http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/driven-to-destruction/2006/04/21/1145344279921.html?page=fullpage
CC
CC
Food for Thought - Well Worth Reading
- Thread starter cogcontrol
- Start date
Long form for those with limited access. This is definitely required reading.
Driven to destruction
http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...n/2006/04/21/1145344279921.html?page=fullpage
Car design and road conditions are not the main causes of traffic deaths and horrific injuries. It is our thinking that needs to change, writes Roger Rees.
There is a game traditionally played in Afghanistan called buz kashi, which comes from the type of competitive riding the Mongols went in for. On a great occasion some 300 men from different tribes would turn up to compete. The players in the war game of buz kashi do not form teams. In buz kashi the players ride with cold, often brutal, but brilliant intensity.
They are not absorbed in playing, they are absorbed in winning. Winning means to ride towards, ****** up and carry the 30-kilogram carcass of a headless calf to a prescribed circle, defending it against all challengers. This is not a sporting event, there is nothing in the rules about fair play. The game is won by achieving this single goal.
There are two fundamental differences between buz kashi and driving on Australian roads. First, driving on Australian roads is infinitely more dangerous than the game of buz kashi. Secondly, there is much preparation for buz kashi, as the riders and horses have trained carefully for the event. The discipline required and strategies for anticipation and manoeuvre have been handed down since the time of the Mongol dynasty of Genghis Khan, beginning in the 13th century.
In contrast there is next to no preparation for driving a motor car. "Ninety people killed on Australian roads in the week since Christmas". So read the headline, repeated in different form in every Australian newspaper over the Christmas/ New Year period. Since then it has only got worse. Six dead in Mildura. Five dead in northern Tasmania. Another 21 killed nationally over the Easter break last weekend. Untold pain.
But these very public tragedies account for only a small fraction of the real road toll. Multiply the roughly 1750 people killed on Australian roads each year by four and you begin to get close to the number of people who experience disabling brain injury. Each year 30,000 people end up at Australian hospitals with some form of brain injury, most from road accidents. The injuries range from minimal to profound.
The large majority recover, but some 8000 experience disabling effects for many years, and 2500 people each year are so seriously disabled that they are dependent for the rest of their lives. This group never work again, even though most are in the prime of their lives and should normally expect another 30 to 40 years of productive employment. At the end of each decade the population of people who have suffered severe permanent brain injury, largely as a result of road accidents, is equivalent to a country town the size of Mildura.
The mean age of this group of brain injured people is about 28, with a a ratio of 3.5 males for every female. The blame is all too easy to spread around. The "appalling" state of Australian roads is one popular theme. South Australia's Royal Automobile Association attributes that state's high accident rate to inadequate State Government spending on roads. A recent survey of Queensland drivers carried out by the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland likewise nominated improved road conditions as the best way to reduce the toll.
Some espouse airbags as the solution, despite evidence that even in head-on smashes airbags are of limited use. Professor Jack McLean of the Centre for Accident Safety Research at Adelaide University says the fitting of air bags represents a marginal safety benefit of "between 5 per cent and 15 per cent depending on the type of collision". (Wearing seatbelts, mandatory since 1970, reduces injuries by 45 per cent, he says.) Others cling to the belief that the statistics can be turned around with better vehicle design.
A Queensland government road safety summit in February targeted improved vehicle technology as the way forward and began with a commitment to introduce alcohol ignition locks in cars owned by repeat drink-drivers. It is true, of course, that design matters, and that manufacturers need to think not only of a car's occupants but also other road users. Four-wheel-drive vehicles are a case in point. They may be tougher, capable of moving on ever steeper inclines, protected by their huge alloy bumper bars. But are they really safer for the driver or the pedestrian?
At higher speeds or on wet roads they are less stable than the conventional sedan, and, because of their height above the road, drivers are less likely to notice pedestrians. (Motor bikes, of course, are in a category of their own. If you ride motor bikes, you are 16 times more likely to have an accident than if you drive a sedan.) Overall, however, there is nothing wrong with the modern car. Nor is there anything very wrong with our roads. Despite the criticisms, we have relatively safe roads that are continually being improved. Rather, it is the lack of preparation for the journey and the aggressive, irrational, often non-thinking behaviour that all too often characterises the driver.
Put simply, our road toll is high because we are not using our brains. And the main casualty in these accidents is, paradoxically, that most powerful and delicate of human mechanisms, the brain. This lack of clear thinking manifests on an individual level and a broader social level. Underlying our road toll is a general mindset that says that these casualties, or at least a good proportion of them, are an inevitable part of modern life — the price we have to pay.
