On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:11:18 -0000, "Tony W" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>> Drivers get hundreds of valuable safety messages, and they are supposed to learn them all.
>> That's good.
>> Not giving them this particular safety message is a serious policy omission, especially since the
>> risk is not well known or understood.
>> It's one we can and should improve with education. It should be in the Highway Code.
>> And how exactly can a driver take responsibility for mitigating a risk he's never heard of (let
>> alone been taught) and never considered?
>That is the argument of the Health & Safety Nazi. Reduce everything to a check-list. Rule 427
>taught, tick, tested, tick, understood, tick - not. Rule 428 ...
No, you're mistaken. This isn't an obvious risk that any thinking person should be aware of. The
brain appears to filter out the constant image of the pillar and people just don't appreciate that
something might be obscured. It's a real safety concern that can be improved by sensible messages.
>Maybe it should be in the HC. Maybe most people learn it when their instructor applies the dual
>controls brake and calls them a prat.
Not true. Try sampling your workmates or friends. People don't know. Simple as that.
>Its not very difficult. If you are driving a tonne + of lethal metal you have to take particular
>care. Driving through pedestrians, cyclists or other soft targets is not acceptable.
>Full stop. End of argument.
>The driver is responsible for checking he is not about to kill someone whether the hazard has been
>explicitly pointed out or not. He is in charge of a piece of lethal equipment. He is licensed to
>use it. He has the responsibility to use it safely.
And the government has quite rightly taken on the responsibility of giving safe driving advice. But
they've missed this one.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK
http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives