Breaking the speed limit whilst overtaking

[brianhaddon]

Well, you and others on here may find the message simplistic and unsurprising but I can assure you that most of the many drivers I have dealt with over the years, haven't a clue about this stuff. There is a lot of other driving and safety related stuff that's not known or understood either that some on here just would not credit to the ordinary driver.

By many, I mean currently around 100 every week, sometimes more.

Perhaps we sit with drivers who are not that bad after all If divers are really that bad (and I do see some really good - or is that bad? - examples of their efforts) then should we perhaps question the process for educating and letting them loose on the road alone? In answer to jont (and I imagine in agreement with) I certainly do not think we should be dumbing down and dragging everyone to the lowest level. We should be lifting the lowest up.

Do you have an opportunity to educate these drivers that you encounter? Or are you sitting behind a desk/bench deciding (or perhaps in front of pleading for/against) their fate? And how are we bringing to these drivers all this stuff they are ignorant of?

How does education for driving trains/flying planes/sailing boats compare? And what standards do you think we should expect of drivers? As I have mentioned before there certainly seems to be a reluctant acceptance that drivers are so bad that we should just protect them from themselves. Perhaps we need a loud voice to counter that trend (the same intensity of BRAKE (sorry chaps(esses)) but in a slightly different direction)
Time now to offer your local MP for a drive in the country!!
Regards
Brian Haddon

[dth]

Well, you and others on here may find the message simplistic and unsurprising but I can assure you that most of the many drivers I have dealt with over the years, haven't a clue about this stuff. There is a lot of other driving and safety related stuff that's not known or understood either that some on here just would not credit to the ordinary driver.

By many, I mean currently around 100 every week, sometimes more.

And you think the answer is to continue to dumb down and drag everyone down to the same ever more basic level?

One person's basic level is another's 'advanced' level. At what level do you think are most drivers?

Education has to be gauged and delivered at the right level to the target audience which might not want the education in the first place because they believe it is either unnecessary or irrelevent to them.

There seems to be an asumption on here that all drivers take the same interest in their driving as they do and have something approaching their level of knowledge. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[dth]

Do you have an opportunity to educate these drivers that you encounter? Or are you sitting behind a desk/bench deciding (or perhaps in front of pleading for/against) their fate? And how are we bringing to these drivers all this stuff they are ignorant of?

Their fate/consequence is a result of their own choices. Their choices should be based on knowledge. I provide them with knowledge. Some need more than others. Most don't have enough. Some will never use the knowledge because they haven't had any negative consequences serious enough to make a change.

[brianhaddon]

Do you have an opportunity to educate these drivers that you encounter? Or are you sitting behind a desk/bench deciding (or perhaps in front of pleading for/against) their fate? And how are we bringing to these drivers all this stuff they are ignorant of?

Their fate/consequence is a result of their own choices. Their choices should be based on knowledge. I provide them with knowledge. Some need more than others. Most don't have enough. Some will never use the knowledge because they haven't had any negative consequences serious enough to make a change.

Does this worry you?
Many years ago I was sitting in a plane coming into land into Manchester airport after a long Trans-Atlantic flight. We continued our approach lower and lower then just a few hundred feet from the ground started to accelerate and climb. As we circled away the pilot came over the speakers and in a calm manner apologised to all us passengers. He explained quite cooly that air traffic control had been a bit premature as the preceding aircraft had been a tad tardy in leaving the runway ahead of us. We circled around and landed safely at the next attempt. Now imagine our response if he had shouted at air traffic or swooped down to the slower aircraft . We don't tolerate it because our lives would have been at risk. Yet we tolerate it on the road. Why don't we expect the same professional, controlled approach that the pilot displayed? You mention about drivers having choices and so thay have, and this is not a go at you, but do you think that perhaps we do not expect enough from drivers? The DSA driving test is a test of basic skills - perhaps too basic to be the one and only test?

There seems to be an asumption on here that all drivers take the same interest in their driving as they do and have something approaching their level of knowledge. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have no doubt that many people have less interest than most of us on this forum, but on the other hand regardless of their interest I would expect a certain level of behaviour and education provided to improve their knowledge.

Regards
Brian Haddon

[dth]

Does this worry you?

I don't lose sleep about it. I do what I can.

Many years ago...........etc.............. if he had shouted at air traffic or swooped down to the slower aircraft . We don't tolerate it because our lives would have been at risk. Yet we tolerate it on the road. Why don't we expect the same professional, controlled approach that the pilot displayed?

Because drivers don't perceive the risk

You mention about drivers having choices and so thay have, and this is not a go at you, but do you think that perhaps we do not expect enough from drivers? The DSA driving test is a test of basic skills - perhaps too basic to be the one and only test?

I agree!

There seems to be an asumption on here that all drivers take the same interest in their driving as they do and have something approaching their level of knowledge. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have no doubt that many people have less interest than most of us on this forum, but on the other hand regardless of their interest I would expect a certain level of behaviour and education provided to improve their knowledge.

It's available and almost always has been, if their choice is to seek it and take advantage of it.

[waremark]

What do you think of these clips? You may have seen them before but there will always be the clever-dicks who will maintain that even such exercises as these are contrived and controlled in order to come to a conclusion that fits in order to pursuade drivers to a particular behaviour. In other words, they are arrogant in their ignorance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... -rCf3ScrCA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCI8G8EEsuA

It is a modest improvement to focus on stopping distances rather than on chances of survival. However, I still find it depressing that yet again the idea is to make people obey an arbitrary speed limit, rather than to recognise situations for which safety requires them to slow down.

[waremark]

It's available and almost always has been, if their choice is to seek it and take advantage of it.