What would happen if more than 100 Australian soldiers were brought home each month in body bags from Iraq? There would be a public outcry and the Government would inevitably withdraw our troops. Maybe some more vivid details from accident reports should appear in the media to help us be more aware of this madness.
Something like this: "The metal of the station wagon smashed into the driver as he was hurled into the windscreen. The tendons in his right hand and foot were severed and his left arm, his face and belly were gouged. Chunks of muscle were ripped from his right hip and thigh, and blood from his broken nose and smashed face covered the air bag."
I suspect that even this, with accompanying photographs, would have little effect because people watch this carnage nightly on television or DVDs as part of regular entertainment. The more horrific the movie the better the ratings. Is this insanity? We pride ourselves on being a scientific society; that means a society in which knowledge and its integrity are crucial. This involves behaving appropriately and therefore safely.
Yes, the human brain is an instrument for action, but before action it has to be an instrument for preparation. The effective organisation of such behaviour is lodged in the frontal and prefrontal lobes of our brains (the areas most susceptible to damage in road accidents when soft tissue is bounced around inside the hard confines of the skull). These lobes enable us to think of future actions, make plans and wait for a reward for them. One reward is arriving home safely because we have thought through journeys in advance.
Sociologists call this the "postponement of gratification". Yet, the urgency so often involved in driving, the need to overtake even in hazardous situations, the thrill of high speed — central to car advertising — are all examples of immediate gratification. Impulsiveness and aggression are a principal, yet rarely identified, cause of almost all accidents. Their roots lie within the individual and society.
On the one hand there is the person's state of mind, and on the other the environmental stimuli — aggressive advertising, the easy availability and social acceptance of alcohol or drugs, and ultimately a culture that does not stress careful preparation for the journey. Given that road travel is a central part of our culture — and that learning to drive is a priority for most teenagers — there needs to be long preparation for this daily, high risk activity.
Take the test and obtain the P plates: this is hardly the long and sustained preparation required for the war game of driving on Australian roads. Instead we need to approach a trip to the shops with the same single mindedness as needed for a game of buz kashi. The goal though, instead of victory over our fellow drivers, is to arrive safely. This involves a radical rethink in the way we teach our young people to drive.
It is not enough that they simply learn the basic physical and technical skills needed to direct and control their vehicles; they must be taught how to think. Firstly young drivers (and many older ones) need to understand that their feelings are created internally as a result of their own ideas and thoughts — the language they use to talk to themselves. They need to understand that when they are tense, anxious, angry or just tired these feelings generally result in poor judgement and often impulsive and risky driving.
When the self talk is negative and aggressive — "Get off the f--king road, you halfwit," or even "Do you think I've got time to wait for you!" — then the person's perception is distorted. For them, other drivers become enemies. The risk of fines shrinks to a mere pinprick of annoyance. Then he or she unthinkingly believes they can overtake on a bend in the face of oncoming traffic, or far exceed the speed limit on a gravel-edged country road. When this happens, the correspondence between perception and response breaks down and aggression becomes maladaptive, violent and dangerous.
For drivers, the cost of such extreme language and behaviour — severe brain injury and death for themselves or others — far outweighs any short-term benefits. Each week I observe the disabling and tragic damage to young lives. On just one 20-kilometre stretch of the Victor Harbor road south of Adelaide four deaths and 20 serious injuries occurred on average each year from 2000 to 2005.
Exceeding the speed limit, impatient and intolerant behaviour were the major causes. New drivers also need to know that they, and they alone, can learn to control their own thoughts, and to translate this into constructive driving behaviours. There are a couple of simple techniques that if practised can become as automatic as putting on a seatbelt.
The first it to visualise the trip ahead — a brief mind map of the route you will follow — and to imagine arriving safely. The second is to repeat to yourself a phrase — a mantra if you like — that will help put you in the right frame of mind for the journey. In my work with young people with brain injury, I sometimes have them read from the late Judith Wright's poem Homecoming: "Spring and the road is plushed with tender dust. The house waits near and is expecting him/" How much harder, with your mind filled with language such as this, to see the world as your enemy.
A simple piece of research could demonstrate the benefits. Let us suppose that 100 people in the high risk 16-26 age group are given training on co-operative driving. The training might involve videos, lectures and demonstrations, as well as role playing, anger management, problem solving and practice. The program would focus on developing each person's self-awareness, imagination, conscience and feelings in relation to themselves and other road users.
