Female drivers and snow.
Ret.
to abandon their cars in the snow.
From my own personal experience over the past few days it has been
predominantly female drivers who are having most difficulties. If there is
someone stuck at the green traffic light with their driven wheels spinning
as they don't move an inch - it can only be a female. Strange how, after
they have been pushed on their way, the following drivers all seem to be
able to move off ok when the lights change.
I think they see TV footage of cars with driven wheels spinning and take
that as a 'model' of how to drive on snow and ice...
In my extended family, the only person who has had to abandon her car at the
roadside and walk home, is a neice.
Kev
bolta...@boltar.world
"Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>as they don't move an inch - it can only be a female. Strange how, after
>they have been pushed on their way, the following drivers all seem to be
>able to move off ok when the lights change.
Todays top story - Women drivers are crap!
Coming up later - What religion is the pope? We ask the Vatican.
B2003
Ret.
LOL!
Kev
IanT
"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
news:LLadnU7Nx8t4H9nW...@pipex.net...
>I would be interested to see a gender breakdown of the drivers who have had
>to abandon their cars in the snow.
>
> From my own personal experience over the past few days it has been
> predominantly female drivers who are having most difficulties.
I disagree, from what I saw it was men revving their engines, sliding
and crashing by me. Even a 4x4 is no good on the ice.
The women were just driving as slow as ever and seemed to have a lot
more control. Not one woman tried to drive up the steep hill by me that
was covered in ice and snow. All the men did and were shouting people
to push them.
>If there is someone stuck at the green traffic light with their driven
>wheels spinning as they don't move an inch - it can only be a female.
That wasn't what I saw, it was male drivers yesterday!
I know it's mad but women drive better in snow and ice.
>Strange how, after they have been pushed on their way, the following
>drivers all seem to be able to move off ok when the lights change.
>
> I think they see TV footage of cars with driven wheels spinning and take
> that as a 'model' of how to drive on snow and ice...
>
You think wrong.
> In my extended family, the only person who has had to abandon her car at
> the roadside and walk home, is a neice.
>
Maybe her low intelectual capability is linked to your low family IQ?
> Kev
IanT
"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
When you are old enough to have a driving licence you will soon learn
how people drive.
You're probably too thick to even pass a theory test at the moment.
Dr Zoidberg
"Ret." <xxx> wrote in message
> I would be interested to see a gender breakdown of the drivers who have
> had to abandon their cars in the snow.
>
> From my own personal experience over the past few days it has been
> predominantly female drivers who are having most difficulties. If there is
> someone stuck at the green traffic light with their driven wheels spinning
> as they don't move an inch - it can only be a female. Strange how, after
> they have been pushed on their way, the following drivers all seem to be
> able to move off ok when the lights change.
I wouldn't expect it to be that bad actually.
For every woman who has no clue how to drive in snow and gets stuck ,
there's another one (like my GF) who doesn't know how to drive in snow but
recognises that and and won't take the car out.
On the other hand there's plenty of men who are convinced they are driving
gods who will carry on when it's not sensible to do so , and get themselves
into trouble.
Like driving in general I'd expect men to have better car control but worse
attitude and this to be reflected in the accidents
--
Alex
bolta...@boltar.world
"IanT" <noe...@email.co.uk> wrote:
>more control. Not one woman tried to drive up the steep hill by me that
>was covered in ice and snow. All the men did and were shouting people
>to push them.
So in other words precisely zero woman made it up that hill whereas no doubt
some of the men did. Is this suspposed to prove your point?
>I know it's mad but women drive better in snow and ice.
If by "drive better" you mean "don't bother" then yes, they probably do.
B2003
Mortimer
news:hi20un$2bi$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Whereabouts do bears crap? We search in amongst the trees?
Bod
Bod
Road_Hog
"IanT" <noe...@email.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hi21uv$uv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
the signs/qeustions from the Highway Code book after a quick run round the
block in the car and job done.
