Better Driving Please

[martine]

Mentioned on local tv yesterday...

http://betterdrivingplease.com

Not sure what to make of it myself...seems a little naive but I suppose it does give a chance for aggrieved drivers to 'vent their spleen'.

[ScoobyChris]

It seems I've not been spotted yet!

Chris

[Darren]

Mentioned on local tv yesterday...

http://betterdrivingplease.com

Not sure what to make of it myself...seems a little naive but I suppose it does give a chance for aggrieved drivers to 'vent their spleen'.

http://baddriving.com/ ??

[Roadcraft]

http://betterdrivingplease.com/Reports.asp

[martine]

http://betterdrivingplease.com/Reports.asp

Why did you post this link?

[martine]

[quote="Darrenhttp://baddriving.com/ ??[/quote]

Curiously very similar to my original...do you reckon it's the same person/orgnisation behind both?

[Susie]

Hugh and I are extremely uncomfortable about the whole ethos behind schemes like this. Neither do we consider it appropriate to encourage the vigilante-style of 'policing' using untrained members of the public with speed guns to be a well thought out scheme.

Whistle-blowing schemes may occasionally be appropriate for the benefit of the under-represented person in the workplace but from what knowledge base does a Joe Public driver accurately assess what is 'good' and what is 'bad' driving?

Let's take a scenario - one of our 'Class 1' contributers is off-duty. He/she completes a safe, systematic,skilful and legal overtake on a 'B...D...P...' member who notes the registration number and duly whistle blows the details to their site. On what basis did 'BDP' formulate his or her opinion? That 'Class 1' has been smeared and publicly pilloried with no appeals process. Would 'BDP' have taken the same action if our 'Class 1' had been driving a liveried vehicle?

It all smacks of the original Big Brother.

It's also interesting to see they contribute £1.25 to BRAKE for each sticker sold. Why not have a better balanced apportioning of profits with some of the funding going to 'better driving' charities as well?

[martine]

Hugh and I...

Forgive me - who is Hugh? (Noblett?)

...are extremely uncomfortable about the whole ethos behind schemes like this.

I don't know...it would be great if it were made official as it's very frustrating to come across not just drivers who need education but those which are aggressive and dangerous. As the system stands they have a high chance of 'getting away with it' as there are so few traffic police around. If one car was reported many times by the public it could be checked out (I realise there just aren't the resources to do this at the moment...hence my 'naive' comment) - it's the principle I'm interested in.

Neither do we consider it appropriate to encourage the vigilante-style of 'policing' using untrained members of the public with speed guns to be a well thought out scheme.

If you are referring to the scheme where locals get a speed-gun for a day and 'zap' passing motorists...I think it's an excellent idea. It brings home to errant motorists that speeding is frowned upon by many of the public in a particular village and not an academic, money raising excercise by those 'nasty' police.

Whistle-blowing schemes may occasionally be appropriate for the benefit of the under-represented person in the workplace but from what knowledge base does a Joe Public driver accurately assess what is 'good' and what is 'bad' driving?

I think the point is that if a car were consitently reported by different people it probably shows a consistently poor driver and not just a single mistake or misunderstood overtake.

It's also interesting to see they contribute £1.25 to BRAKE for each sticker sold. Why not have a better balanced apportioning of profits with some of the funding going to 'better driving' charities as well?

Hear hear on that one.

[Gareth]

who is Hugh? (Noblett?)

Yes.

Neither do we consider it appropriate to encourage the vigilante-style of 'policing' using untrained members of the public with speed guns to be a well thought out scheme.

If you are referring to the scheme where locals get a speed-gun for a day and 'zap' passing motorists...I think it's an excellent idea. It brings home to errant motorists that speeding is frowned upon by many of the public in a particular village and not an academic, money raising excercise by those 'nasty' police.

The problem is they tend to avoid catching locals, and locals are probably the biggest group of speeders through any rural village.

[Johnnie]

I don't know...it would be great if it were made official as it's very frustrating to come across not just drivers who need education but those which are aggressive and dangerous. As the system stands they have a high chance of 'getting away with it' as there are so few traffic police around. If one car was reported many times by the public it could be checked out (I realise there just aren't the resources to do this at the moment...hence my 'naive' comment) - it's the principle I'm interested in.

This was covered in a thread a while ago. http://www.advanced-driving.co.uk/bb/vi ... .php?t=499 As I understand it, you can report an incident, but unless you were involved directly enough to be able to make a written statement, your report will not be recorded officially, but details may be circulated amongst local police officers for them to be "on the look out" for vehicle involved.

[7db]

In Met area, any complaints of careless/dangerous driving must be made in person at a station within 24hrs of the incident. Outside of that time information can be placed in intelligence but it's not policy to use it for investigation / prosecution.

[ipsg.glf]

I am amazed that ANYONE who has a genuine interest in road safety would consider this initiative worthwhile. What we need to measure are outputs not inputs.

We should be campaigning for more Traffic Police not more ignoramouses with nothing better to do that inflict their own narrow viewpoint on others.

[vonhosen]

As the law stands, if they are careful competent drivers they are qualified to have an opinion of others driving, whatever qualifications the other driver may have.

[James]

It doesnt mean anything will be followed up by the cops though.

[Gareth]

As the law stands, if they are careful competent drivers they are qualified to have an opinion of others driving, whatever qualifications the other driver may have.

But using that other statistic that 70% of drivers think they're better than average, and that these careful competent drivers are self selecting, then we've no certainty that they really are qualified to have an opinion.

Its somewhat interesting reading through the reports, as a fair number display prejudice in their comments, appearance for example.

I was amused to read a complaint about a motorway undertaker with no corresponding complaint about the middle lane hog who made it all possible.