At the end of this brief period of training, we would choose, at random, another 100 young people within the same high-risk group who had not received any such training. Then, over time, we would compare their lives and their experiences of road accidents, assault and high-risk behaviours such as binge drinking and drug taking. We could call this project "A week of gentleness in the life of Australia". My hypothesis is that the trained group would experience significantly fewer accidents and traumas than the untrained group.
The opportunity to drastically reduce the death and maiming on Australian roads teeters in the balance. But it can only happen if we are prepared to change our thinking, language and behaviour. There will always be a sense of uncertainty, but we cannot maintain an informed integrity if, given our current knowledge, we allow the situation to continue — a situation in which we are driven by a ragbag of aggressive, irrational behaviours.
Ask anyone with severe, permanently disabling brain injury whether a change in thinking might have altered their lives.
Roger Rees is Emeritus Professor Disability Studies, School of Medicine, Flinders University. His latest book is Interrupted Lives: Rehabilitation and Learning Following Brain Injury , Melbourne IP Communications.
Driven to destruction
http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...n/2006/04/21/1145344279921.html?page=fullpage
Car design and road conditions are not the main causes of traffic deaths and horrific injuries. It is our thinking that needs to change, writes Roger Rees.
There is a game traditionally played in Afghanistan called buz kashi, which comes from the type of competitive riding the Mongols went in for. On a great occasion some 300 men from different tribes would turn up to compete. The players in the war game of buz kashi do not form teams. In buz kashi the players ride with cold, often brutal, but brilliant intensity.
They are not absorbed in playing, they are absorbed in winning. Winning means to ride towards, ****** up and carry the 30-kilogram carcass of a headless calf to a prescribed circle, defending it against all challengers. This is not a sporting event, there is nothing in the rules about fair play. The game is won by achieving this single goal.
There are two fundamental differences between buz kashi and driving on Australian roads. First, driving on Australian roads is infinitely more dangerous than the game of buz kashi. Secondly, there is much preparation for buz kashi, as the riders and horses have trained carefully for the event. The discipline required and strategies for anticipation and manoeuvre have been handed down since the time of the Mongol dynasty of Genghis Khan, beginning in the 13th century.
In contrast there is next to no preparation for driving a motor car. "Ninety people killed on Australian roads in the week since Christmas". So read the headline, repeated in different form in every Australian newspaper over the Christmas/ New Year period. Since then it has only got worse. Six dead in Mildura. Five dead in northern Tasmania. Another 21 killed nationally over the Easter break last weekend. Untold pain.
But these very public tragedies account for only a small fraction of the real road toll. Multiply the roughly 1750 people killed on Australian roads each year by four and you begin to get close to the number of people who experience disabling brain injury. Each year 30,000 people end up at Australian hospitals with some form of brain injury, most from road accidents. The injuries range from minimal to profound.
The large majority recover, but some 8000 experience disabling effects for many years, and 2500 people each year are so seriously disabled that they are dependent for the rest of their lives. This group never work again, even though most are in the prime of their lives and should normally expect another 30 to 40 years of productive employment. At the end of each decade the population of people who have suffered severe permanent brain injury, largely as a result of road accidents, is equivalent to a country town the size of Mildura.
The mean age of this group of brain injured people is about 28, with a a ratio of 3.5 males for every female. The blame is all too easy to spread around. The "appalling" state of Australian roads is one popular theme. South Australia's Royal Automobile Association attributes that state's high accident rate to inadequate State Government spending on roads. A recent survey of Queensland drivers carried out by the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland likewise nominated improved road conditions as the best way to reduce the toll.
Some espouse airbags as the solution, despite evidence that even in head-on smashes airbags are of limited use. Professor Jack McLean of the Centre for Accident Safety Research at Adelaide University says the fitting of air bags represents a marginal safety benefit of "between 5 per cent and 15 per cent depending on the type of collision". (Wearing seatbelts, mandatory since 1970, reduces injuries by 45 per cent, he says.) Others cling to the belief that the statistics can be turned around with better vehicle design.
A Queensland government road safety summit in February targeted improved vehicle technology as the way forward and began with a commitment to introduce alcohol ignition locks in cars owned by repeat drink-drivers. It is true, of course, that design matters, and that manufacturers need to think not only of a car's occupants but also other road users. Four-wheel-drive vehicles are a case in point. They may be tougher, capable of moving on ever steeper inclines, protected by their huge alloy bumper bars. But are they really safer for the driver or the pedestrian?