Chris Bartram
easisest in snow/ice) for the first time: she has never driven an
(almost) auto before, and my bulk seemed to be more use pushing.
She was fine. With a bit of help the car was pushed clear, and she chose
a level, clear place to stop while I ran after the car.
The case here is people that don't understand what to do: it has nothing
to do with gender.
I've seen plenty of blokes that don't have a clue in slippy conditions.
Ret.
Yes - you're probably right. I did say right at the start of the snow that
it was not driver's fault because a) many of them had never driven in such
conditions before, and; b) no-one has ever taught them to drive in such
conditions.
I was loudly decried and other posters argued that it was just 'common
sense'. I don't agree. There are techniques that are necessary for driving
on slippery surfaces that need to be taught.
Kev
Bod
comes naturally.
Bod
Elder
says...
> From my own personal experience over the past few days it has been
> predominantly female drivers who are having most difficulties.
>
trying to move off in 2nd and 3rd, with and without the snow button and
with and without the TRC, needed a brief nudge to get going and was fine
starting off everywhere flat. Now a few minor tail out moments, properly
controlled is a different matter.
--
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553
Keith
> Yes - you're probably right. I did say right at the start of the snow
> that it was not driver's fault because a) many of them had never
> driven in such conditions before, and; b) no-one has ever taught them
> to drive in such conditions.
>
> I was loudly decried and other posters argued that it was just 'common
> sense'. I don't agree. There are techniques that are necessary for
> driving on slippery surfaces that need to be taught.
Most drivers don't know how to drive in ice and snow, and they aren't
able to think it out for themselves. Some of them are too dumb to
realize this, others are just too lazy or too incompetent to find out.
That's the fact of the matter, and it's not unrelated to the fact that
half of all drivers are below average intelligence. Over a third of them
couldn't manage 5 GCSE passes.
Given this, why is it that when the AA and RAC spokesmen have appeared
on the TV and radio over the past few days, they've complained about a
lack of gritting, advised people not to drive if they don't need to,
advised them to keep a blanket and shovel in the car, but NOT ONCE have
I heard them give any practical tips: use high gear, low revs; use
engine braking to slow; slip the clutch for extra traction.
This stuff is not just for Michael Schumachers. It's not just for rocket
scientists. It's simple stuff that anyone can do - IF they know about
it.
Chris Bartram
> Yes - you're probably right. I did say right at the start of the snow
> that it was not driver's fault because a) many of them had never driven
> in such conditions before, and; b) no-one has ever taught them to drive
> in such conditions.
>
> I was loudly decried and other posters argued that it was just 'common
> sense'. I don't agree. There are techniques that are necessary for
> driving on slippery surfaces that need to be taught.
>
> Kev
I was one of the decriers actually. Most of the people that don't have a
clue are like that because they are not interested, or don't listen. I
had no 'training', just listened to what my old man said, and used a bit
of reasoning. It's all about physics.
I did learn a few extra bits on a 4wd activity day, but I'd been driving
20 years by then.
DavidR
>
> but NOT ONCE have
> I heard them give any practical tips: use high gear, low revs;
But what is the reasoning? Please don't regurgitate the old wives' "there is
more torque".
> use engine braking to slow; slip the clutch for extra traction.
Eh? There *is* ever only so much traction.
Chris Bartram
that can't uset the clutch or throttle properly. It tends to result in
one of two things: either a burnt out clutch by slipping at against a
screaming engine, or wheels spinning faster as the gearing is higher.
As you say, there is a given amount of traction. If you apply more power
than there is grip for, the wheels spin. If you don't, they don't. If
you're lucky, there's enough grip to move the car.
Steve Firth
> "Keith" <ke...@mailinator.com> wrote
> >
> > but NOT ONCE have I heard them give any practical tips: use high gear,
> > low revs;
>
> But what is the reasoning? Please don't regurgitate the old wives' "there is
> more torque".
Umm, actually it's the opposite. There's less torque in higher gear and
less torque at low revs. This is a matter of fact, not a matter of old
wives' tales.
