Better Driving Please

[Søren]

Where does the current 'Speed Kills' road strategy come from? Is it politicians, home office civil servants, police, journalists or elsewhere? Who has to be persuaded for it to be revised?

I believe it has always been around for as long as the direct association with speed and collision severity/frequency has been misunderstood.

This misunderstanding has more recently been fully exploited to encourage the public's toleration of enforcement based on ease rather than any association with risk.

Why do you think Scotland has not gone down this route?

I thought they had gone that way, although probably a bit later than E&W.

[Søren]

I agree with your remarks, just not this one.

I think Søren is making the point that most of the driving public break the speed limit at one time or another.

A small number try very hard to keep below speed limits, but even they are caught out from time to time, maybe by a poorly signed interchange, or by such a clutter of signage that they miss the speed limit change, perhaps by having a little less concentration for a short period, or for a myriad of other reasons.

Others are more relaxed about speed limits, using them as a useful guide, but primarily linking speed to vision.

The point is, for the vast majority of drivers, breaking speed limits for short or extended periods does not result in accidents or near misses. Moreover, the recently released accident statistics completely bears this out.

Søren points out that accidents are generally caused by readily identifiable groups of people, but these are not the same people that pay fines after being caught by speed cameras.

Trouble is, political correctness is getting in the way of an effective approach to policing, and in particular, road safety.

My problem with it is that it is not just about actual collisions that are proven to have speed as a factor (because I happen to think it's probably under reported, as identifying true speed before a collision is rarely done, even where alleged by a party involved). It's the potential from inappropriate higher speeds that concerns me.

If you actually visited numerous fatac and serious collision scenes you would quickly realise that these potential killers you talk about do not feature. As I keep saying we have to look at the reasons for the speed and the real driving negligence which might cause that speed to be a problem.

I believe that for enforcement we need to associate speed to evidenced risk taking. If we do this and the motoring public know this is how speed is being enforced, it would be a superb incentive to regain responsibility and the incredibly valuable motoring skills which numb numerical enforcement has robbed us of.

If I were to observe all UK drivers for extenderd periods, I am confident that in very large numbers I would witness many incidents where they carried too much speed into a hazard. In other words their assessment was poor. Everytime they do that there is an increase in risk that I have judged to be inappropriate. The fact it didn't result in a collision doesn't put the concern about their choices out of my mind.

Where they make those mistakes at higher speeds those risks are greater still because of the energy involved. Our problem is that we don't have a recognised tiered ability system. It's one size fits all.

What we need are effective methods of dealing with the inappropriate use of speed. It's obvious that cameras are having no effect on speed, and they won't, because most motorists do not feel their considered speed adds any risk. Vehicle average speeds on non-built up roads have risen over the last 5 years.
We need to get out there in unmarked cars, watching for evidence of poor or aggressive driving. We need to be targeting real potential risk, and it needs to be done contemporaneously. We do not need a system which in order to attack road risk, carpet bombs dual carriageways and motorways, causing collateral damage to the licences of 98-99% of road users simply to get at the 1 or 2 percent who need to be brought to task.

Similarly the ridiculously high risk road user groups, who despite driving about 10% of total road miles or less, probably cause about 80% of road fatalities, need targetting using intel and trafpol presence.

[martine]

I have to agree with much of what you say but I think you need to be careful not to undermine professional road safety engineers and researchers who's job it is to make sense of the complex relationship between driver behavior and car/road engineering.

Don't get me wrong: it's clear you have a lot of practical experience and knowledge and an important contribution to make but it's not your main job so to speak.

Research carried out in the sixties by Solomon in his research entitled "Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver and Vehicle," 1964 concluded that crash risk is at its lowest for those who drive at a higher than average speed on non urban roads.

So that's 42 year old, US research - I'd be cpncerned about applying this to today's drivers in the UK.

The speeds indicated on the appended chart show that lowest crash risk tends to be associated with higher than average free travelling speeds.

Yes but not by much...up to 10 mph over the speed limit at most and then the risk increases.