At higher speeds or on wet roads they are less stable than the conventional sedan, and, because of their height above the road, drivers are less likely to notice pedestrians. (Motor bikes, of course, are in a category of their own. If you ride motor bikes, you are 16 times more likely to have an accident than if you drive a sedan.) Overall, however, there is nothing wrong with the modern car. Nor is there anything very wrong with our roads. Despite the criticisms, we have relatively safe roads that are continually being improved. Rather, it is the lack of preparation for the journey and the aggressive, irrational, often non-thinking behaviour that all too often characterises the driver.
Put simply, our road toll is high because we are not using our brains. And the main casualty in these accidents is, paradoxically, that most powerful and delicate of human mechanisms, the brain. This lack of clear thinking manifests on an individual level and a broader social level. Underlying our road toll is a general mindset that says that these casualties, or at least a good proportion of them, are an inevitable part of modern life — the price we have to pay.
What would happen if more than 100 Australian soldiers were brought home each month in body bags from Iraq? There would be a public outcry and the Government would inevitably withdraw our troops. Maybe some more vivid details from accident reports should appear in the media to help us be more aware of this madness.
Something like this: "The metal of the station wagon smashed into the driver as he was hurled into the windscreen. The tendons in his right hand and foot were severed and his left arm, his face and belly were gouged. Chunks of muscle were ripped from his right hip and thigh, and blood from his broken nose and smashed face covered the air bag."
I suspect that even this, with accompanying photographs, would have little effect because people watch this carnage nightly on television or DVDs as part of regular entertainment. The more horrific the movie the better the ratings. Is this insanity? We pride ourselves on being a scientific society; that means a society in which knowledge and its integrity are crucial. This involves behaving appropriately and therefore safely.
Yes, the human brain is an instrument for action, but before action it has to be an instrument for preparation. The effective organisation of such behaviour is lodged in the frontal and prefrontal lobes of our brains (the areas most susceptible to damage in road accidents when soft tissue is bounced around inside the hard confines of the skull). These lobes enable us to think of future actions, make plans and wait for a reward for them. One reward is arriving home safely because we have thought through journeys in advance.
Sociologists call this the "postponement of gratification". Yet, the urgency so often involved in driving, the need to overtake even in hazardous situations, the thrill of high speed — central to car advertising — are all examples of immediate gratification. Impulsiveness and aggression are a principal, yet rarely identified, cause of almost all accidents. Their roots lie within the individual and society.
On the one hand there is the person's state of mind, and on the other the environmental stimuli — aggressive advertising, the easy availability and social acceptance of alcohol or drugs, and ultimately a culture that does not stress careful preparation for the journey. Given that road travel is a central part of our culture — and that learning to drive is a priority for most teenagers — there needs to be long preparation for this daily, high risk activity.
Take the test and obtain the P plates: this is hardly the long and sustained preparation required for the war game of driving on Australian roads. Instead we need to approach a trip to the shops with the same single mindedness as needed for a game of buz kashi. The goal though, instead of victory over our fellow drivers, is to arrive safely. This involves a radical rethink in the way we teach our young people to drive.
It is not enough that they simply learn the basic physical and technical skills needed to direct and control their vehicles; they must be taught how to think. Firstly young drivers (and many older ones) need to understand that their feelings are created internally as a result of their own ideas and thoughts — the language they use to talk to themselves. They need to understand that when they are tense, anxious, angry or just tired these feelings generally result in poor judgement and often impulsive and risky driving.
When the self talk is negative and aggressive — "Get off the f--king road, you halfwit," or even "Do you think I've got time to wait for you!" — then the person's perception is distorted. For them, other drivers become enemies. The risk of fines shrinks to a mere pinprick of annoyance. Then he or she unthinkingly believes they can overtake on a bend in the face of oncoming traffic, or far exceed the speed limit on a gravel-edged country road. When this happens, the correspondence between perception and response breaks down and aggression becomes maladaptive, violent and dangerous.
For drivers, the cost of such extreme language and behaviour — severe brain injury and death for themselves or others — far outweighs any short-term benefits. Each week I observe the disabling and tragic damage to young lives. On just one 20-kilometre stretch of the Victor Harbor road south of Adelaide four deaths and 20 serious injuries occurred on average each year from 2000 to 2005.
Exceeding the speed limit, impatient and intolerant behaviour were the major causes. New drivers also need to know that they, and they alone, can learn to control their own thoughts, and to translate this into constructive driving behaviours. There are a couple of simple techniques that if practised can become as automatic as putting on a seatbelt.
The first it to visualise the trip ahead — a brief mind map of the route you will follow — and to imagine arriving safely. The second is to repeat to yourself a phrase — a mantra if you like — that will help put you in the right frame of mind for the journey. In my work with young people with brain injury, I sometimes have them read from the late Judith Wright's poem Homecoming: "Spring and the road is plushed with tender dust. The house waits near and is expecting him/" How much harder, with your mind filled with language such as this, to see the world as your enemy.
