Paul Smith wrote:
>> Bingo. And the answer to that is to introduce training and retesting for any banned driver, to
>> bring in short bans for everyday acts of crass stupidity, and to apply this to anyone caught
>> hammering the brakes in front of a Gatso, because they are demonstrating contempt for both the
>> law and the safety of others.
> Nah, not the banned. The accident causers. (I'll give you the banned, but only if we can train and
> test the accident causers first.)
Fits within my proposed model. Anybody found to have caused an accident through driving without due
care is put through the automatic ban procedure. Seven day ban for a minor act of stupidity
resulting in a crash - and much more serious consequences, as now, for leaving the scene.
>> The camera is not the problem, inappropriate driver behaviour is the problem. And we won't see a
>> significant shift in that until many more drivers are much better skilled - starting with the
>> ones who get caught.
> Starting with the ones who crash. (But yes... we're close)
Including the ones who crash.
> I sincerely believe people are dying for nothing as a result of speed cameras and the policies
> which support them. It isn't emotive drivel. It's my motivation.
So you keep saying, but as you yourself admit you have absolutely no substantive proof. I, on the
other hand, sincerely believe that a speed camera cannot in and of itself cause a crash. An unsafe
driver reacting inappropiately to a speed camera can cause a crash, just as they can cause a crash
by hammering the brakes as they realise that the car at the front of the line at 69mph in lane 1 has
stripes on the side, but that's not the fault of the enforcement mechanism, its the fault of a bad
driver. And if they cause a crash by doing it, guess what? Driving without due care, automatic ban
of a length decided by the courts (could be a few days) and retraining and retest. Bad driver has
skills increased. A good road safety outcome from a bad situation of the bad driver's own making.
> You're right, I can't prove it, but the evidence is increasing fast.
There is not evidence. Research evidence which focuses on the cameras themselves is so contradictory
as to be worthless in any direction, and the statistical "evidence" is pure supposition and based
thus far on preconceptions not scientific method.
> I'm approaching the thing from the level of policy, and from there bad drivers are a fact you have
> to live with. You can't wish them away.
You can wish them away, y'know. Or rather, you can train / test / ban them away.
> You have to make a plan which will change them. But the effect of present strategy is to
> manufacture them.
Rot. Right through my life I have seen a succession of Government initiatives with more or less the
same message. The Government has never seriously tackled driver skills, and has always targeted
speeding. Nobody in power has the guts to tell people the bald truth, which is that aggressive and
impatient driving is selfish, dangerous and stupid.
And even if they did, at the moment the cretinous ones would simply assume that this was aimed at
the average or below average skill driver, and 85% of them think they are above average. Which is
statistically highly improbable. You have disputed that, and you are welcome to your view, but
variables within populations tend to be distributed in broadly consistent ways (not for nothing is
it called a "normal" curve) and any curve which accurately puts 85% of a randomly distributed
population above the mean level is highly *abnormal*. To say nothing of all the other research on
the same subject which comes up with the same answer. I found four surveys on one page of one paper
giving consistently similar results. Most drivers rate their own skills higher than those of most
other drivers.
And I know that you don't believe that this widespread overconfidence is dangerous, but I think it
is. They are driving under the influence of Jeremy Clarkson, and it has got to stop.
>> Looks a lot like excusing based on your output here and on the website.
> If you can see anything on the web site that appears to excuse bad driving, I'd be very pleased to
> correct it.
The whole page on "reasons" why speed cameras kill does precisely that. Instead of pointing out
that a driver who brakes sharply for a camera is a dangerous driver, for example, you appear to
blame the camera.
> So you agree that the best possible priorities in drivers will lead to the lowest accident rate?
I think the most important change in priorities is away from "self" - once that is achieved
everything else is a given. Selfish driving is bad driving, and bad driving is almost always
selfish driving.
> <shrug> Kindly snip carefully.
I do. I snip that which has been discussed at length. Like I say, if you want to discuss something
which you think important and I don't, you can do it is a less insulting manner or you can join
Duhg. I'm sure you have lots to talk about.
> Good. It's a rather crumbly cliff edge. But there are also dangers if you stray too far away from
> it. A constant balancing act.
Disagree strongly. There are no dangers if you do not stray from good practice. Driving at 3mph is
still right at the cliff edge because you are failing to take account of other road users. Driving
at 30mph in a 30 zone (or at 26mph, or whatever) is not close to the cliff edge because it's correct
practice. Anyone who doesn't expect people to be driving within the speed limit and drive
accordingly is a dangerous driver and should be taken away, retrained and retested.
> Sticking to the speed limit is fine. I've got no problem with that. It helps if the limits are
> sensible.
A denate which is sadly hampered by the anti-Gatso brigade. Any debate on speed limits falls at the
first hurdle: much evidence shows that people will merely exceed the new, higher limit by the same
margin. I have also seen trials where increasing the limit reduced the average speed, but these are
rare and old. Right now the problem is that most drivers understand that speeding past their own
fornt door is antisocial, but fail to recognise that their own speeding past someone else's front
door is equally antisocial. You have no doubt seen the research which shows that drivers drive
slower withn 1/2 mile of home than on similar roads which are further away.
> But putting numerical speed near the top of a driver's priority list brings significant new
> dangers. Up until about 1990 we had it just about perfect. Now things have become dangerously
> distorted.
Until 1990 we did not have it anything like perfect. Thousands were killed and tens of thousands
seriously injured every year. And your much-hyped decline in the rate of reduction of injuries
caused by cameras started in about 1960.
>> Here's one reason: if you are trying to go as fast as you can, you are constantly frustrated by
>> the car in front.
> Attitude. Other vehicles don't frustrate me.
Or me, because i drive sedately these days, but they sure as hell frustrate most drivers - just ask
any cyclist (he said striving manfully to introduce some on-topic content).
> I don't find driving in the least stressful. I think it's attitude.
The BMA finds that most drivers do. And yes, it is an attitude. And that's the first thing to change
- get rid of the selfishness and aggression.
--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
