Do driving instructors drive like learners?

[daz6215]

If your 'top priority' is your personal safety then there are probably safer ways to travel than driving a car to your destination.

What practical solutions do you suggest?

[vonhosen]

If your 'top priority' is your personal safety then there are probably safer ways to travel than driving a car to your destination.

What practical solutions do you suggest?

Me personally, I'm willing to compromise (to a degree) my personal safety in consideration of other factors/benefits. I'm willing to accept a certain amount of risk to balance a range of objectives.

[daz6215]

If your 'top priority' is your personal safety then there are probably safer ways to travel than driving a car to your destination.

What practical solutions do you suggest?

Me personally, I'm willing to compromise (to a degree) my personal safety in consideration of other factors/benefits. I'm willing to accept a certain amount of risk to balance a range of objectives.

What about other people's safety?

[vonhosen]

Me personally, I'm willing to compromise (to a degree) my personal safety in consideration of other factors/benefits. I'm willing to accept a certain amount of risk to balance a range of objectives.

What about other people's safety?

We as a society accept the risk/benefit ratio that private motor vehicles represent, otherwise they'd be outlawed completely. If safety was the 'top priority' for society, cars would be banned. As it is we regulate their use whilst accepting that some degree of harm is inevitable. We just try to minimise it, whilst enjoying the benefits that private motor vehicles offer. Those who step outside the defined acceptable parameters can be held to account under the law.

[MGF]

In other words anything up to the point of risking prosecution for dangerous driving...

[vonhosen]

In other words anything up to the point of risking prosecution for dangerous driving...

I'd suggest that far more is expected of people than that, certainly the legislation suggests so.

[MGF]

So anything up to the point of risk of being prosecuted for careless driving?

[vonhosen]

So anything up to the point of risk of being prosecuted for careless driving?

There are all manner of actions etc that are legislated for outside of dangerous/careless driving. People will then, whilst acting within the law, still have their own personal levels of acceptable risk that will influence their behaviour. That's why one person might go for a legal overtake & another driver not.

[MGF]

How do you reconcile "...some degree of harm is inevitable. We just try to minimise it.."

with

"...People will then, whilst acting within the law, still have their own personal levels of acceptable risk that will influence their behaviour..."

If people have differing levels of risk acceptance within the law how can they all be trying to minimise that risk?

[vonhosen]

How do you reconcile "...some degree of harm is inevitable. We just try to minimise it.."

with

"...People will then, whilst acting within the law, still have their own personal levels of acceptable risk that will influence their behaviour..."

If people have differing levels of risk acceptance within the law how can they all be trying to minimise that risk?

Society tries to regulate risk through the law, individuals however choose their levels of acceptable risk within it (whilst others will willingly go outside it). It's minimise the risk relative to their objectives, different people will have different objectives & hence different minimum levels of risk.

[TripleS]

That isn't necessarily a good thing though.

If you mean that the advanced driving organisations probably are not reaching the worst drivers, then of course that is not necessarily a good thing. However, the fact that they appeal to people who actually want to drive well is a valid reason why they do not need to put too much effort into addressing poor attitudes.

People can display what they want you to see. In a telling environment that is even easier to do. To find out what people 'really' believe, what they truly 'value' & therefore what they'll actually do when away from you, then you have to create an environment that is not judgemental, get them to open up to you & ask rather than tell. You've heard of Johari's window haven't you ?

I've done it before. Gone to someone I want something from, done what they said in order to get it & not believed in it at all. The first time they asked what I thought & I told them, it was dismissed as incorrect because they believed something different. My beliefs didn't change because they told me they knew better, so my behaviour only changed in front of them & until I got what I wanted from them. A learning opportunity for both wasted & they are deluded in believing they've changed my mind. Because of that contact any future contact with them follows a similar pattern if I want something from them.

I see it all the time in others. Saying what they think you want to hear, rather than what they actually believe.

I'm pleading not guilty on that count.

Interesting discussion though, guys.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

....the advanced driving organisations probably are not reaching the worst drivers, then of course that is not necessarily a good thing. However, the fact that they appeal to people who actually want to drive well is a valid reason why they do not need to put too much effort into addressing poor attitudes.

I would have thought that occasional exposure to a bit of 'bad attitude' might present an opportunity for the Observers to raise their game - but perhaps not all of them are open to that suggestion.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[daz6215]

Society tries to regulate risk through the law, individuals however choose their levels of acceptable risk within it (whilst others will willingly go outside it). It's minimise the risk relative to their objectives, different people will have different objectives & hence different minimum levels of risk.

Reminds me of 'Mind Driving'

Risk=

Probability x Consequence

The job the the consequence is to influence the safety margins required to reduce the risk of the event occurring!

If you were to hit and kill someone, whilst making progress to an emergency or just a spirited drive, would your own personal objectives wash with the parents?

I'm not saying wrap everyone up in cotton wool, it is a balancing act, but ultimately if it were a member of your family killed would you accept their goal of a spirited drive or racing to someone else's emergency?

[vonhosen]

Society tries to regulate risk through the law, individuals however choose their levels of acceptable risk within it (whilst others will willingly go outside it). It's minimise the risk relative to their objectives, different people will have different objectives & hence different minimum levels of risk.

Reminds me of 'Mind Driving'

Risk=

Probability x Consequence

The job the the consequence is to influence the safety margins required to reduce the risk of the event occurring!

If you were to hit and kill someone, whilst making progress to an emergency or just a spirited drive, would your own personal objectives wash with the parents?

Maybe not, but perhaps they aren't best placed to judge whether the drivers actions were reasonable.

I'm not saying wrap everyone up in cotton wool, it is a balancing act, but ultimately if it were a member of your family killed would you accept their goal of a spirited drive or racing to someone else's emergency?

It is a balancing act & that's why I say it's not about the 'top priority'. If it were a member of my family I'd like to think that I could (whilst obviously grieving the loss) be objective about the driving issue. Others who know me claim I'd have no problem doing so, but I hope to never be tested on it.

Would the person being raped expect me to not drive to their aid because there is a risk to myself & others in using the the car ?

[daz6215]

Maybe not, but perhaps they aren't best placed to judge whether the drivers actions were reasonable.

talking here of emotions not law, would the loss of a child ever be reasonable to a parent?

It is a balancing act & that's why I say it's not about the 'top priority'. If it were a member of my family I'd like to think that I could (whilst obviously grieving the loss) be objective about the driving issue. Others who know me claim I'd have no problem doing so, but I hope to never be tested on it.

Would the person being raped expect me to not drive to their aid because there is a risk to myself & others in using the the car ?

Well yes, if it were me I would want assistance, but...

Is that person being raped of anymore importance than anyone else's flesh and blood?

The whole ethos of police driving is to separate your emotions from the driving task, i.e. not to let those emotions, frustration as an example cloud the choices you make, so if the goal is to get to their aid as soon as possible, would that open you up to making incorrect choices? research would suggest it may!