A simple piece of research could demonstrate the benefits. Let us suppose that 100 people in the high risk 16-26 age group are given training on co-operative driving. The training might involve videos, lectures and demonstrations, as well as role playing, anger management, problem solving and practice. The program would focus on developing each person's self-awareness, imagination, conscience and feelings in relation to themselves and other road users.
At the end of this brief period of training, we would choose, at random, another 100 young people within the same high-risk group who had not received any such training. Then, over time, we would compare their lives and their experiences of road accidents, assault and high-risk behaviours such as binge drinking and drug taking. We could call this project "A week of gentleness in the life of Australia". My hypothesis is that the trained group would experience significantly fewer accidents and traumas than the untrained group.
The opportunity to drastically reduce the death and maiming on Australian roads teeters in the balance. But it can only happen if we are prepared to change our thinking, language and behaviour. There will always be a sense of uncertainty, but we cannot maintain an informed integrity if, given our current knowledge, we allow the situation to continue — a situation in which we are driven by a ragbag of aggressive, irrational behaviours.
Ask anyone with severe, permanently disabling brain injury whether a change in thinking might have altered their lives.
Roger Rees is Emeritus Professor Disability Studies, School of Medicine, Flinders University. His latest book is Interrupted Lives: Rehabilitation and Learning Following Brain Injury , Melbourne IP Communications.
T
Tamyka Bell
Guest
cfsmtb wrote:
>
> Long form for those with limited access. This is definitely required
> reading.
>
> Driven to destruction
> http://tinyurl.com/q7n5l
<snip>
That was awesome. It made me think of how, when Steven drives, he is
always so patient, lets people in, and is baffled by people who refuse
to do so but laughs at them, never swears/yells/shakes a fist/flips a
bird etc. Sure, he makes occasional mistakes, like most of us do - but
if everyone drove with that attitude, cycling and driving would be a
hell of a lot safer and more pleasant.
Tam
>
> Long form for those with limited access. This is definitely required
> reading.
>
> Driven to destruction
> http://tinyurl.com/q7n5l
<snip>
That was awesome. It made me think of how, when Steven drives, he is
always so patient, lets people in, and is baffled by people who refuse
to do so but laughs at them, never swears/yells/shakes a fist/flips a
bird etc. Sure, he makes occasional mistakes, like most of us do - but
if everyone drove with that attitude, cycling and driving would be a
hell of a lot safer and more pleasant.
Tam
Tamyka Bell said:
the mantra wins me... we need more of them in our lives to get the inner mud working towards "life and its preservation" rather than "self and its destruction of others".....
calm blue ocean...calm blue ocean
86400...86400...86400
surefoot...indiapale...surefoot...indiapale
B
Bleve
Guest
cfsmtb wrote:
> "A week of gentleness in the life of Australia".
>
> Certainly gets my vote.
>
> However the old reptilian brain will probably win out again ..
It's one of those blindlingly obvious things (the issue of the drivers,
not the roads, being the problem, which is why I have zero patience for
the crowd that constantly whines about our roads being unsafe, it's
*not* the roads that are the problem, it's the people that use them),
and you're right, human nature is the core of the problem, tied to a
lack of accountabiliy and/or a lack of risk appreciation when "safe" in
a car.
It's not so much reptilian though, as mamillian, according to Pinker et
al anyway.
> "A week of gentleness in the life of Australia".
>
> Certainly gets my vote.
>
> However the old reptilian brain will probably win out again ..
It's one of those blindlingly obvious things (the issue of the drivers,
not the roads, being the problem, which is why I have zero patience for
the crowd that constantly whines about our roads being unsafe, it's
*not* the roads that are the problem, it's the people that use them),
and you're right, human nature is the core of the problem, tied to a
lack of accountabiliy and/or a lack of risk appreciation when "safe" in
a car.
It's not so much reptilian though, as mamillian, according to Pinker et
al anyway.
R
Random Data
Guest
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 18:17:41 -0700, Bleve wrote:
> It's one of those blindlingly obvious things (the issue of the drivers,
> not the roads, being the problem, which is why I have zero patience for
> the crowd that constantly whines about our roads being unsafe,
In general I'd agree with you, but I'm waiting to hear about the fatality
in the Lane Cove Tunnel works. There is an on ramp where the old lane line
goes straight into a concrete barrier, right as you have to merge. If
you're checking over your shoulder and using said lane line as a guide,
you will drive into a wall at 80km/h.
