ADUK Archive

ScoobyChris wrote:Surprisingly, a lot of people I've encountered seem resigned to the fact that accidents happen and they can't be avoided, rather than being pro-active in looking at ways to improve their skill set to be able to cope with the unexpected.

Not surprising at all and completely in line with human nature. By disclaiming personal responsibility, they're absolving themselves in advance and avoiding engaging in something that's more difficult than they're prepared to accept for an activity that holds no interest beyond the ability to travel places.

martine wrote:

TripleS wrote:

Porker wrote:The interactive site appears to be down for some reason. I wonder if it will resurface at some point.

regards
P.

Would it be a great loss if it doesn't? Unless these things present information in a reliable and balanced fashion they are of no help to us IMHO.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Oh don't be such a bof Dave! (how's that for personal!)...I found the site very interesting and I have to agree with porker...most of the fatalities I looked at were on the surrounding m-ways around Bristol or in built-up areas or pedestrians/bikers. Many of the accidents were also in the early hours...which to me suggests drink-driving but I have no evidence for this.

There you are then: we really don't know what's going on.

Anyhow I'm not going to 'do a dth' and go slightly huffy on the strength of that dreadful personal attack.

I shall if necessary merely return to subjects that I know are apt to turn that big key in your back: speed on wet roads, and eco-driving.

Best wishes all,
Dave - in unflappable mood this morning.

Gareth wrote:Not surprising at all and completely in line with human nature. By disclaiming personal responsibility, they're absolving themselves in advance and avoiding engaging in something that's more difficult than they're prepared to accept for an activity that holds no interest beyond the ability to travel places.

I guess my surprise was really based on the fact some of them were 'advanced' drivers

Chris

ScoobyChris wrote:I guess my surprise was really based on the fact some of them were 'advanced' drivers

But all that means is that they've passed a particular test ...

I've expounded my views about why many people think it is a good idea to take those tests, (scared themselves, a brush with the law), so once they've ticked that box it's done in their minds.

I'm not sure that either the IAM or RoADAR aim to foster the idea of continuous improvement but perhaps they should?

Porker wrote:How much skill should we expect to need to be employed in the avoidance of "accidents"? For example, if it is avoidable by, say, a police driving instructor but not by someone who's obtained a good score on the IAM Special Assessment, is it still an accident?

I think the point is to recognise ones limitations and stay within them.

Gareth wrote:I'm not sure that either the IAM or RoADAR aim to foster the idea of continuous improvement but perhaps they should?

If you don't get gold, I think RoSPA certainly encourage you to improve at the next test, and anyway as a minimum the regular retests require you maintain a standard (or re-achieve it if you've slipped)

chriskay wrote:

ROG wrote:I think the point is to recognise ones limitations and stay within them.

Agreed. The problem though is that you don't really know what your limitations are until you've exceeded them, or at least nudged the envelope. The only safe way to do that is on a track/airfield & preferably with a skilled coach. That costs time & money which I suspect most people won't spend.

Back to Mind Driving - those that BELIEVE how good they are as opposed to who KNOW their limitations

I'm wondering how easy it is to define one's limitations? And if we do define them (possibly with the help of a more experienced coach), should this be a wake up call to seek help in overcoming them?

Chris

ROG wrote:Back to Mind Driving - those that BELIEVE how good they are as opposed to who KNOW their limitations

This has been bothering the back of my mind since I read it.

Everything that I know I simply believe that I know. I sometimes believe that I know some facts to support my belief of my knowledge. In many instances I have such a strong belief in the facts and that they support my belief of my knowledge that I think that I know something to be the case. In fact I merely believe it to be so.


Inductive reasoning was never going to be entirely freed from this sort of double-think. I prefer to refer to fact-based beliefs.

chriskay wrote:

ROG wrote:I think the point is to recognise ones limitations and stay within them.

Agreed. The problem though is that you don't really know what your limitations are until you've exceeded them, or at least nudged the envelope. The only safe way to do that is on a track/airfield & preferably with a skilled coach. That costs time & money which I suspect most people won't spend.

No, I'm sure they won't - me included - so I vote for careful experiments to determine where lies the edge of the envelope. That's all I've ever done, and if sufficient caution is exercised I think it is quite a useful approach......but then I would say that. I still reckon it's good enough for most people.

Best wishes all,
Dave.