ADUK Archive

So says the IAM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27587130


Does the IAM support the attempt to make speeding as socially unacceptable as drink driving?

Are you suggesting that, as an alternative, the IAM should encourage breaking speed limits?

In my view, IAM (and other AD groups) shouldn't be advocating speeding, nor condemning it.
They should take a neutral stance, and just say that Advanced Drivers have the skill and ability to judge what is a safe speed for the individual circumstances.

I don't know what to make of the IAM doing this.

It'd be a net positive if they could supplant Brake as the go-to opinion on road safety. At least I think it would.

However until they actually achieve that, which may never happen, it feels a bit like they're shooting themselves in the foot. They're already stuck with the problem of their membership being almost entirely self-selecting, and this must alienate a few of those.

Interesting that "about 70mph" over the limit is the top speed caught at.

From all I've seen from the IAM in recent years, combined with their resolute refusal to distance themselves from BRAKE (despite extensive requests from members to do so), the impression I get is that they are increasingly pandering to the 'speed kills' message. Really sad in my opinion, but a much easier sell than trying to promote skills and responsibility...

Perhaps it's all about a game of deception?
Lure people into the game by talking about the "Speed Kills" message, and when people are in, teach them excellent skills and prove to them that Brake is just complete hogwash, and a comedy act for the rest of us

How would "speed kills" attract new members to the IAM?

The IAM has always offered "skill with responsibility" - explicitly as its former motto or implicitly now - which seems more meaningful.

TheInsanity1234 wrote:Perhaps it's all about a game of deception?
Lure people into the game by talking about the "Speed Kills" message, and when people are in, teach them excellent skills and prove to them that Brake is just complete hogwash, and a comedy act for the rest of us

If only that was the case! What's worse in all of this is that the IAM successfully wasted the time of 33 Police forces (and god knows how much tax payers money) in responding to its pointless FOIA request, and to what end, other than to give them the ammunition to make yet more sensationalist comments about a minority of contextless cases?

Zebedee wrote:The IAM has always offered "skill with responsibility" - explicitly as its former motto or implicitly now - which seems more meaningful.

I agree that used to be their mantra (and the genuine intent) but their focus appears to have shifted towards remaining 'visible' these days (presumably in a bid to survive with an ageing and dwindling membership) rather than continue to strive to deliver true leadership in the field of road safety. The latter is far harder than the endless stream of facile questions posed on Facebook, LinkedIn, et al about what people have had for tea, what colour socks people wear on a Wednesday, etc.

Now, had the IAM done a hard-hitting study on the impact that blanket speed limit reductions has had across the country, that really would have been an interesting read. Too hard dept me thinks...

I imagine that it's hard for the IAM to take a neutral stance without losing their public profile entirely - they're caught between a rock and a hard place.

I think they need to choose the issues on which they campaign carefully - there are some where education/skill/sensible planning by local authorities would give them more space for debate. Investigating the current fetish for unnecessary reductions in speed limits would be a good place to start! They could also appeal in some way to the less militant of the brake-brigade - for example advocating local 40mph limits near known accident blackspots on an otherwise 60mph road rather than a blanket 50mph limit that is ignored by many and does little if anything to reduce the number of accidents

Shame an opportunity was missed to push drivers not being kept up to scratch with modern cars
The vast majority of cars are capable of 100mph, many are capable of 140+. Isn't it time we overhauled the 40 year old laws that have failed to keep up with modern technology?

And given the fantastic reductions in driver fatalities despite the rising numbers of cars on the roads, haven't we lost rational thought when it comes to "preservation" of life? Why not focus on the hours stolen from people in congestion caused by incompetent drivers, traffic lights causing holdups where no other traffic is around, speed limits making journeys take far longer than necessary. /won't somebody think of the children?

jont wrote:Shame an opportunity was missed to push drivers not being kept up to scratch with modern cars
The vast majority of cars are capable of 100mph, many are capable of 140+. Isn't it time we overhauled the 40 year old laws that have failed to keep up with modern technology?

And given the fantastic reductions in driver fatalities despite the rising numbers of cars on the roads, haven't we lost rational thought when it comes to "preservation" of life? Why not focus on the hours stolen from people in congestion caused by incompetent drivers, traffic lights causing holdups where no other traffic is around, speed limits making journeys take far longer than necessary. /won't somebody think of the children?