Steve Firth
> I did say right at the start of the snow that it was not driver's fault
> because
Because you're a divot. Of course it's their bloody fault they chose to
get a car, get a driving licence and decided that they were too
wonderful/too busy/or simply too smug to learn how to drive their car
properly.
No one forced them to drive, no one forced them to go out in conditions
that they are too stupid to cope with.
Mike Barnes
>"Keith" <ke...@mailinator.com> wrote
>>
>> but NOT ONCE have
>> I heard them give any practical tips: use high gear, low revs;
>
>But what is the reasoning?
My guess: it's less jerky and therefore you stand less chance of
momentarily exceeding the available grip. For an exaggerated
illustration, compare the smoothness of driving at 30 in fifth gear and
in first gear. A good right foot will help but the gear ratio will also
be a factor.
--
Mike Barnes
Mike
wrote:
>Theory test, what's one of them then. Ah the good old days, answer a few of
>the signs/qeustions from the Highway Code book after a quick run round the
>block in the car and job done.
Thing is, drivers were on the whole much better in those days.
--
Mr Benn
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1jbx325.ub9s8n1wyi52N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
And it's worth adding, it's torque at the wheels, not the engine torque
which I am sure you meant anyway. The gearbox acts as a torque converter
and in higher gears, the torque available from the engine is stepped down by
the gearbox to a lower torque.
Torque seems to be one of the most misunderstood things that people torque
about.
Mike
wrote:
By selecting a higher gear you effectively reduce throttle sensitivity
at the wheels. Floor the throttle in 2nd or 3rd and you'll still
break traction, drive similar to what you would crawling in 1st in
traffic at the point of bogging down the engine and you make progress.
Many years ago 2nd gear and the base idle control / anti-stall got me
up a 1 in 6 hill with a near 90 deg bend halfway up it, with freshly
fallen snow as deep as my ground clearance, on what were in absolute
terms the lowest section height tyres on an EU production road
vehicle. The slightest application of throttle would have broke
traction and left me stranded, just like many tens of others who had
booted the throttle and were trying to use brute force. As it was I,
with a handful of others made it up the hill without problem.
--
aaa
I did abondon my RWD car, and had to walk home.
But a male driver in a 4x4 decided to give it a go on the same bit of
road, he succeeded in doing a 360 degree spin, and then slided into the
hedge. So I think my decision was quite wise.
Brimstone
"aaa" <x...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1yo1n.10946$ld3....@newsfe27.ams2...
Or perhaps he's just a tosser who hasn't got a clue.
Hopefully you didn't leave your car where it would block the road?
Nick Finnigan
Maybe in the past, but 30mph in fifth at just above idle, is very jerky
with a 21st century schizoid ECU. I'm keeping the revs over 1,200.
Ret.
Of course - if you are sensible you will have an auto box with a snow/ice
mode. Works a treat and takes all than nonsense of left leg pumping and
silly stick waggling away...
Kev
Nick Finnigan
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>> Maybe in the past, but 30mph in fifth at just above idle, is very
>> jerky with a 21st century schizoid ECU. I'm keeping the revs over
>> 1,200.
>
> Of course - if you are sensible you will have an auto box with a
> snow/ice mode.
It still means an extra level of schizophrenia, even if it is being given
treatment to limit the jerks.
Ret.
I just tell the jerks to belt up and let me concentrate on the driving...
Kev
Steve Firth
> I just tell the jerks to belt up and let me concentrate on the driving...
<mode="Lunn">
Do your family know that you refer to them as jerks?
</mode>
Ret.
What makes you think that I was referring to my family?
Kev
aaa
No, it was left off the road, on private land with the kind permission
of the owner.
Slightly later, another parked car (with no driver), lost what ever
grip it had, and slid down the same hill crashing at the bottom. It
was extremely difficult to even walk on the surface, without falling
over. I fell over twice, while walking home.
Brimstone
"aaa" <x...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6UE1n.25107$KK6....@newsfe19.ams2...
Hopefully you didn't damage anything.
DavidR
> DavidR <cure...@4bidden.org.uk> wrote:
>> "Keith" <ke...@mailinator.com> wrote
>> >
>> > but NOT ONCE have I heard them give any practical tips: use high gear,
>> > low revs;
>>
>> But what is the reasoning? Please don't regurgitate the old wives' "there
>> is
>> more torque".
>
> Umm, actually it's the opposite. There's less torque in higher gear and
> less torque at low revs.
I didn't complete the sentence above because I didn't expect that some
people wouldn't understand the basic sentiment behind the question.
> This is a matter of fact, not a matter of old
> wives' tales.
The fact that a lower gear can (*) put more torque to the driveshafts is
not a proper explanation for the advice to use a higher gear when it's
slippery. As such, it is the old wives' explanation.
I am not an experienced ice driver so cannot claim the advice is
fundamentally wrong but, if it is good advice, I am interested in something
that's more technically credible.
(*) The important word being *can*. Not *must* or *will*.
Mortimer
"DavidR" <cure...@4bidden.org.uk> wrote in message
news:7qorv3...@mid.individual.net...
> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote
>> DavidR <cure...@4bidden.org.uk> wrote:
>>> "Keith" <ke...@mailinator.com> wrote
>>> >
>
> not a proper explanation for the advice to use a higher gear when it's
> slippery. As such, it is the old wives' explanation.
>
> I am not an experienced ice driver so cannot claim the advice is
> fundamentally wrong but, if it is good advice, I am interested in
> something
> that's more technically credible.
>
> (*) The important word being *can*. Not *must* or *will*.
Very true: "can" not "will". But when you use a higher gear you are reducing
the sensitivity of the car to slight changes in throttle position and so
making it less likely that you will apply slightly too much torque, thus
crossing the line from the maximum that will still give traction to the
minimum that will cause slipping. When you are setting off, you can vary the
torque more precisely with the clutch (automatics don't allow this - you can
only control the torque with the throttle) but once you are fully engaged
(clutch engaged) there is a risk that as you accelerate you might overcook
it slightly while accelerating or going from level to uphill gradient.
Anything which limits this tendency is a good thing.
DavidR
> DavidR <cure...@4bidden.org.uk>:
>>"Keith" <ke...@mailinator.com> wrote
>>>
>>> but NOT ONCE have
>>> I heard them give any practical tips: use high gear, low revs;
>>
>>But what is the reasoning?
>
> My guess: it's less jerky and therefore you stand less chance of
> momentarily exceeding the available grip.
Given the characteristic of the throttle/accelerator and the contribution of
engine friction, I would assume the opposite..
> For an exaggerated
> illustration, compare the smoothness of driving at 30 in fifth gear and
> in first gear.
...my present car won't do 30mph in either 1st or 5th. That aside, there
only seems to be a difference in engine noise.
Steve Firth
>
> >> But what is the reasoning? Please don't regurgitate the old wives'
> >> "there is more torque".
> >
> > Umm, actually it's the opposite. There's less torque in higher gear and
> > less torque at low revs.
>
> I didn't complete the sentence above
Actually you did. You put a full stop at the end, see?
> because I didn't expect that some people wouldn't understand the basic
> sentiment behind the question.
Oh I think I understand that pretty well. What I don't understand is
that your statement is the exact opposite of the reason given for using
a higher gear. Do you think you could explain that incongruity?
Did you perhaps type "more" when you intended to type "less"?
Brimstone
"DavidR" <cure...@4bidden.org.uk> wrote in message
news:7qorv3...@mid.individual.net...
Why worry about the technicalities? It works, so why not do it?
Mark
Notice you left outthe fact that there was a pub half way up the hill then.
DavidR
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 21:35:49 -0000, "DavidR" <cure...@4bidden.org.uk>
> wrote:
>>"Keith" <ke...@mailinator.com> wrote
>>>
>>> but NOT ONCE have
>>> I heard them give any practical tips: use high gear, low revs;
>>
>>But what is the reasoning? Please don't regurgitate the old wives' "there
>>is more torque".
