Better Driving Please

[Gareth]

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.

It's a bit like our approach to drug addicts. By counselling safe behaviour, we as a society believe we are doing something to help people who indulge in illegal activities, to try to increase their safety.

I suppose we could fine or imprison those who distribute clean needles. After all they are aiding or abetting the illegal activities of addicts.

It there's a get-out clause for helping drug addicts to carry out their illegal activities with a greater degree of safety, then perhaps there is a way to help drivers who break certain administrative laws so that they are safer and therefore less of a danger to society in general.

Prohibition never works. Or perhaps it will in our future increasingly totalitarian society.

[vonhosen]

If you allow them to shoot up in your office, telling them it's OK to, then you are putting yourself on extremely unstable ground. No healthcare centre handing out needles, is going to take such an active stance in the commission of the actual offence, which is more akin to the driving scenario.

The IAM, RoADA etc in all conscience can't go the way of leaving themselves open to criminal prosecution.

[ipsg.glf]

The IAM, RoADA etc in all conscience can't go the way of leaving themselves open to criminal prosecution.

Have you a link to any story of a person or organisation having been prosecuted for this type of offence?

[vonhosen]

The IAM, RoADA etc in all conscience can't go the way of leaving themselves open to criminal prosecution.

Have you a link to any story of a person or organisation having been prosecuted for this type of offence?

What aiding, abeting, counseling or procuring ?

People are charged with these offences all the time in relation to a wide variety of offences. You can be charged with it in relation to any summary or indictable offence.

[Gareth]

If you allow them to shoot up in your office, telling them it's OK to, then you are putting yourself on extremely unstable ground.

What if you tell them it's an administrative ruling that they are disregarding, but you do understand the commission hurts no-one but themselves?

The IAM, RoADA etc in all conscience can't go the way of leaving themselves open to criminal prosecution.

And if they tell drivers it's an administrative ruling, that they accept the commission hurts no-one, but that they can't condone it because it would open them up to prosecution, however they will condemn it if they put others at risk through unsafe behaviour?

[vonhosen]

If you allow them to shoot up in your office, telling them it's OK to, then you are putting yourself on extremely unstable ground.

What if you tell them it's an administrative ruling that they are disregarding, but you do understand the commission hurts no-one but themselves?

The IAM, RoADA etc in all conscience can't go the way of leaving themselves open to criminal prosecution.

And if they tell drivers it's an administrative ruling, that they accept the commission hurts no-one, but that they can't condone it because it would open them up to prosecution, however they will condemn it if they put others at risk through unsafe behaviour?

In both of the above cases you have people acting under a degree of your control (in your premises & care in the first place & being part of & acting within your organisation in the second). You can't intend to encourage, directly or indirectly (e.g. turn a blind eye) to criminal offending by them, without leaving yourself & the organisation open to criminal prosecution. Whether you personally regard it as an administrative offence or not, is of no consequence.

[waremark]

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.

Gareth, I know we are in complete agreement that it is far more important to create safe drivers than to create legal drivers. However, from my practical experience I suspect the two are not in conflict.

I explain my priorities to Associates, but I also explain why the IAM cannot be seen to condone the breaking of limits, and that they will need to practise obeying the speed limit if they want to pass the IAM test. They all do so, and I can assure you that they all improve their hazard observation and their judgement of safe speed as well.

In my twelve year observing career, I cannot remember a single Associate who was at all reluctant to try to obey the speed limits for this purpose. On the other hand I remember several who question why we want them to 'make more progress' within the speed limit.

You suspect that our known stance on this issue keeps away drivers who might otherwise come to us. I suspect that our stance on this issue is far less well known than you think, and is not a major factor in keeping away those who would benefit from our training.

I think they keep away mainly because they do not see a need to improve their driving - and so far as we are concerned it is not so much that they see anything negative in us but more that they don't see anything positive.

[martine]

I think they keep away mainly because they do not see a need to improve their driving - and so far as we are concerned it is not so much that they see anything negative in us but more that they don't see anything positive.

