Better Driving Please

[TripleS]

Stop hitting things and it doesn't matter how fast you go. If you can't manage that, then hit them at a lowish speed. It's the violent impacts that do the damage to human beings. HTH.

Sorry to keep sounding like a pedantic old buffer, but it ain't speed that's the real problem.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

But people don't stop hitting things, it's merely a damage limitation exercise in reducing both the incidence & the severity.

One of the key factors in avoiding things is having time to do it. Speed works against you there & as we've said if you can't avoid that, the velocity along with mass will provide the energy to make it a whole lot worse.

No I know people don't stop hitting things, but they don't hit them very often - in fact on average it's extremely rare - so let's put some more effort into making it rarer still.

As for speed working against us, it's merely a matter of ensuring that we don't have excessive speed to the extent of having insufficient time to take successful avoiding action, or whatever.

I'm not disputing the physics of all this, there's no getting away from the velocity x mass business, and the fact that the more of those two you have, the bigger the thump, and the more likely it is that people will get hurt.

At the end of the day living is a dangerous activity, and we should accept that sh*t happens from time to time. I hope you will not feel that I'm taking an unduly cavalier attitude to safety, but I believe that with the right sort of approach we can make the impacts a sufficiently rare event to be acceptable IMHO. Are we getting too risk averse, I wonder? I think we are, and it appears I'm not alone in that view.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[James]

It is a fair reflection of current circumstances. Although we are seeing a lot more laziness now than before on relief (the frontline), and a lot more "If I stop it it may mean more work, so I will be off late/miss my lunch". Sorry but it's true.

[TripleS]

TripleS : As with other posts in this forum, we are going to have to agree to disagree, because In general I think Von's last post sums it up nicely. We DO NOT stop hitting things. Simple. To those that want to argue the specific physics, even Vonhosen, of mass, velocity, acelleration. Yes, it's very, very easy to get hooked on numbers. But very simply, most cars weigh upwards of 1 ton. Most travel at high enough speeds to cause considerable damege, and in fact we know this to be true. 3000+ deaths is the ONLY figure that counts.

The DSA does not teach people to crash into people or objects, but they still do. How much more education do they need?

Well we're seeing things differently for the moment but don't give up on it.

Resolving this sort of problem requires attention to the numbers, true enough, but the numbers must be right, and correctly used, but equally important are the principles involved. What bothers me is when people keep repeating the 'speed kills' line, because that focusses too much attention on the wrong aspect, and it's not just a matter of nit picking when that is pointed out. I'm asking that we maintain awareness, and take account of, all the elements of the problem, as unless we do that we are handicapping ourselves in the search for the best solution - and it jolly well doesn't need to be made any more difficult!

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[7db]

Don't you think that Police officers target known drink drivers, disqual drivers etc ?...

Yes, I think that's exactly what happens and that it is right to focus on it. Anyone who brings up the big 3,000 number in the context of people driving into other people, needs to moderate it for these other significant causal groups.

I see a 14 yo boy was arrested for a hit and run resulting in the death of a toddler this evening.

[TripleS]

The DSA does not teach people to crash into people or objects, but they still do. How much more education do they need?

Perhaps targetting those who get pissed or high before driving would reap greater rewards in reducing that 3,000. Or those who drive without regard for other road users whatsoever or their own safety in the manner and style of their driving.

More importantly making it one person's main job to reduce that number.

Yes you are right about targetting forms of behaviour that add to our problems here, in addition to those who use excessive or inappropriate speed, or however one might choose to express it. Unfortunately this more comprehensive targetting is much more difficult and expensive than relying on the limited capabilities of automated camera systems, but it might soon prove to be more cost effective. In any case TPTB seem to have decided on their approach, albeit a cheap and nasty solution, and in fact it isn't even much of a solution really. I have long said (as have many others) that making such a big deal of speed is a bad mistake, and it leaves relatively untouched a host of other factors that must be dealt with if we are to improve our road safety to any significant degree. IMHO the authorities must be made (by whatever means can be deployed) to fundamentally change their stance and get the job done properly. Heaven knows they take enough money off us one way or another, and we're getting rotten value for it.