>>
>>> use engine braking to slow; slip the clutch for extra traction.
>>
>>Eh? There *is* ever only so much traction.
>
> By selecting a higher gear you effectively reduce throttle sensitivity
> at the wheels.
Disagree. The accelerator/throttle is essentially (neglecting engine
friction) a power controller. Insofar that by holding it at any fixed
position, the engine output is same whichever gear is used. The torque
adjusts in proportion to speed.
When friction is factored in, the delivered power for constant throttle
actually rises as revs drop in higher gears (which is why the fuel
consumption changes with gear selection).
So let's say the minimum engine speed is 1000rpm, then the lowest practical
speed with clutch engaged is roughly 10mph. In 1st, we could go down to 5mph
but for illustration we stick to 10mph, with the engine doing 2000rpm. The
delivered power will be identical but the power lost to engine friction will
double.
So what's the benefit?
For instance, if delivered power is 5bhp and engine friction at 1000rpm is
5bhp, in the limiting case of hitting a a patch of zero traction, then the
whole 10bhp will return to the engine which will cause it to rise to
2000rpm.
If taken instead in 1st at 2000rpm it would require the same 5bhp delivered
but now 10bhp is required by friction. In the same limiting case, all 15bhp
returns to the engine which will cause it rise to just 3000rpm. Furthermore,
flywheel inertia will give a reduced rate of increase.
So overall, a higher base engine speed should give greater damping effect.
> Floor the throttle in 2nd or 3rd and you'll still
> break traction, drive similar to what you would crawling in 1st in
> traffic at the point of bogging down the engine and you make progress.
> Many years ago 2nd gear and the base idle control / anti-stall got me
I once crawled uphill at 300rpm in a carburettor car. An electronic engine
would have a fit. My last one wouldn't maintain stable idle under drive. My
present one idles ok but otherwise has the grumps up to 1200.
> up a 1 in 6 hill with a near 90 deg bend halfway up it, with freshly
> fallen snow as deep
Getting up up a 1 in 6 with 2wd needs a mu of at least 0.3 under the drive
wheels. That's pretty decent grip. Come back when it's slippery.
> as my ground clearance, on what were in absolute
> terms the lowest section height tyres on an EU production road
> vehicle.
> The slightest application of throttle would have broke
> traction and left me stranded, just like many tens of others who had
> booted the throttle and were trying to use brute force. As it was I,
> with a handful of others made it up the hill without problem.
So really, the only significant factor is to be gentle with the pedal?
DavidR
> "DavidR" <cure...@4bidden.org.uk> wrote
>>
>> The fact that a lower gear can (*) put more torque to the driveshafts is
>> not a proper explanation for the advice to use a higher gear when it's
>> slippery. As such, it is the old wives' explanation.
>>
>> I am not an experienced ice driver so cannot claim the advice is
>> fundamentally wrong but, if it is good advice, I am interested in
>> something
>> that's more technically credible.
> Why worry about the technicalities?
Why worry about how the sun rises each day? Because some people are
interested. There is a lot of everyday motoring lore with no substance other
than myth and legend, but it's mostly benign or harmless which is why it
persists. How do we know this isn't one?
> It works,
The sun rises each day. And someone has provided a logical explanation for
it. I struggle to find one about starting in a higher gear.
> so why not do it?
Such a situation is best treated as a problem solving exercise.
Knowledge is more useful than a list of instructions.
Brimstone
"DavidR" <cure...@4bidden.org.uk> wrote in message
news:7qre1l...@mid.individual.net...
That would depend on whether one's journey is real or a mere intellectual
exercise.
DavidR
"Brimstone" <brim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I'm a soft southerner that has recently kept his car in garage and enjoyed
walking on roads blissfully free of traffic. I have exercised my judgement
without problem in the past and it doesn't rule out the possibility of being
caught in future. I give one line of reasoning in a separate post.