Further research conducted By Dr. S Stradling of Napier University entitled “Which speeding behaviours differentiate drivers with a recent accident history?” strongly suggests that drivers who include marginal speeding in their normal daily drive are less crash involved than non speeders.

Sorry am I misunderstanding you (or the report) but at the end it says:

3. Conclusion
Combining speed and accident data from two large surveys of Scottish drivers confirms the relationship
between a tendency to speed and elevated crash involvement. These car drivers need help from driver retraining
courses combining classroom (Why to change) and on-road (How to change) sessions (Stradling, in press,
2005). Results such as these suggest particular speeding behaviours that should be addressed by such remedial
interventions.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Additionally because this motorist is travelling faster than average, concentration, observation and anticipation is higher, it has to be, because he is an active player, not a passive participant. His range of view is relative to his approach speed, and his need to occupy different lateral positions on the road offers enhanced view.

Absolutely agree.

Having dealt with thousands of speeding offences and hundreds of road traffic collisions, having attended approximately 60 fatal collisions as OIC, trainee collision investigator, family liaison officer and assisting officer, having worked with and discussed causation with colleagues from the collision investigation unit who between them have investigated over 300 fatal collisions, I can honestly state there is a world of difference between the road user groups who are caught speeding by camera and those who cause fatal and serious, serious injury collisions (KSSIs).

Your experience is valuable but it's not scientific - you only have personal involvement in a tiny minority of serious/fatal crashes. That's where a rigorous examination of the data is invaluable.

The mindsets of the thrill seeker driver and the marginal speeder (ordinary driver) are diametrically opposed. The purpose of the thrill seeker (cause or reason) is to gain adrenaline fed exhilaration through speed, and the only way to do that is to engage a higher level of risk. A marginal speeder will cap his speed at a speed he considers acceptable for the circumstance, taking into account the road conditions, the expectations of other motorists, and the speed limit.

This is your opinion or do you have something to back it up?

When it is a product of responsibility and moderated skill it is an entirely safe product of the safest drivers.

Entirely safe? Even police drivers get caught out ocassionally.

The DfT speed report states that 50% of motorists exceed the 30 mph limit at their test sites. Where is this happening? Is it in a busy shopping street, or a residential street with children playing? Or is it the quiet end of a town exit route heading towards the NSL. Almost inevitably it’s the latter. Is routine marginal speeding at this location a risk? No.

No I disagree - I think the majority speed in 30s in my experience. Nearly always when driving in 30s the car in front of me pulls away.

...I believe that we need to recognize the value of making responsible judgments based on safety, and grant the motorist that responsibility.

Absolutely.

[vonhosen]

I agree with your remarks, just not this one.

I think Søren is making the point that most of the driving public break the speed limit at one time or another.

A small number try very hard to keep below speed limits, but even they are caught out from time to time, maybe by a poorly signed interchange, or by such a clutter of signage that they miss the speed limit change, perhaps by having a little less concentration for a short period, or for a myriad of other reasons.

Others are more relaxed about speed limits, using them as a useful guide, but primarily linking speed to vision.

The point is, for the vast majority of drivers, breaking speed limits for short or extended periods does not result in accidents or near misses. Moreover, the recently released accident statistics completely bears this out.

Søren points out that accidents are generally caused by readily identifiable groups of people, but these are not the same people that pay fines after being caught by speed cameras.

Trouble is, political correctness is getting in the way of an effective approach to policing, and in particular, road safety.

My problem with it is that it is not just about actual collisions that are proven to have speed as a factor (because I happen to think it's probably under reported, as identifying true speed before a collision is rarely done, even where alleged by a party involved). It's the potential from inappropriate higher speeds that concerns me.

If you actually visited numerous fatac and serious collision scenes you would quickly realise that these potential killers you talk about do not feature. As I keep saying we have to look at the reasons for the speed and the real driving negligence which might cause that speed to be a problem.