In the longer term we should, as you say, be making it one person's main job to keep things right on our roads, handling his ton of metal etc. in the right way. That means the driver needs some support, some understanding, some carrot (we've had enough stick) some encouragement and incentive. Then we might find that the whole environment for road users - all road users - would become a good deal more pleasant and safe. It needs some imagination and ingenuity, but the prize would be enormous if it could be made to work.

I'm going to say again - Steve Haley's book "Mind Driving" makes a very valuable new contribution to moving things in the right direction, and introducing more of the driving community (not just the enthusiasts we have here) to that philosophy would be a very good investment indeed.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[7db]

....In any case TPTB seem to have decided on their approach...

This is my point. Those powers have got a lot on their plate and I don't know what his name is.

If there was one person whose main job it was to reduce road deaths*, then at least I'd know who to thank or berate. I'd know if he'd succeeded or failed. We'd all know who to influence and lobby. The CC would need to concede some power. The road engineers would need to conced e some power. I dare say the manufacturers and motorists would make a few concessions as well.



* this is a bit simplistic. I'm open to other measures.

[Nigel]

Not only do individual officers target known numpties off their own bat, it was normally mentioned on parade if a known dizzy, or dd was at it again.

[Gromit37]

Hmmm... apologies to those who read my last post, it was cut short by having to leave work before it was finished. Apologies to everybody else... because I'm going to continue it! Get the earplugs in and duck?

Speed isn't the problem. Inappropriate speed/distance and concentration are. Agreed. Won't argue. Sorted. Solution?

Every year, there are adverts on TV showing the effects of drink driving, inapropriate speed, not wearing seat belts and the like. The trouble is, that no matter what you tell 'people' many don't actually think it applies to them. As an example, just to prove this point, and not to have a go at anybody... on this forum, there are people who have been *educated* by IAM/RoSPA, that have awards to prove it, and yet still admit breaking speed limits. Despite the fact that neither of these organisations promote or condone this. So if we can't get the *educated*, advanced drivers to follow rules (and yes, it's just a simplistic example) how the hell do you get the not so enlightened drivers to drive sensibly?

The options are:

The ideal solution. To spend lots of money on employing and training new police officers to patrol all the roads in the country to pick up any inappropriate driving (I'm betting that it's not cheap. You coppers are rolling in it! )

OR

You help enforce it with a relatively cheap, simple blanket solution. The fact that these are almost self financing (a damn site cheaper than two traffic officers and a fast patrol car I think) makes it even better. It's not a total solution, but if you were in charge of the budgets, how would you make it better?

The behaviour of people on the roads has evolved very quickly. 30 years ago I bet it was different. Twenty years ago it wasn't as busy. There are more cars on the road every year. Older drivers have developed bad habits but have more experience. Youngsters follow what they see on the roads and on TV etc, not helped by excess testosterone. How many single people in their late teens and early twenties can afford a house these days? Not many. So, like Japan, we will see an increase in young drivers buying bigger, more powerful cars instead. Little experience, lots of power. Two teaspoons of testosterone and there you go. Perfect driver. If we could force them to be better drivers, it would be great, but you can't. It needs a complete culture change. If we bombard people with the right messages on TV/Radio etc 24/7, it will still take years to filter through to them all. And somebody has to pay for it all. Building roads doesn't come cheap. All the ancilliary things such as signs and traffic light networks aren't cheap. Neither is education and enforcement. The money we pay through taxes has to be spread thinly, or we have to pay more tax. Our insurance is already higher than it should be because of the standards of driving.

It's a vicious circle with no single, simple solution. People are the problem, and people are the answer. Ah, ya see? It's simple. Get rid of all the people!


I am a part time human being and a full time idiot, so ignore everything I say. Except this sentence of course. That would be silly.

[Nigel]

But you are of course absolutely correct.

Not some distant relation of Vonhosen are you ?

[Gareth]

As an example, just to prove this point, and not to have a go at anybody... on this forum, there are people who have been *educated* by IAM/RoSPA, that have awards to prove it, and yet still admit breaking speed limits. Despite the fact that neither of these organisations promote or condone this.

Are you claiming that the posted speed limits define are the maximum appropriate safe speed?