And there are plenty of other "interesting" road markings and deviations
on those roadworks, even when you're outside the 40 zone.
--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
The family that chooses words with care together is the family that
avoids needless violence and gunplay together, is our motto.
> It's one of those blindlingly obvious things (the issue of the drivers,
> not the roads, being the problem, which is why I have zero patience for
> the crowd that constantly whines about our roads being unsafe,
In general I'd agree with you, but I'm waiting to hear about the fatality
in the Lane Cove Tunnel works. There is an on ramp where the old lane line
goes straight into a concrete barrier, right as you have to merge. If
you're checking over your shoulder and using said lane line as a guide,
you will drive into a wall at 80km/h.
And there are plenty of other "interesting" road markings and deviations
on those roadworks, even when you're outside the 40 zone.
--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
The family that chooses words with care together is the family that
avoids needless violence and gunplay together, is our motto.
Z
Zebee Johnstone
Guest
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:42:51 +1000
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Long form for those with limited access. This is definitely required
> reading.
I agree with it, but I think it is wrong to focus only on aggression.
I think that there is a significant percentage of crashes caused by
carelessness and distraction.
Not "get off the road you f-wit" but "Hmm, I wonder what's on TV
tonight" or "and so I said to him, I said..."
Driving a modern car is a boring experience, driving on modern roads,
urban and rural, is quite easy 99.9% of the time. So people slack
off, it is hard to concentrate totally when there isn't much to
concentrate on.
People who kill because they are bored or careless or distracted won't
identify with the piece's conclusions, "that's not me".
Nor will legislators and educators, drivers themselves. They might
like the idea that "other people" are the problem, but whatever you do
with aggressive drivers won't, I believe, come close to dealing with
the issue.
Problem is... dealing with boredom and distraction is way way harder
than dealing with aggression, because boredom and distraction is so
entertwined with how modern people use cars that it's almost
impossible to eliminate.
Especially given modern OH&S thinking which is that it is impossible
to eliminate such errors as they can rise from lack of training, lack
of practice, illness, fatigue, life problems (such as worrying over
sick kids) and so the work environment has to cope with operators who
aren't working at high levels of concentration.
After all, it's only the tired and distracted and careless men who
were killed riding the hook at construction sites....
THe only way to really drop the toll is to drop the number of cars
being driven by people who don't really want to be driving, they want
to be at their destination. And that means changing the way Australia
runs in a very fundamental way. Can't see that getting up at any
election, can you?
Zebee
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Long form for those with limited access. This is definitely required
> reading.
I agree with it, but I think it is wrong to focus only on aggression.
I think that there is a significant percentage of crashes caused by
carelessness and distraction.
Not "get off the road you f-wit" but "Hmm, I wonder what's on TV
tonight" or "and so I said to him, I said..."
Driving a modern car is a boring experience, driving on modern roads,
urban and rural, is quite easy 99.9% of the time. So people slack
off, it is hard to concentrate totally when there isn't much to
concentrate on.
People who kill because they are bored or careless or distracted won't
identify with the piece's conclusions, "that's not me".
Nor will legislators and educators, drivers themselves. They might
like the idea that "other people" are the problem, but whatever you do
with aggressive drivers won't, I believe, come close to dealing with
the issue.
Problem is... dealing with boredom and distraction is way way harder
than dealing with aggression, because boredom and distraction is so
entertwined with how modern people use cars that it's almost
impossible to eliminate.
Especially given modern OH&S thinking which is that it is impossible
to eliminate such errors as they can rise from lack of training, lack
of practice, illness, fatigue, life problems (such as worrying over
sick kids) and so the work environment has to cope with operators who
aren't working at high levels of concentration.
After all, it's only the tired and distracted and careless men who
were killed riding the hook at construction sites....
THe only way to really drop the toll is to drop the number of cars
being driven by people who don't really want to be driving, they want
to be at their destination. And that means changing the way Australia
runs in a very fundamental way. Can't see that getting up at any
election, can you?
Zebee
T
Tamyka Bell
Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
<snip>
> THe only way to really drop the toll is to drop the number of cars
> being driven by people who don't really want to be driving, they want
> to be at their destination. And that means changing the way Australia
> runs in a very fundamental way. Can't see that getting up at any
> election, can you?
Just one of the reasons I wish fuel was about $5 per litre (with
subsidies for freight)...
<snip>
> THe only way to really drop the toll is to drop the number of cars
> being driven by people who don't really want to be driving, they want
> to be at their destination. And that means changing the way Australia
> runs in a very fundamental way. Can't see that getting up at any
> election, can you?
