millennials " brought up believing every body loves them as much as their indulging parents do ... or did .

 

 

Millennials are over 30 now, you realize? Some easily within a stones throw of 40.

And you wonder why they're bitter assholes toward previous generations.

We've had 30 years of "that sort of talk". It wears thin.

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Previous generations copped it too.

 

It's just that since the 1990s kids became snowflakes and we get the result we have today.

 

It's the same beligerence you hear from dickheads who've just been done for drink-driving and think the world's against them and they're right in every regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Previous generations copped it too.

 

It's just that since the 1990s kids became snowflakes and we get the result we have today.

 

It's the same beligerence you hear from dickheads who've just been done for drink-driving and think the world's against them and they're right in every regard.

 

 

I have heard people bash "Gen X" but never into their 40's. It was a "Darn those teenagers" thing old people seemed to do.

This has followed 'us' all into adulthood, after the majority (not all) have proven, hey, look at us, we have jobs and aren't the devil you painted us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You can't do a direct comparison with generations past.

 

For some reason, maturity eludes people until they're into their 20s or 30s or beyond now. Probably to do with the fact that most "kids" don't even bother leaving home until they're over 29 or over (that was the average about 8 years ago, probably still climbing).

With less responsibilities on their plates, there seems little reason to grow up.

Edited by Rybags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why ? unless it's you being a a blind-tail-gating-no indicating-little shit who believes it's your right to change lanes on a round-about on the whim of desire, then I wouldn't waste the emotion ;) ... up here, "P" platers are the worst for this feeling of righteousness.

And they would mostly be " millennials " brought up believing every body loves them as much as their indulging parents do ... or did .

 

 

Millennials are over 30 now, you realize? Some easily within a stones throw of 40.

And you wonder why they're bitter assholes toward previous generations.

We've had 30 years of "that sort of talk". It wears thin.

 

Of course I realise the general age of a millennial ,lol. Do you realise that this might well be the second time round these perhaps same millies ( abv) have been on their "P"s ? I say this cos well you know it's all the youngie-newbies that think they can handle the dope/grog/etc. and still drive like a champion.I had my licence just before QLD went all "P" platey with the licences. You had to show the "L" plate, but it was lawful to not have "P"s once full licence was gained. So those millies feel insulted by the law telling them to be "P" platers, and this 'colours' their driving abilities and how they 'play' with others on the road ( paved or not ) ... but sure there's a lot of "P"s out there who are younger with the similar mindset that their right to be on the road gives them super powers. :)~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

I learned to drive in a country that actually regards being on the roads as a privilege, not a right, which is very much not the case in Australia and it needs to change, I'm tired of dodging idiots who have not a clue but think they own the road.

 

As someone who basically began leaving home when I was 14 and completed the process by the time I was 18, the air force sent me to Cyprus, I find these "never leave homers" a bit odd, but if ever I'm left single again - could happen, my wife is far from healthy so we take each day as it comes, my mother wants me back, mostly to take the garbage out I'm sure :)

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Why ? unless it's you being a a blind-tail-gating-no indicating-little shit who believes it's your right to change lanes on a round-about on the whim of desire, then I wouldn't waste the emotion ;) ... up here, "P" platers are the worst for this feeling of righteousness.

And they would mostly be " millennials " brought up believing every body loves them as much as their indulging parents do ... or did .

 

 

Millennials are over 30 now, you realize? Some easily within a stones throw of 40.

And you wonder why they're bitter assholes toward previous generations.

We've had 30 years of "that sort of talk". It wears thin.

 

Of course I realise the general age of a millennial ,lol. Do you realise that this might well be the second time round these perhaps same millies ( abv) have been on their "P"s ? I say this cos well you know it's all the youngie-newbies that think they can handle the dope/grog/etc. and still drive like a champion.I had my licence just before QLD went all "P" platey with the licences. You had to show the "L" plate, but it was lawful to not have "P"s once full licence was gained. So those millies feel insulted by the law telling them to be "P" platers, and this 'colours' their driving abilities and how they 'play' with others on the road ( paved or not ) ... but sure there's a lot of "P"s out there who are younger with the similar mindset that their right to be on the road gives them super powers. :)~

 

 

The vast majority didn't require P plates either.

That wasn't brought in until about 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the thing with millenials. The old saying went that teenagers "know everything".

With my generation you left home at a fairly early age and quickly realised how wrong that is.

 

It seems with millenials the attitude persists whether they leave home or not, and well into their thirties, just how long it will persist is yet to be seen. And it can extend to subjects that they have the most tenuous personal link with.

Dunno. Some people believe they know everything well into their 60s. Not sure this is a generational problem so much as just a getting older problem.

I had my licence just before QLD went all "P" platey with the licences. You had to show the "L" plate, but it was lawful to not have "P"s once full licence was gained.

Ah man, fun times. I was on my Ps when I moved to Qld, and still on them when I moved back, and I kept forgetting to put my P plates back on the car(s) when driving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Why ? unless it's you being a a blind-tail-gating-no indicating-little shit who believes it's your right to change lanes on a round-about on the whim of desire, then I wouldn't waste the emotion ;) ... up here, "P" platers are the worst for this feeling of righteousness.

And they would mostly be " millennials " brought up believing every body loves them as much as their indulging parents do ... or did .

 

 

Millennials are over 30 now, you realize? Some easily within a stones throw of 40.

And you wonder why they're bitter assholes toward previous generations.

We've had 30 years of "that sort of talk". It wears thin.

 

Of course I realise the general age of a millennial ,lol. Do you realise that this might well be the second time round these perhaps same millies ( abv) have been on their "P"s ? I say this cos well you know it's all the youngie-newbies that think they can handle the dope/grog/etc. and still drive like a champion.I had my licence just before QLD went all "P" platey with the licences. You had to show the "L" plate, but it was lawful to not have "P"s once full licence was gained. So those millies feel insulted by the law telling them to be "P" platers, and this 'colours' their driving abilities and how they 'play' with others on the road ( paved or not ) ... but sure there's a lot of "P"s out there who are younger with the similar mindset that their right to be on the road gives them super powers. :)~

 

 

The vast majority didn't require P plates either.

That wasn't brought in until about 2008.

 

Bet they did require them the second time round ... you know, when they lost their licence the first time for being insufferably righteous in their driving habits :P~

I didn't bother to google, but I had thought it was a few years earlier than 2008 . No matter really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"P-Plates" are voluntary here in Blighty.

My daughter displayed them for about 3 months until she realised people were putting her at risk trying to get by her just because she was displaying P's.

 

You think it's bad there Chris. It's nigh on total Anarchy on the UK's highways these days.

As you know, Vehicle Insurance is compulsory here but Peterborough is now known as the "No Insurance Capital" of the UK. Yes there's a very real likelihood of being involved in a Fender Bender with an Eastern European who has driven round a corner on the wrong side of the road and doesn't give a shit about insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've heard it has gottten bad Outcast, not been back for a few years.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So every car has to have comprehensive? And by the sound of the article the base coverage is pretty pathetic and you mightn't even be covered for driving from work to a lunch destination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So every car has to have comprehensive? And by the sound of the article the base coverage is pretty pathetic and you mightn't even be covered for driving from work to a lunch destination.

I don't know the state of car insurance in the U.K. anymore Ry, Outcast will, but it was always shit even when I lived there, the U'K insurance industry has the attitude of you pay us we probably wont honor a claim :)

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×