I believe that for enforcement we need to associate speed to evidenced risk taking. If we do this and the motoring public know this is how speed is being enforced, it would be a superb incentive to regain responsibility and the incredibly valuable motoring skills which numb numerical enforcement has robbed us of.

But it's the potential for a collision that I am talking about & it shouldn't be ignored just because the collision didn't occur. If on test someone is regularly carrying too much speed into danger, or drives outside being able to stop within the distance they can see to be clear, they will fail the test, collision or not, because of the potential they display in their risky behaviour.

Now they may not do it for every hazard, but it's there. And only by extended observation does it frequently reveal itself, but the risk is inherent in them because of a weakness. I'm not calling for prosecuting people who go a small amount over the limit, but where people extend it by some margin you are never going to know from observing them for a short time if they make those mistakes or not. Thinking defensively you have to assume the worst that they will, so it is not desireable that they be encouraged to travel at higher speeds (which of course only serves to exaggerate weaknesses & result in greater adversity in any outcome).

Now if someone has been on an extended test displaying that they have can consistently get it right for all speeds & circumstances I am more inclined to trust them. I won't trust blindly that which hasn't though. The Police insist on higher levels of training & testing for good reason. If we are going to allow members of the public similar margins over the limit they should be equally tested IMHO, not just only dealt with when it's too late & we've waited for actual danger to show up to the party.

If I were to observe all UK drivers for extenderd periods, I am confident that in very large numbers I would witness many incidents where they carried too much speed into a hazard. In other words their assessment was poor. Everytime they do that there is an increase in risk that I have judged to be inappropriate. The fact it didn't result in a collision doesn't put the concern about their choices out of my mind.

Where they make those mistakes at higher speeds those risks are greater still because of the energy involved. Our problem is that we don't have a recognised tiered ability system. It's one size fits all.

What we need are effective methods of dealing with the inappropriate use of speed. It's obvious that cameras are having no effect on speed, and they won't, because most motorists do not feel their considered speed adds any risk. Vehicle average speeds on non-built up roads have risen over the last 5 years.

But just because they feel that, is that right ?
You ask any of the "boy racers" you are talking about & they'll tell you they are good safe drivers etc. Perceived ability v Actual ability & all that.

We need to get out there in unmarked cars, watching for evidence of poor or aggressive driving. We need to be targeting real potential risk, and it needs to be done contemporaneously.

Yes, but we also need to disuade people from traveling at wide margins over our limit before the risk levels get too high & present themselves. We don't want to wait for the evidence that it might be too much for them. It needs to be pro-active not re-active in that.

Similarly the ridiculously high risk road user groups, who despite driving about 10% of total road miles or less, probably cause about 80% of road fatalities, need targetting using intel and trafpol presence.

No argument.

[Søren]

I have to agree with much of what you say but I think you need to be careful not to undermine professional road safety engineers and researchers who's job it is to make sense of the complex relationship between driver behavior and car/road engineering.

Don't get me wrong: it's clear you have a lot of practical experience and knowledge and an important contribution to make but it's not your main job so to speak.

I’m nothing more than you say, but it does seem that those you entrust with understanding this complex interaction are taking far too simplistic a view of it. This simplistic view does not fit what is happening. The drivers they highlight as being dangerous (marginal 35 in a 30 speeders, you and I) are in fact not the danger at all, IMO they are some of the safest drivers on the road.

Research carried out in the sixties by Solomon in his research entitled "Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver and Vehicle," 1964 concluded that crash risk is at its lowest for those who drive at a higher than average speed on non urban roads.

So that's 42 year old, US research - I'd be concerned about applying this to today's drivers in the UK.

I’d love something more up to date. I’d like it to be on the internet I’m not sure who would fund it. But I see no reason why it shouldn’t be relevant. The speed limit at the time in the USA was I believe ~70mph.

The speeds indicated on the appended chart show that lowest crash risk tends to be associated with higher than average free travelling speeds.

Yes but not by much...up to 10 mph over the speed limit at most and then the risk increases.

