IAM masters/RoSPA gold?

[Horse]

Sadly - you can't remove all mistakes, humans are fallible!

Indeed. Sadly, people are often too optimistic and choose (whether consciously or not) to ignore some potential outcomes. That, with minimal or zero safety margins, can lead to tragedy.

There's a move in 'safety' circles, to consider where people can make mistakes and remove the 'option'. Simply, if you don't have the option to make a mistake, then you won't. Not easy to apply to what we're talking of here!

https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/defau ... 13-web.pdf

http://jalopnik.com/5865117/how-the-wor ... h-happened

[RobC]

Do any drivers, excepting a few who are truly suicidal, deliberately make choices which they know make result in death or serious injury? Surely most make decisions they - rightly or wrongly - think they'll get away with . . .

I think that they frequently make those decisions deliberately - but the disconnect lies in not accepting / seeing / understanding the link between those decisions and the likely consequences...

OK, so when even 'advanced' drivers can make mistakes, how can that be changed?

Firstly by taking responsibility for their driving mistakes and accepting that they can improve. It is quite common for drivers to be involved in collisions in which they were totally blameless in their opinion. We all make mistakes but many people have an over favourable opinion of their own driving, even some of the ex police drivers who's driving I assess on a daily basis.

Secondly by keeping driving skills current by regular reassessment and training where needed. I earlier mentioned someone I know who passed his IAM in the 1970's and has been an advanced driver ever since with the certificate to prove it. This is despite his less than perfect driving record and the fact he hasn't done any refresher or reassessment since the 1970's

[Horse]

Firstly by taking responsibility for their driving mistakes and accepting that they can improve.

Serious Q: how can those two areas be improved in the general driving population?

[jont]

Firstly by taking responsibility for their driving mistakes and accepting that they can improve.

Serious Q: how can those two areas be improved in the general driving population?

By reducing the driving population only the very few.

see mefoster's comments too. There's no way of making the population at large take an interest, so the logical solution is to get the vast majority of motorists off the roads. Then you've only got the problem of policing the unlicensed drivers

[Horse]

They can be anything they want to be . . .

No no NO NOOOOO you can't :twisted:

However hard I might have wanted to*, I would never have been an Olympic athlete etc.

* I didn't BTW

And as for Mr Cameron's 'aspirational society'. Pah! Has he never heard of supply and demand? If everyone aspires to living in a house 3 sizes bigger than they can otherwise expect, the price'll go up and they'll still not get it. We could all aspire to anything - but cold hard realism so that, by and large, the same %age will get it as would have done before . . .

I could just be a cynical old bastard.

Make room in the line . . .

[akirk]

Sadly - you can't remove all mistakes, humans are fallible!

Indeed. Sadly, people are often too optimistic and choose (whether consciously or not) to ignore some potential outcomes. That, with minimal or zero safety margins, can lead to tragedy.

There's a move in 'safety' circles, to consider where people can make mistakes and remove the 'option'. Simply, if you don't have the option to make a mistake, then you won't. Not easy to apply to what we're talking of here!

https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/defau ... 13-web.pdf

http://jalopnik.com/5865117/how-the-wor ... h-happened

we have to be careful as that is a very dangerous line to take if taken to its logical extreme - which is to not allow humans any choice at all!

freedom of choice is a highlight of democracy, and choice by its nature means that you might make the wrong choice - we will never remove bad choices / accidents / etc.

Alasdair

[RobC]

Firstly by taking responsibility for their driving mistakes and accepting that they can improve.
Secondly by keeping driving skills current by regular reassessment and training where needed

Serious Q: how can those two areas be improved in the general driving population?

That's a whole different topic, we could be here a while

There are a high percentage of company vehicles on the road and fleet driver training is a requirement for companies with 5 or more vehicles. Drivers involved in collisions could find themselves on a driver improvement or speed awareness course. http://www.driver-improvement.co.uk/

Bringing things back on topic, to keep skills current, advanced drivers could have their driving retested as Rospa currently do. Drivers who have never had their driving reassessed or any training since passing their test could join the IAM or Rospa. Legislation could be changed though It is unlikely that reassessment for FLH is ever going to be made a requirement. Drivers can still drive the whole of their driving career without any reassessment or training the whole of their driving career, even self certificating that they are fit to drive every 3 years when reaching 70 years.

[Carbon Based]

Everything these days is someone else's fault...

How about if this was brought into the standard test:
"if you are involved in an accident while stationary it is probably your fault, while moving it is definitely your fault"

[Silk]

Everything these days is someone else's fault...

How about if this was brought into the standard test:
"if you are involved in an accident while stationary it is probably your fault, while moving it is definitely your fault"

Does the entire legal system collapse if two moving vehicles collide?

The insurance companies make a deal (in many cases it's the same insurance company) and reclaim as much back as they can by loading the insurance of all parties - a bit like splitting the bill at a restaurant. I've never heard of a road collision resulting in a court case in the absence of a traffic offence. Backs are scratched and arms are twisted.

[MGF]

The problem isn't the legal system so much as the way in which insurers settle claims. If all insurance claims were decided by a court, few would result in 100% liability.

[Carbon Based]

Does the entire legal system collapse if two moving vehicles collide?

Legal system? Check out CERN's reaction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JYkMhQ9gf8

[MGF]

...

we have to be careful as that is a very dangerous line to take if taken to its logical extreme - which is to not allow humans any choice at all!

Not necessarily undesirable with respect to using the transport network. Unless you enjoy driving for driving's sake.

Driving as an expression of liberty is a notion that was lost decades ago.

Now I was never a fan of the senile warmongering old bastard, but this seems appropriate:

Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.

Not so appropriate so long as we share the roads with others.

[akirk]

...

we have to be careful as that is a very dangerous line to take if taken to its logical extreme - which is to not allow humans any choice at all!

Not necessarily undesirable with respect to using the transport network. Unless you enjoy driving for driving's sake.

Driving as an expression of liberty is a notion that was lost decades ago.

Now I was never a fan of the senile warmongering old bastard, but this seems appropriate:

Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.

Not so appropriate so long as we share the roads with others.

I think it is exactly right - if we share the roads with others and our actions affect others then it is fair for government to legislate - where we choose to do something that doesn't affect others then it is not the government's business - that is Orwellian

Alasdair

[Carbon Based]

What if Chuck Norris was driving one of the cars?

Chuck Norris would be driving both of the cars, and it would still be your fault.

[Carbon Based]

...if we share the roads with others and our actions affect others then it is fair for government to legislate...

But isn't this back to the get out clause of "something" is always better than nothing? Legislating is criminalising a past act. Educating is preventing a reoccurrence.