Isn't this debate about what information it would be most useful to put in front of them?

[dth]

It's available and almost always has been, if their choice is to seek it and take advantage of it.

Isn't this debate about what information it would be most useful to put in front of them?

It is! And that in turn is dependent upon the level of concentration, engagement and general interest likely to be prompted by the various forms of education that are available.

I am just reflecting on the resources that are used in the ways they are and have been for many years as opposed to alternative views that have never been acted upon. Apart from the natural reaction that we all believe we are right in what we think - at first base at least - why haven't the alternatives suggested here been taken up.....or have they and they were found to be ineffective?

[jont]

Apart from the natural reaction that we all believe we are right in what we think - at first base at least - why haven't the alternatives suggested here been taken up.....or have they and they were found to be ineffective?

Probably because governments don't like allowing people to think for themselves or take personal responsibility for their actions, engendering a culture of "nanny knows best" and abdication of personal responsibility to the powers that be - ie the "something must be done" and "think of the children" brigade. Furthermore those in power are generally only concerned with keeping themselves there, so anything out of the box, experimental or likely to take several years before any benefits are seen is of no interest because it won't help that individual get re-elected.

I'd love to see James's idea enacted where for a period of say 10 years speed limits were removed and much more spent on roads policing and more incentives for driver training. In the short term there's likely to be an increase in accidents, but longer term a higher skill base may lead to fewer accidents, reduced emissions (from people driving in a more considerate manner, thinking further ahead etc etc) and reduction in congestion. The problem is no-one would be prepared to risk the short term downside to see whether there would be any long term gain.

[crr003]

The problem is no-one would be prepared to risk the short term downside to see whether there would be any long term gain.

Not to mention the financial disincentive for councils and SAC ADIs.

[dth]

I'd love to see James's idea enacted where for a period of say 10 years speed limits were removed and much more spent on roads policing and more incentives for driver training. In the short term there's likely to be an increase in accidents, but longer term a higher skill base may lead to fewer accidents, reduced emissions (from people driving in a more considerate manner, thinking further ahead etc etc) and reduction in congestion. The problem is no-one would be prepared to risk the short term downside to see whether there would be any long term gain.

When hell freezes over, they might consider such a hair-brained scheme.

Hold on a minute..............No! I agree. Brilliant idea! I can see lots of work coming my way as a result of how the average driver will react to this idea.....Thanks! Go for it

[Custom24]

I can see lots of work coming my way as a result of how the average driver will react to this idea.....

What is exactly that you do, dth?

[MGF]

Excepting situations of incorrect judgement where a change of plan involving breaking the speed limit may be necessary, not breaking the speed limit can only have adverse consequences on safety if one chooses to overtake. Obviously, this assumes that overtaking is an elective manoeuvre.

Of course. Overtaking is not compulsory. From the subject of this thread, I presume we're taking it as a given that the driver has elected to overtake...

I would put the cause of the compromise in safety on the decision to overtake, not the requirement to comply with the speed limit.

...and so having made that choice, their next choice may be between optimising for safety or for legality during the manoeuvre.

I would put it slightly differently - that the need to choose whether to prioritise safety or legality during an overtaking manoeuvre can not come up if you don't choose to overtake.

I am somewhat confused by your use of the term "unacceptably dangerous". From an AD point of view we are expected to build in so much margin of error during an overtake that I can't imagine an examiner referring to an overtake as 'acceptably dangerous'. In other words the difference between the risk one is prepared to take during an overtake and the "optimum" risk one would aspire to achieve if circumstances are ideal, should be negligible.

Hence there should be no material benefit in breaking the speed limit. If the difference between "acceptable" and "optimum" is significant then I would question one's threshold for what level of danger is acceptable during an AD test - or indeed at all.

In other words breaking the speed limit should increase the quantity of safe overtakes available rather than making the ones that could be carried out within the limit safer in any way that is significant.

[dth]

Excepting situations of incorrect judgement where a change of plan involving breaking the speed limit may be necessary, not breaking the speed limit can only have adverse consequences on safety if one chooses to overtake. Obviously, this assumes that overtaking is an elective manoeuvre.

Of course. Overtaking is not compulsory. From the subject of this thread, I presume we're taking it as a given that the driver has elected to overtake...

I would put the cause of the compromise in safety on the decision to overtake, not the requirement to comply with the speed limit.

...and so having made that choice, their next choice may be between optimising for safety or for legality during the manoeuvre.

I would put it slightly differently - that the need to choose whether to prioritise safety or legality during an overtaking manoeuvre can not come up if you don't choose to overtake.

I am somewhat confused by your use of the term "unacceptably dangerous". From an AD point of view we are expected to build in so much margin of error during an overtake that I can't imagine an examiner referring to an overtake as 'acceptably dangerous'. In other words the difference between the risk one is prepared to take during an overtake and the "optimum" risk one would aspire to achieve if circumstances are ideal, should be negligible.

Hence there should be no material benefit in breaking the speed limit. If the difference between "acceptable" and "optimum" is significant then I would question one's threshold for what level of danger is acceptable during an AD test - or indeed at all.

In other words breaking the speed limit should increase the quantity of safe overtakes available rather than making the ones that could be carried out within the limit safer in any way that is significant.

MGF - With total respect, you perfectly make my earlier and repeated point.

In other words, when the average driver reads your post - and for many, long before the discussion reaches such a statement of opinion - most drivers will have lost the will to live and would prefer to sit at the side of the road sticking pins in their eyes.

[Gareth]

I quite like to read the various attempts at precision in written form. I especially look forward to reading posts by, in no particular order of preference, 7db, GJD and MGF.