Don’t forget this is an average of percentile speeds, which on busier roads would cause the range between 50th and 90th percentile speed to restrict to perhaps 2 to 5 miles per hour, but on quieter more open roads could mean a difference of 25 mph between 50th and 90th percentiles.

Further research conducted By Dr. S Stradling of Napier University entitled “Which speeding behaviours differentiate drivers with a recent accident history?” strongly suggests that drivers who include marginal speeding in their normal daily drive are less crash involved than non speeders.

Sorry am I misunderstanding you (or the report) but at the end it says:

3. Conclusion
Combining speed and accident data from two large surveys of Scottish drivers confirms the relationship
between a tendency to speed and elevated crash involvement. These car drivers need help from driver retraining
courses combining classroom (Why to change) and on-road (How to change) sessions (Stradling, in press,
2005). Results such as these suggest particular speeding behaviours that should be addressed by such remedial
interventions.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Dr Stradling is an unwilling witness in this case. He has been commissioned separately by the Scottish Executive, the DfT and the West Midlands camera partnerships to show a relationship between speed and crash involvement, in particular the relationship which shows that drivers who speed are more likely to be crash involved. He obliged of course and completed papers such as the one I’ve highlighted to make this conclusion.

Unfortunately he failed to take proper account of mileage travelled when he concluded that people with speeding tickets had more crashes. He may as well have written “people who buy petrol are more likely to crash than those who don’t.” In the report I’ve mentioned he did give indication about the driving styles of higher and lower mileage drivers which allows a calculation to show that those who have received speeding tickets are a significant percent safer than those who don’t.

Having dealt with thousands of speeding offences and hundreds of road traffic collisions, having attended approximately 60 fatal collisions as OIC, trainee collision investigator, family liaison officer and assisting officer, having worked with and discussed causation with colleagues from the collision investigation unit who between them have investigated over 300 fatal collisions, I can honestly state there is a world of difference between the road user groups who are caught speeding by camera and those who cause fatal and serious, serious injury collisions (KSSIs).

Your experience is valuable but it's not scientific - you only have personal involvement in a tiny minority of serious/fatal crashes. That's where a rigorous examination of the data is invaluable.

I entirely agree, and I‘d love to have access to the full details of every fatal accident in the country to analyse causation factors. You would think that wouldn’t be too difficult for someone to do, wouldn’t you. After all I’ve done it for the ones I’ve attended until the start of this year.
I have no agenda. If current policy was saving lives I’d have it. I actually argued for it until about 3 years ago, because I believed that the DfT would tell the entire truth about camera effectiveness and KSI reductions.
So in the absence of entirely indisputable fact, I’m quite happy to accept my own experience to provide the strength to my own opinion. I’m constantly expecting the sequence of collisions the causes of which start to dispute my findings, but it’s yet to happen. I’ve recently been on a collision investigation course where the 13 on that course had their own experiences which tie in with mine. I only lay as much information as I can before you. I know what my experiences have taught me. Your opinion is entirely yours, mine is mine, but we are allowed to share them.

The mindsets of the thrill seeker driver and the marginal speeder (ordinary driver) are diametrically opposed. The purpose of the thrill seeker (cause or reason) is to gain adrenaline fed exhilaration through speed, and the only way to do that is to engage a higher level of risk. A marginal speeder will cap his speed at a speed he considers acceptable for the circumstance, taking into account the road conditions, the expectations of other motorists, and the speed limit.

This is your opinion or do you have something to back it up?

It’s not rocket science. It’s what happens. A marginal speeder is just that – a speeder who exceeds the limit when it is safe to do so, but not excessively, like the vast majority of those you later refer to who leave you you in the 30s. Thrill seekers speed for the excitement it provides.

When it is a product of responsibility and moderated skill it is an entirely safe product of the safest drivers.

Entirely safe? Even police drivers get caught out ocassionally.

In the context of driving risk, I believe it is as safe a driving style as you can get.
Police officers are asked to consider dynamic risk assessment, both in the consideration of their own driving and in the expectation of the way others might drive in a pursuit or response situation. This should never cross the boundaries of due care, but it would patently be wrong to suggest this never happens. This is not the type of driving that most motorists are engaged in and it would be wrong to draw comparison.

The DfT speed report states that 50% of motorists exceed the 30 mph limit at their test sites. Where is this happening? Is it in a busy shopping street, or a residential street with children playing? Or is it the quiet end of a town exit route heading towards the NSL. Almost inevitably it’s the latter. Is routine marginal speeding at this location a risk? No.

No I disagree - I think the majority speed in 30s in my experience. Nearly always when driving in 30s the car in front of me pulls away.

It does seem that way. Perhaps DfT are placing some of their test sites in areas where speeds below 30 are required to be safe. Here’s the link to the relevant report.

[Søren]

breaking speed limits for short or extended periods does not result in accidents or near misses.

My problem with it is that it is not just about actual collisions that are proven to have speed as a factor (because I happen to think it's probably under reported, as identifying true speed before a collision is rarely done, even where alleged by a party involved). It's the potential from inappropriate higher speeds that concerns me.

If you visit numerous fatac and serious collision scenes you quickly realise that these potential killers you talk about do not feature. As I keep saying we have to look at the reasons for the speed and the real driving negligence which might cause that speed to be a problem.

I believe that for enforcement we need to associate speed to evidenced risk taking. If we do this and the motoring public know this is how speed is being enforced, it would be a superb incentive to regain responsibility and the incredibly valuable motoring skills which numb numerical enforcement has robbed us of.

But it's the potential for a collision that I am talking about & it shouldn't be ignored just because the collision didn't occur. If on test someone is regularly carrying too much speed into danger, or drives outside being able to stop within the distance they can see to be clear, they will fail the test, collision or not, because of the potential they display in their risky behaviour.

Now they may not do it for every hazard, but it's there. And only by extended observation does it frequently reveal itself, but the risk is inherent in them because of a weakness. I'm not calling for prosecuting people who go a small amount over the limit, but where people extend it by some margin you are never going to know from observing them for a short time if they make those mistakes or not. Thinking defensively you have to assume the worst that they will, so it is not desireable that they be encouraged to travel at higher speeds (which of course only serves to exaggerate weaknesses & result in greater adversity in any outcome).

Now if someone has been on an extended test displaying that they have can consistently get it right for all speeds & circumstances I am more inclined to trust them. I won't trust blindly that which hasn't though. The Police insist on higher levels of training & testing for good reason. If we are going to allow members of the public similar margins over the limit they should be equally tested IMHO, not just only dealt with when it's too late & we've waited for actual danger to show up to the party.

Ideologically we’re not far removed on this von, as we have found before. As you know, and especially on our grade separated roads, speed is so much less of a road safety problem than are issues of road etiquette. Motorway fatalities are currently at 1.5 per BVKM, compared to an average of 7.5 on other roads, so they are about 5 times safer. The biggest risk on the motorway is tiredness. If we go to a fatal on the motorway, that is the first thought in our minds, that someone has fallen asleep. The potential risk of high speed remains a potential. But it would be wrong not to do something about driving outside expectations and intimidatory driving or tailgating or aggression or carelessness or laziness displayed by some drivers, and we are absolutely agreed on that – and this offending behaviour crosses right through the speed limit.
I think we need to hone in on the right offending behaviour that carries a potential risk, and deal with it at that stage.

If I were to observe all UK drivers for extended periods, I am confident that in very large numbers I would witness many incidents where they carried too much speed into a hazard. In other words their assessment was poor. Everytime they do that there is an increase in risk that I have judged to be inappropriate. The fact it didn't result in a collision doesn't put the concern about their choices out of my mind.

Where they make those mistakes at higher speeds those risks are greater still because of the energy involved. Our problem is that we don't have a recognised tiered ability system. It's one size fits all.