I would agree with the vast majority of that, and for sure the "Speed Kills" is a complete load of rubbish. As I am sure everyone here knows, speed in itself does not kill. Speed may play a part in the eventual consequences of an incident but in itself it does not kill. Bad driving, blatant inattention and carelessness are much bigger factors in accidents in my experience. I would argue that a skilled driver using their knowledge and experience but driving over the speed limit is much safer than someone driving at or even under the limit but texting, applying make up, arguing with a child in the back seat (----- insert other example----- ).

If "Speed killed" I would have been dead many years ago as I speed most days (legally) and may exceed NSL on many occasions without the use of an exemption, both on 2 and 4 wheels. When I last checked I was very much alive and to my knowledge I have not killed anyone else either.

As for the socially unacceptable thing... it's a bit like the " I don't buy fake goods" or "I don't agree with buying stolen property" argument, but the same person has a house full of knock off DVD's and cheap clothes and buy their cigs from a man down the pub.

Dangerous driving is eerrm.. dangerous and should be socially unacceptable but this can be dangerous without speeding, 150mph is not inherently dangerous and certainly does not kill at all times or there would be very few emergency service drivers left alive.

jont wrote:Shame an opportunity was missed to push drivers not being kept up to scratch with modern cars
The vast majority of cars are capable of 100mph, many are capable of 140+. Isn't it time we overhauled the 40 year old laws that have failed to keep up with modern technology?

And given the fantastic reductions in driver fatalities despite the rising numbers of cars on the roads, haven't we lost rational thought when it comes to "preservation" of life? Why not focus on the hours stolen from people in congestion caused by incompetent drivers, traffic lights causing holdups where no other traffic is around, speed limits making journeys take far longer than necessary. /won't somebody think of the children?

They are working towards that, but it will lead to you not driving the vehicle. Efficient use of road space by packing vehicles closer together, all travelling at a uniform speed etc etc.
An integrated computerised system is where we'll end up & a driver performing inputs other than selecting a destination will be a thing of the past.

vonhosen wrote:

jont wrote:Shame an opportunity was missed to push drivers not being kept up to scratch with modern cars
The vast majority of cars are capable of 100mph, many are capable of 140+. Isn't it time we overhauled the 40 year old laws that have failed to keep up with modern technology?

And given the fantastic reductions in driver fatalities despite the rising numbers of cars on the roads, haven't we lost rational thought when it comes to "preservation" of life? Why not focus on the hours stolen from people in congestion caused by incompetent drivers, traffic lights causing holdups where no other traffic is around, speed limits making journeys take far longer than necessary. /won't somebody think of the children?

They are working towards that, but it will lead to you not driving the vehicle. Efficient use of road space by packing vehicles closer together, all travelling at a uniform speed etc etc.
An integrated computerised system is where we'll end up & a driver performing inputs other than selecting a destination will be a thing of the past.

Not in my lifetime or anyone else's if you ask me. We can't even get trains to run on time let alone random vehicles entering a system going to different destinations. I won't be cancelling my new car order just yet

vonhosen wrote:

jont wrote:Shame an opportunity was missed to push drivers not being kept up to scratch with modern cars
The vast majority of cars are capable of 100mph, many are capable of 140+. Isn't it time we overhauled the 40 year old laws that have failed to keep up with modern technology?

And given the fantastic reductions in driver fatalities despite the rising numbers of cars on the roads, haven't we lost rational thought when it comes to "preservation" of life? Why not focus on the hours stolen from people in congestion caused by incompetent drivers, traffic lights causing holdups where no other traffic is around, speed limits making journeys take far longer than necessary. /won't somebody think of the children?

They are working towards that, but it will lead to you not driving the vehicle. Efficient use of road space by packing vehicles closer together, all travelling at a uniform speed etc etc.
An integrated computerised system is where we'll end up & a driver performing inputs other than selecting a destination will be a thing of the past.

Oh, I know. And I know some of the fairly major issues with it actually getting to work (and that's just the technology, never mind the legislative framework to allow it). Suits me, especially on the commute. Just so long as they leave a few areas open for enthusiasts, let's say, Wales and Scotland