Just one of the reasons I wish fuel was about $5 per litre (with
subsidies for freight)...
T
TimC
Guest
On 2006-04-26, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Problem is... dealing with boredom and distraction is way way harder
> than dealing with aggression, because boredom and distraction is so
> entertwined with how modern people use cars that it's almost
> impossible to eliminate.
First thing I want to see? Automatics made illegal. They help make
people stupid. And *definitely* cruise control.
> THe only way to really drop the toll is to drop the number of cars
> being driven by people who don't really want to be driving, they want
> to be at their destination. And that means changing the way Australia
> runs in a very fundamental way. Can't see that getting up at any
> election, can you?
Vote [1] for Space-Time Machine Man.
--
TimC
cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Problem is... dealing with boredom and distraction is way way harder
> than dealing with aggression, because boredom and distraction is so
> entertwined with how modern people use cars that it's almost
> impossible to eliminate.
First thing I want to see? Automatics made illegal. They help make
people stupid. And *definitely* cruise control.
> THe only way to really drop the toll is to drop the number of cars
> being driven by people who don't really want to be driving, they want
> to be at their destination. And that means changing the way Australia
> runs in a very fundamental way. Can't see that getting up at any
> election, can you?
Vote [1] for Space-Time Machine Man.
--
TimC
cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.
T
TimC
Guest
On 2006-04-26, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> <snip>
>> THe only way to really drop the toll is to drop the number of cars
>> being driven by people who don't really want to be driving, they want
>> to be at their destination. And that means changing the way Australia
>> runs in a very fundamental way. Can't see that getting up at any
>> election, can you?
>
> Just one of the reasons I wish fuel was about $5 per litre (with
> subsidies for freight)...
Why subsidies for freight?
--
TimC
I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your
phone 90 degrees and try again. -- MIT's phone switch
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> <snip>
>> THe only way to really drop the toll is to drop the number of cars
>> being driven by people who don't really want to be driving, they want
>> to be at their destination. And that means changing the way Australia
>> runs in a very fundamental way. Can't see that getting up at any
>> election, can you?
>
> Just one of the reasons I wish fuel was about $5 per litre (with
> subsidies for freight)...
Why subsidies for freight?
--
TimC
I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your
phone 90 degrees and try again. -- MIT's phone switch
T
Tamyka Bell
Guest
TimC wrote:
>
> On 2006-04-26, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > Problem is... dealing with boredom and distraction is way way harder
> > than dealing with aggression, because boredom and distraction is so
> > entertwined with how modern people use cars that it's almost
> > impossible to eliminate.
>
> First thing I want to see? Automatics made illegal. They help make
> people stupid. And *definitely* cruise control.
<snip>
Why do automatic transmission vehicles make people stupid? I drive one
and find it useful that I can always have two hands on the steering
wheel. Also, the fact that it automatically changes gears makes people
less capable of burning off at lights - at least in a 4 cylinder car.
And I can still throw it in 2nd when going down a "mountain range" as
they call it in SEQ, though it's not much of a range.
As for cruise control, I used a car with it once, and found it very
useful for open highway, particularly at night, when I couldn't see many
landmarks to tell if I changing speed. Without cruise control, I would
look at my speedo, see I was doing 90, speed up a bit, look down a bit
later and discover I was now doing 130. During the day, cruise control
meant that I didn't have to look at my speedo so often and could keep my
eyes on the road/scanning mirrors for more of the time. And after a
marathon, as I drive home, it's useful to be able to relax my foot - of
course when I was close to other vehicles, I got a bit nervous about
trusting the accelerator to the car electronics, and took over. As soon
as I pressed the accelerator or the brake, cruise control switched off.
I would hazard a guess that stupid drivers are stupid drivers regardless
of what they drive, and that autos and cruise control are just fine if
used sensibly. Of course there are bound to be people who use their free
hand to send text messages and who stick their free feet out the window
- but I'd also guess that most of these idiot-types find a way to do it
regardless of their car features...
Tam
>
> On 2006-04-26, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > Problem is... dealing with boredom and distraction is way way harder
> > than dealing with aggression, because boredom and distraction is so
> > entertwined with how modern people use cars that it's almost
> > impossible to eliminate.
>
> First thing I want to see? Automatics made illegal. They help make
> people stupid. And *definitely* cruise control.
<snip>
Why do automatic transmission vehicles make people stupid? I drive one
and find it useful that I can always have two hands on the steering
wheel. Also, the fact that it automatically changes gears makes people
less capable of burning off at lights - at least in a 4 cylinder car.