What we need are effective methods of dealing with the inappropriate use of speed. It's obvious that cameras are having no effect on speed, and they won't, because most motorists do not feel their considered speed adds any risk. Vehicle average speeds on non-built up roads have risen over the last 5 years.

But just because they feel that, is that right ?
You ask any of the "boy racers" you are talking about & they'll tell you they are good safe drivers etc. Perceived ability v Actual ability & all that.

That’s right. And what can we offer these boy racers to save them from themselves? You see they don’t die on the motorway. They don’t stand out on the motorway or dual. They die out of sight. They don’t speed close to the cameras, because they only have limited income and six points to play with.

What can we do for them?

We ticket their fathers because it’s easy!??

We tell them that speed is the great evil.

What does that make them want to do more than anything?

We need to get out there in unmarked cars, watching for evidence of poor or aggressive driving. We need to be targeting real potential risk, and it needs to be done contemporaneously.

Yes, but we also need to dissuade people from traveling at wide margins over our limit before the risk levels get too high & present themselves. We don't want to wait for the evidence that it might be too much for them. It needs to be pro-active not re-active in that.

I’m advocating proactive – absolutely. But as I’ve said earlier we don’t need to penalise 98-99% to target the 1 or 2 percent who need targeting. Those who don’t need the targeting will appreciate and respond to the level of responsibility afforded them, while those who display inappropriate driving get the attention they need before the accident happens. And it’s easy to watch drivers for reasonable periods. Most offenders I report on the motorway have been watched for 2 or 3 miles minimum. It’s easy to get an impression of their driving style over that kind of distance.

Similarly the ridiculously high risk road user groups, who despite driving about 10% of total road miles or less, probably cause about 80% of road fatalities, need targetting using intel and trafpol presence.

No argument.

But we are losing trafpol numbers and losing the ability to target these groups because of this fixation with low risk offending. It doesn’t make sense.

[James]

You ask any of the "boy racers"

Damn right I'm a good driver!

[Nigel]

I am being honest here, and have the upmost respect for Von on these forums, so apart from the odd leg pull, I don't like posting against him....

However.......

As a bad boy driver/rider who has gotten older and now behaves more than he ever thought possible it is education, NOT enforcement of any kind that has led me to change my driving behaviour.

I dislike these scameras so much (and all the messages they convey) I have to keep reminding myself that I'm getting older, am married, have children and other responsibilities to stop me becoming the next captain gatso (although I'd use electronics to defeat them, rather than explosives).

The part soren keeps getting right, time & time again, is involve the motorist, stop the guardian reading liberals turning it into an anti car thing, stop using excuses like global warming to raise money etc.

[vonhosen]

I am being honest here, and have the upmost respect for Von on these forums, so apart from the odd leg pull, I don't like posting against him....

However.......

As a bad boy driver/rider who has gotten older and now behaves more than he ever thought possible it is education, NOT enforcement of any kind that has led me to change my driving behaviour.

I dislike these scameras so much (and all the messages they convey) I have to keep reminding myself that I'm getting older, am married, have children and other responsibilities to stop me becoming the next captain gatso (although I'd use electronics to defeat them, rather than explosives).

The part soren keeps getting right, time & time again, is involve the motorist, stop the guardian reading liberals turning it into an anti car thing, stop using excuses like global warming to raise money etc.

Nigel

I know education is best, I say education is best, but what I also say is that you've got to have the education before you have the release.

You don't let your small child loose with the cooker until they have learned to use it properly, or it's going to end in tears. If they start messing around doing risky things with it, you stop them using it before the accident happens.

I'd love all our drivers to be excellent, but frankly a lot of them I wouldn't trust to do anything more than beans on toast.

You can't educate someone who has no interest in the subject matter. Most people have got the licence & beyond that they don't give a stuff.

[martine]

I’m nothing more than you say, but it does seem that those you entrust with understanding this complex interaction are taking far too simplistic a view of it. This simplistic view does not fit what is happening.

No I'm not talking about anyone specific, I'm just saying that you seem to be contradicting many road safety experts. Some of these surely have more time and data available than you or I and we should both respect their considered collective opinion.
[quote"Soren"]I’d love something more up to date. I’d like it to be on the internet I’m not sure who would fund it. But I see no reason why it shouldn’t be relevant. The speed limit at the time in the USA was I believe ~70mph.[/quote]

The report was done over 40 years ago in another country - there are many differences I would be cautious of:
a) different speed limits (not just NSL)
b) different culture
c) different driving skills
d) different cars
f) different roads

In fact so many and serious are the differences, I don't think it adds much to the debate.

Dr Stradling is an unwilling witness in this case. He has been commissioned separately by the Scottish Executive, the DfT and the West Midlands camera partnerships to show a relationship between speed and crash involvement, in particular the relationship which shows that drivers who speed are more likely to be crash involved. He obliged of course and completed papers such as the one I’ve highlighted to make this conclusion.

Well any academic worth his salt will do their best to produce an unbiased, factually and scientifically respectible paper regardless of who's paying. Their reputation stands on this. You held him up to support your case and now you are saying he was only doing what his paymaster wanted?

Unfortunately he failed to take proper account of mileage travelled when he concluded that people with speeding tickets had more crashes. He may as well have written “people who buy petrol are more likely to crash than those who don’t.”

Yes I've heard this before...isn't it really easy though to take account of the higher mileage of some drivers and adjust their accident rate accordingly? If he didn't do this then others could.

In the report I’ve mentioned he did give indication about the driving styles of higher and lower mileage drivers which allows a calculation to show that those who have received speeding tickets are a significant percent safer than those who don’t.

Please tell me more.

I only lay as much information as I can before you. I know what my experiences have taught me. Your opinion is entirely yours, mine is mine, but we are allowed to share them.

Yes indeed and it's always good to share: opinions, toys, rolos etc. Just to emphasise I do respect your experience which is clearly much greater than mine and one thing we are both agreed on is our desire to use traffic police rather than speed cameras.

[PeteG]

As a bad boy driver/rider who has gotten older and now behaves more than he ever thought possible it is education, NOT enforcement of any kind that has led me to change my driving behaviour.

After a good few months of driving as antisocially quickly as a 1.0l Micra will permit... again, it wasn't getting caught that slowed me down and improved my driving... it was education in the form of "this is how it should be done", and to a lesser extent, through the local fire brigade talking at a Rospa meet... "this is what can happen".

I dislike these scameras so much (and all the messages they convey) I have to keep reminding myself that I'm getting older, am married, have children and other responsibilities to stop me becoming the next captain gatso (although I'd use electronics to defeat them, rather than explosives).

Ever considered teaching evening classes at the local sixth form?

[Søren]

I am being honest here, and have the upmost respect for Von on these forums, so apart from the odd leg pull, I don't like posting against him....

However.......

As a bad boy driver/rider who has gotten older and now behaves more than he ever thought possible it is education, NOT enforcement of any kind that has led me to change my driving behaviour.

I dislike these scameras so much (and all the messages they convey) I have to keep reminding myself that I'm getting older, am married, have children and other responsibilities to stop me becoming the next captain gatso (although I'd use electronics to defeat them, rather than explosives).

The part soren keeps getting right, time & time again, is involve the motorist, stop the guardian reading liberals turning it into an anti car thing, stop using excuses like global warming to raise money etc.

Nigel

I know education is best, I say education is best, but what I also say is that you've got to have the education before you have the release.

You don't let your small child loose with the cooker until they have learned to use it properly, or it's going to end in tears. If they start messing around doing risky things with it, you stop them using it before the accident happens.

I'd love all our drivers to be excellent, but frankly a lot of them I wouldn't trust to do anything more than beans on toast.

You can't educate someone who has no interest in the subject matter. Most people have got the licence & beyond that they don't give a stuff.

We all want more education.

But the most important facet of education is to release our pupils to learn from experience. To do that they need to be trusted to be responsible for their own safety and others safety too.

