IAM

[GJD]

Do other forum members think they risk compensate?

Do other forum members feel that their AD skills allow them to make better 'progress' than they would otherwise have done?

Would that necessarily constitute risk compensation?

I'm not sure whether I make better progress. Obviously it depends on the definition of progress. Thinking about driving on rural roads, I suspect I'm slower into and faster out of hazards, which is supposed to help progress, and also better at reading the road and so not slowing more than necessary. Overtaking slower vehicles is obviously going to help too. I identify opportunities now that I think would previously have passed me by but I also probably reject opportunities now that I might previously have taken. On balance I think I overtake more than I used to. It's difficult to know whether I get from A to B overall more quickly, which is ultimately the definition of better progress I guess. I scare myself less often though, which perhaps argues that I've not risk compensated.

However, all of that is how I think I drive. It's probably something like how I actually drive most of the time I have a fellow AD-er sat next to me. Driving on my own, if risk compensation is unconscious I guess by definition I wouldn't know if I was doing it.

[Ancient]

Compare the two:

AD techniques have made me more aware of what hazards occur where and enabled me to deal with them more safely. I have kept my journey times constant and I am able to drive with a greater margin of safety.

AD techniques have made me more aware of what hazards occur where and enabled me to deal with them more safely. This has increased my understanding of when it is best to slow down and when it is possible to speed up. Overall I am able to make better, safer smooth progress and journey times are shorter.

Neither statement is incompatible with the way AD is promoted. I suspect GJD feels to be somewhere between the two (unsure if journey times are different or not). Many posters here would be tending towards the second; sometimes so far towards the second that speed limits are seen as an unnecessary restriction (for them).

Remember that the fact you may be risk compensating does not mean you are wrong, unintelligent, a poor driver (not does it mean you are right, intelligent and an excellent driver). IIRC risk compensation was first observed / suggested to explain why safety systems in fighter jets were not reducing incidents. I would suggest there are few more advanced drivers than those chaps!

[GJD]

Compare the two:

AD techniques have made me more aware of what hazards occur where and enabled me to deal with them more safely. I have kept my journey times constant and I am able to drive with a greater margin of safety.

AD techniques have made me more aware of what hazards occur where and enabled me to deal with them more safely. This has increased my understanding of when it is best to slow down and when it is possible to speed up. Overall I am able to make better, safer smooth progress and journey times are shorter.

Neither statement is incompatible with the way AD is promoted. I suspect GJD feels to be somewhere between the two (unsure if journey times are different or not).

I'm not sure where I'd sit with respect to those two statements. I know I mentioned journey time and while I think it probably is, ultimately, the measure of better progress, it's not something I think about. I don't think about my driving and the way it's changed in terms of journey time. I think I'd simply say:

AD techniques have given me more to enjoy in driving.

No idea what that says about my risk compensation .

[waremark]

I have had the privilege of driving many superb cars without these systems - cars such as GT3, Caterham, Noble and TVR come to mind. I don't think I drove them notably more cautiously in similar circumstances than I would have driven my current nanny equipped machine

It's an interesting question. I think a related question exposes underlying attitudes; if you are able to disable these systems when driving powerful cars do you?

No. You and I have discussed this before. I invariably leave them on on the road - including on E39 BMW M5's, a model of car with a relatively early anti-skid system in which you have said you find the system intrusive. However, my M3 offers the choice of an intermediate setting - M Dynamic Mode - which I use for a brisk drive, and in which I do not generally experience any interference from the system. But I did manage to spin the car at Bruntingthorpe with this mode engaged, so you have to accept that less interference means less protection!

[ScoobyChris]

So does it really make a difference on a modestly powered hatchback, equipped with modern safety systems? Personally, one son having had a one series and the other currently having an A3, I would say it does - but not a lot.

Imho, it does make a difference and you don't need to push it to the point where the safety systems kick in to notice (although if you do it's very obvious and easy to step beyond them). An absence of torque steer when pulling away briskly and better steering feel are two things that spring to mind in terms of the differences. Although I didn't buy it solely because it was RWD - I bought it (imho) because it was the best car to drive in its class with the bonus that it had an adequate amount of power and good economy, equipment, space, running costs and reliability.