I agree but I would also say there is the negative image problem - we're all boring old farts not driving enthusiasts.

Gareth: I completely understand where you are coming from - it's difficult to see though how your personal view can be made a 'policy' for an organisation like the IAM or indeed any 'public' body. While drivers breaking speed limits are prosecuted (sometimes for marginal transgression) the IAM can't condone, encourage, hint, or even joke it's OK, even sometimesm to ignore them. It's just not professional or sensible.

How do the famous auto-bahns in Germany work? Is it true there is no speed limit but you can still be done for inappropriate speed? If so, how does the legal system work and what judgement do the police exercise and on what basis? Presumably if an advanced driver was caught they could argue their case?

[Nigel]

Does Germany have advanced drivers ?

[Gareth]

You suspect that our known stance on this issue keeps away drivers who might otherwise come to us. I suspect that our stance on this issue is far less well known than you think, and is not a major factor in keeping away those who would benefit from our training.

My view comes from the reaction I have had when talking about advanced driving to those who have not passed a recognised advanced driving test. Many times the reaction has been along the lines of "oh, so you're one of the slow drivers", or "so that means you always keep to the speed limits", said sneeringly but with a slightly condescending smile to take away the sting.

Perhaps the drivers who do not become involved in trying to improve their driving are really not interested, but I bet many would be if we were seen as driving excellence rather than goody two shoes following the government line.

[Gareth]

I explain my priorities to Associates, but I also explain why the IAM cannot be seen to condone the breaking of limits, and that they will need to practise obeying the speed limit if they want to pass the IAM test.

I also have explained this to people, and backed it up with the point that they really don't want to be breaking traffic laws when they have a police driver sitting next to them

Mind you, some find they don't want to attempt the test after all.

I can't see that as a failure, though, since from my point of view, the goal is making people better, safer drivers, and that comes ahead of passing any test.

[Nigel]

I can't see your arguement here Gareth.

Neither you nor I have any exemptions to speed limits, should we break them we do so taking full responsibility.

If I were to condone a candiidate breaking a speed limit, I'm letting the IAM down, and leaving myself open to prosecution.

What service does that provide to road safety ?

[Gareth]

I can't see your arguement here Gareth.

I'm arguing that because advanced drivers are seen as being primarily about keeping to speed limits, we miss influencing a large body of drivers that need to be shown how to drive safely.

If I were to condone a candiidate breaking a speed limit, I'm letting the IAM down, and leaving myself open to prosecution.

How about if you refused to condone breaking speed limits? Not the same as condemning it but leaves you more room to persuade and teach people how to drive safely, and once you have them hooked on improving their driving, you can probably easily persuade them to lower their speeds in areas where it is most important to do so, not because of adhering to a posted limit but because it increases their safety and the safety of others.

What service does that provide to road safety ?

The people that get involved with advanced driving generally already have the idea that they need to improve their driving but don't know how.

What are we doing about all the people who aren't interested in advanced driving because they think it is only about keeping to speed limits? I think there are many more of them than there are of people who become associates of the IAM or RoADAR.

[Nigel]

Almost all of my candidates drive above the speed limit when I first get them......I used to only see the speed limit whilst accelerating of slowing down !

Your hpc courses are very good, because your a superb driver, do the hpc claim to be a road safety organisation ?

If they do, how can they condone breaking traffic laws ?

I can hold personal opinions, I'm also free to drive as I wish...until I get caught, but I can't teach others to break the law.

Isn't part of being a good driver being able to obey the traffic laws ?

[vonhosen]

If I were to condone a candiidate breaking a speed limit, I'm letting the IAM down, and leaving myself open to prosecution.

How about if you refused to condone breaking speed limits? Not the same as condemning it but leaves you more room to persuade and teach people how to drive safely, and once you have them hooked on improving their driving, you can probably easily persuade them to lower their speeds in areas where it is most important to do so, not because of adhering to a posted limit but because it increases their safety and the safety of others.

Then you have the "blind eye" offence under aiding, abetting, counseling & procuring.