This IMO requires good refereeing. it requires recognition that certain skills are essential, and certain ground rules should be irrevocable. Beyond that certain additional skills are advantageous.

The ground rules are the basic legality rules such as driving licence, insurance, VEL, roadworthy, registered, belted, con&use legal, no impairment, etc etc. These are premeditated offences or ommissions and must be enforced to absolutely the highest standard.

Essential skills are the basic driving test skills, to enable a person to drive with a satisfactory degree of hazard recognition, courtesy and concentration.

It's then currently down to individual interest and decent refereeing to maintain and improve 'motoring' skills.

The failure of basic driver ability and concentration skills need observation, education, and perhaps enforcement. These involve failures like lack of road awareness, passive tailgating, failure to negotiate hazards appropriately, SMIDSY movements etc. These are basic skill failings, and should always be corrected if possible to do so.

Beyond that are indiscretions which are indicative of a dveloped level of driving and motoring skill, and in my view they fall neatly into two categories.

A) Indiscretions knowingly undertaken for reasons of thrill or aggression.

B) Indiscretions advertently or inadvertently resulting from ones reasonable effort to drive according to conditions.

These two categories are easily distinguishable, and need to be refereed distinctly and appropriately i) for best road safety dividend and ii) for best recognition of responsible good motoring.

If we keep putting our drivers more and more on rails, more worried about speed enforcement than proper motoring skills, I'm afraid that more and more drivers will be less interested in good driving, and the skills will diminish. It's an unnecessary spiral of decline which we need to halt.

I'd love all our drivers to be excellent, but frankly a lot of them I wouldn't trust to do anything more than beans on toast.

But exceeding the speed limit is a possible or probable contributory factor, not cause, in less than 5% of collisions.

And the vast vast majority of these must be thrill seekers like boy racers and weekend bikers.

I fear your lack of trust is misplaced von.

[TripleS]

....those who have received speeding tickets are a significant percent safer than those who don’t.

That's very worrying. I must make an effort to get myself a ticket or two without delay then.

You have obviously put a lot of effort into all this Soren and (my clowning aside) it is extremely interesting. Thank you.

I must say your approach to the subject is a great deal more encouraging and inspiring that the current official stance.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Darren]

....those who have received speeding tickets are a significant percent safer than those who don’t.

Is that in the stats? Is that an indication that people do actually learn from getting them? Or do the majority only go all holier than thou when they are up for a ban?

Whats the chances of getting another ticket within a specified period of recieving one? If they are more likely to get another ticket, does that not make them more dangerous by definition?

Just some thoughts.

[TripleS]

I am being honest here, and have the upmost respect for Von on these forums, so apart from the odd leg pull, I don't like posting against him....

However.......

As a bad boy driver/rider who has gotten older and now behaves more than he ever thought possible it is education, NOT enforcement of any kind that has led me to change my driving behaviour.

I dislike these scameras so much (and all the messages they convey) I have to keep reminding myself that I'm getting older, am married, have children and other responsibilities to stop me becoming the next captain gatso (although I'd use electronics to defeat them, rather than explosives).

The part soren keeps getting right, time & time again, is involve the motorist, stop the guardian reading liberals turning it into an anti car thing, stop using excuses like global warming to raise money etc.

Nigel

I know education is best, I say education is best, but what I also say is that you've got to have the education before you have the release.

You don't let your small child loose with the cooker until they have learned to use it properly, or it's going to end in tears. If they start messing around doing risky things with it, you stop them using it before the accident happens.

I'd love all our drivers to be excellent, but frankly a lot of them I wouldn't trust to do anything more than beans on toast.

You can't educate someone who has no interest in the subject matter. Most people have got the licence & beyond that they don't give a stuff.

I too have the greatest respect for Von, and Soren and my friend Roadcraft, though naturally they each place different emphasis in different areas, but please can we get on with the education and start seeing the benefits.

Oh and BTW, I make quite a nice job of beanz on toast!

Best wishes all,
Dave.