The other cars I looked at felt quite numb in comparison with the Focus coming closest to the BMW in terms of driving enjoyment but with a poor choice of powerful diesel engines.

Any, back to arguing about the IAM....

Chris

[TripleS]

Do other forum members think they risk compensate?

Do other forum members feel that their AD skills allow them to make better 'progress' than they would otherwise have done?

Does "better" mean more, i.e. you get there faster; or does it mean in a better style, e.g. safer and more smoothly etc.? Maybe it's a combination of the two.

BWA,
D.

[Ancient]

Do other forum members think they risk compensate?

Do other forum members feel that their AD skills allow them to make better 'progress' than they would otherwise have done?

Does "better" mean more, i.e. you get there faster; or does it mean in a better style, e.g. safer and more smoothly etc.? Maybe it's a combination of the two.

BWA,
D.

It means different things to different people; but to some, from the context it is used it definitely means faster. Given that the IAM derives its system from Police driving which was designed to allow them to maintain control whilst driving faster, it should. As I have said, risk compensation is not necessarily bad - if risk homeostasis is the desired outcome and the actual change in risk is known.

Anyway, some people want to return to arguing about the IAM!

[dth]

and you don't get their disgusting newsletter intruding on your life.

I insisted , a few years ago, that RoSPA stopped sending me that.
Re. IAM, I gave up my membership many years ago: I wasn't happy with the fact that I'd passed the test in 1970, yet, as long as I paid, I could remain a member without any requirement to demonstrate my continued competence.

Retests are available!

[WhoseGeneration]

Do other forum members think they risk compensate?

Do other forum members feel that their AD skills allow them to make better 'progress' than they would otherwise have done?

No, safer progress, whatever the speed.
That's just me though, pre and post AD.
<sigh> Of course, others following just can't understand the slowing and positioning before unsighted junctions and suchlike.

[Ancient]

I pased my test in a 1959 MGA: I was always aware of the solid metal spike aimed at my chest. I drive a 16-year old 4wd on occasion, otherwise a relatively modern car (Prius). All have different safety characteristics, I would (do) approach any given bend differently in each. Risk compensation? Yes. Driving with an awareness of the handling of the vehicle? Yes.

[GJD]

I pased my test in a 1959 MGA: I was always aware of the solid metal spike aimed at my chest. I drive a 16-year old 4wd on occasion, otherwise a relatively modern car (Prius). All have different safety characteristics, I would (do) approach any given bend differently in each. Risk compensation? Yes. Driving with an awareness of the handling of the vehicle? Yes.

Risk compensation it may be, but if you are aware that you approach a bend differently then is it conscious rather than unconscious risk compensation?

[Ancient]

Indeed, although I am 'aware of' the difference rather than repeatedly and consciously thinking 'I am in this vehicle and must do x'; my point being that we can be aware that we are compensating for the risk differences and (provided our estimates of the changes in risk are correct - a large question indeed!) this may all be good. I wonder though how much risk compensation I involuntarily make and whether my unconscious assessments are equally valid.

[michael769]

Back to the subject of the relative attitudes of the IAM and RoSPA this article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-19661485

is quite telling.

I know which one represents my views.....

[hir]

Excellent; three cheers for Neil Greig. Possibly the most sensible comments ever to come out of Chiswick!

As for ROSPA, words fail me. But, Kathleen Braidwood, road safety officer for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents Scotland, is probably giving ROSPA's view on the matter not RoADAR's. However, I'm not aware that RoADAR has got a view about anything.

[michael769]

Excellent; three cheers for Neil Greig. Possibly the most sensible comments ever to come out of Chiswick!

As for ROSPA, words fail me. But, Kathleen Braidwood, road safety officer for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents Scotland, is probably giving ROSPA's view on the matter not RoADAR's. However, I'm not aware that RoADAR has got a view about anything.

Based on past experience of her "road safety" pronouncements Ms Braidwood seems to be a dyed in the wool subscriber to BRAKE's mentality - I'd be surprised if she even knew RoADAR exists! She makes Kevin Clinton sound like the motorists friend.

Neil is currently based in Scotland and I believe acts as the IAM Scottish spokesperson. Incidentally he is also a board member of the Scottish Safety Camera Programme Advisory Board, which makes his position even more telling.