And I can still throw it in 2nd when going down a "mountain range" as
they call it in SEQ, though it's not much of a range.
As for cruise control, I used a car with it once, and found it very
useful for open highway, particularly at night, when I couldn't see many
landmarks to tell if I changing speed. Without cruise control, I would
look at my speedo, see I was doing 90, speed up a bit, look down a bit
later and discover I was now doing 130. During the day, cruise control
meant that I didn't have to look at my speedo so often and could keep my
eyes on the road/scanning mirrors for more of the time. And after a
marathon, as I drive home, it's useful to be able to relax my foot - of
course when I was close to other vehicles, I got a bit nervous about
trusting the accelerator to the car electronics, and took over. As soon
as I pressed the accelerator or the brake, cruise control switched off.
I would hazard a guess that stupid drivers are stupid drivers regardless
of what they drive, and that autos and cruise control are just fine if
used sensibly. Of course there are bound to be people who use their free
hand to send text messages and who stick their free feet out the window
- but I'd also guess that most of these idiot-types find a way to do it
regardless of their car features...
Tam
T
Tamyka Bell
Guest
TimC wrote:
>
> On 2006-04-26, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> THe only way to really drop the toll is to drop the number of cars
> >> being driven by people who don't really want to be driving, they want
> >> to be at their destination. And that means changing the way Australia
> >> runs in a very fundamental way. Can't see that getting up at any
> >> election, can you?
> >
> > Just one of the reasons I wish fuel was about $5 per litre (with
> > subsidies for freight)...
>
> Why subsidies for freight?
Because I'm pov, and would like EVERYONE to subsidise my purchases, not
just me ;-)
> TimC
This is gold --->
> I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your
> phone 90 degrees and try again. -- MIT's phone switch
Tam
>
> On 2006-04-26, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> THe only way to really drop the toll is to drop the number of cars
> >> being driven by people who don't really want to be driving, they want
> >> to be at their destination. And that means changing the way Australia
> >> runs in a very fundamental way. Can't see that getting up at any
> >> election, can you?
> >
> > Just one of the reasons I wish fuel was about $5 per litre (with
> > subsidies for freight)...
>
> Why subsidies for freight?
Because I'm pov, and would like EVERYONE to subsidise my purchases, not
just me ;-)
> TimC
This is gold --->
> I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your
> phone 90 degrees and try again. -- MIT's phone switch
Tam
Bleve said:
as the guy said - teach people to "think". Not get them to think - teach them how to think analytically.
The number of kids I get saying to me, my pony won't (fir example) turn . Pony can do it, kid can do it, kid didn't think about the process involved and consequences of not directing the pony adequately, in the appropriate time frame. Result? Pony goes anywhere but through the turn, waiting for the kid to think, analyse and do; and accidents and injuries may occur as an outcome.
How often does it happen in a car? I don't think we can blame easy driving cars, driver off with the fairies, distractions etc. A thinking person takes things into account and still is able to function, act and understand what they are doing and the consequences of those actions.
Everyone is a thinking person, to some extent. It is just their ability to deal with the distractions and prioritise what is important for every single minute they are driving in the car. That is the hard part and it is impacted by traffic volumes - it takes a long time to go a short distance PLUS you must interact with many other road users - all very stressful and requires a lot of processing power. Teaching to think should include developing an understanding of outcomes and consequences. At the moment it is internally focussed on how to navigate a car around some streets. There is very little about how to interact with others and what might happen if the driver screws up.warrwych said:
Apart from basic driver training, I wish people could learn to think before they even got in the car - Is there a better way of getting around?
Tim, TamTamyka Bell said:
(I've been wanting to address a response like that for ages)
Intuitively*, I would say that auto transmissions and cruise control remove the driver just that little bit more from the process which they are in control of. Likewise driving along with aircon/heater on and the windows up in a car with suspension which soaks up any feel of the road.
Good drivers may remain good drivers but some of the dozey idiots behind the wheel will become worse.
(* I would like to see some empirical support for this contention but I haven't.)
SteveA
Automatics remove the driver from the process of choosing which gear and what revs should the engine operate at. For a lot of people this removes one distraction from aiming the car and setting the speed. These two factors are the two most critical for road safety. Driving at 500 or 10,000 RPM may wreck a car but does not generally cause crashes.SteveA said:
That said, I'd much rather drive a manual, only my wife refuses to because she gets too stressed about stalling and starting off.
Cruise control removes the distraction of trying to calibrate speed so that it is consistent with other road users but within legal limits. Like Tam, I think my driving benefits because I do not have to keep looking down to check my speedo and my right shin stays nice and rested.