My feeling is that as speed limits have been lowered and low speed limits extended further beyond urban boundaries, drivers are seeing that more and more the posted limits are often well below the maximum safe speed. The emperors new clothes?

More interesting is your point about the IAM and RoADAR - to many, they seem more concerned with making sure drivers keep below posted limits than with making sure people drive safely.

[Nigel]

We have no choice Gareth, as I know you realise which surprises me about the post.

We can't teach anyone to break the law, and the speedlimit is the law, whatever our personal feelings are on any particular speed limit.

When I'm "observing" I have to insist on total speed limit compliance, if this is regularly broken despite my advice, I'm supposed to refer the candidate back to the chief observer for my area.

This has never happened to me yet, candidates seem quite at peace that we have to drive within the law, otherwise they would fail the test, why would you expect it to be any different ?

[Gareth]

We can't teach anyone to break the law, and the speedlimit is the law, whatever our personal feelings are on any particular speed limit.

My point is that we could be primarily concerned with creating safe drivers, or we could be primarily concerned with creating legal drivers. By focussing on the legal, I believe we miss the opportunity to create safe drivers out of those who do not accept keeping to speed limits - they just won't come through our doors because they have been put off at the first hurdle.

If, on the other hand, we were seen as primarily being interested in creating safe drivers, by which I mean to emphasise drivers that are less likely to be involved in prangs of any description, then we'd have a chance to explain why, from a safety point of view, it is best to keep speeds down in urban areas.

[vonhosen]

We can't teach anyone to break the law, and the speedlimit is the law, whatever our personal feelings are on any particular speed limit.

My point is that we could be primarily concerned with creating safe drivers, or we could be primarily concerned with creating legal drivers. By focussing on the legal, I believe we miss the opportunity to create safe drivers out of those who do not accept keeping to speed limits - they just won't come through our doors because they have been put off at the first hurdle.

If, on the other hand, we were seen as primarily being interested in creating safe drivers, by which I mean to emphasise drivers that are less likely to be involved in prangs of any description, then we'd have a chance to explain why, from a safety point of view, it is best to keep speeds down in urban areas.

And how can you adopt a position as an organisation, without leaving yourself open to aiding, abetting, counseling or procuring ?

[Gareth]

If, on the other hand, we were seen as primarily being interested in creating safe drivers, by which I mean to emphasise drivers that are less likely to be involved in prangs of any description, then we'd have a chance to explain why, from a safety point of view, it is best to keep speeds down in urban areas.

And how can you adopt a position as an organisation, without leaving yourself open to aiding, abetting, counseling or procuring ?

By being absolutely firm in the emphasis of safety being the prime and only consideration, by being unwavering in the condemnation of inappropriate use of speed that isn't linked to vision.

Or perhaps I'm just being naive.

Maybe it is easier, (and less risky), for the main road safety organisations to be not talking to the drivers most in need of their advice ... the one's we know cause most of the accidents and most of the casualties by the inappropriate use of speed in areas of high hazard density.

[vonhosen]

If, on the other hand, we were seen as primarily being interested in creating safe drivers, by which I mean to emphasise drivers that are less likely to be involved in prangs of any description, then we'd have a chance to explain why, from a safety point of view, it is best to keep speeds down in urban areas.

And how can you adopt a position as an organisation, without leaving yourself open to aiding, abetting, counseling or procuring ?

By being absolutely firm in the emphasis of safety being the prime and only consideration, by being unwavering in the condemnation of inappropriate use of speed that isn't linked to vision.

Or perhaps I'm just being naive.

Maybe it is easier, (and less risky), for the main road safety organisations to be not talking to the drivers most in need of their advice ... the one's we know cause most of the accidents and most of the casualties by the inappropriate use of speed in areas of high hazard density.

But if you are in a position of offering guidance to drivers and you aid, abet, counsel, or procure the offence of speeding, you are guilty of the like offence. That is why the IAM, RoADA etc are so resolute in their stance. They can't be seen to be doing the above & neither can their observers.

The offence of inappropriate speed is seperate from the offence of exceeding the limit & the IAM have to take a position of supporting neither.