Accidents now rising. What's going on?

[Derek Smith]

gruffalo said:

You would like to think so but I have heard many people say they don't concentrate as much at low speed as at high speed, they seem to think the danger is reduced somehow.

I seem to remember that Milan had a problem on its ring road with bad congestion and a high accident rate, they initially reduced the limits and found nothing had improved, quite the opposite so they raised the limits, accident rate and congestion reduced quite dramatically as the perceived danger was higher and self preservation instinct kicked in, when because of this the actual danger was reduced.

This must have been 10 years ago or more now I think when I used to visit Milan quite regularly.

It has to be said that the overall driving standard was still really very poor though;-)

There were a number of accidents at a cross roads in NW Kent over a period of a couple of years. Two quite serious. It was easy to apportion blame as there were Stop signs on the lessor road and for the collisions/accidents to occur, someone had to ignore them.

The local authority then came up with the idea to change the priority to Give Way. This caused all sorts of letters to the local papers. The LA replied with research which showed accident rates dropped when Stop signes were changed to Give Way. Cue more letters to say that the research was obviously wrong.

It seems that when drivers on the main road knew that cars joining the main road were obliged to stop, they drove faster. This despite the junction being just after a bend. Once they knew (courtesy of the irate correspondents to an extent) of the changed signage, they slowed.

[Digby]

singlecoil said:

Digby said:

You are saying that decisions can be based apon vote winning & losing rather than anything else?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

So that's a yes, then?

[singlecoil]

Digby said:

singlecoil said:

Digby said:

You are saying that decisions can be based apon vote winning & losing rather than anything else?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

So that's a yes, then?

Would you prefer a benevolent dictatorship?

I would, but only if I get to be the dictator. Failing that, democracy is probably the best bet, flawed though it may well be.

[Digby]

So that's a yes, then?

[singlecoil]

You obviously haven't read the link, so, of course it's a yes, what the fk else could it be in a democracy? That's how the system ensures that the wishes of the MAJORITY are met as far as possible.

Otherwise there would have to be a referendum on every single issue.

So, this is how it works, people who wish to participate in government (local or national) put themselves forward to be elected. The more popular their policies, the more likely they are to be elected. If they get in, if their policies turn out to be unpopular, they get voted out at the next election.

So next time you are bhing about a local speed limit, you can be confident that the majority of the locals themselves wanted it, even if you didn't.

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

You obviously haven't read the link, so, of course it's a yes, what the fk else could it be in a democracy? That's how the system ensures that the wishes of the MAJORITY are met as far as possible.

Otherwise there would have to be a referendum on every single issue.

So, this is how it works, people who wish to participate in government (local or national) put themselves forward to be elected. The more popular their policies, the more likely they are to be elected. If they get in, if their policies turn out to be unpopular, they get voted out at the next election.

So next time you are bhing about a local speed limit, you can be confident that the majority of the locals themselves wanted it, even if you didn't.

No, just that the majority of councillors wanted it. I haven't seen an election pamphlet yet where the prospective councillor details their intended speed limit reductions.

There was a new road in Waltham Abbey a few years back where the councillors insisted on implementing a 30 limit despite protests from traffic engineers police and locals who all reckoned 40 made more sense. Some months after the limit was imposed, WITHOUT an election taking place in the meantime, the council agreed to put the limit up to 40.

[singlecoil]

Dr Jekyll said:

singlecoil said:

You obviously haven't read the link, so, of course it's a yes, what the fk else could it be in a democracy? That's how the system ensures that the wishes of the MAJORITY are met as far as possible.

Otherwise there would have to be a referendum on every single issue.

So, this is how it works, people who wish to participate in government (local or national) put themselves forward to be elected. The more popular their policies, the more likely they are to be elected. If they get in, if their policies turn out to be unpopular, they get voted out at the next election.

So next time you are bhing about a local speed limit, you can be confident that the majority of the locals themselves wanted it, even if you didn't.

No, just that the majority of councillors wanted it. I haven't seen an election pamphlet yet where the prospective councillor details their intended speed limit reductions.

There was a new road in Waltham Abbey a few years back where the councillors insisted on implementing a 30 limit despite protests from traffic engineers police and locals who all reckoned 40 made more sense. Some months after the limit was imposed, WITHOUT an election taking place in the meantime, the council agreed to put the limit up to 40.

Thank you for your anecdote, which in no way disproves what I said. The main reason for having elected bodies is that the electorate doesn't then have to decide every single issue.

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

Thank you for your anecdote, which in no way disproves what I said. The main reason for having elected bodies is that the electorate doesn't then have to decide every single issue.

But if you accept that the electorate doesn't have to decide every single issue, how can you be sure that the majority agree with every speed limit reduction? How does the council decision supply evidence that the majority of the 'locals themselves' wanted it?

[singlecoil]

Dr Jekyll said:

singlecoil said:

Thank you for your anecdote, which in no way disproves what I said. The main reason for having elected bodies is that the electorate doesn't then have to decide every single issue.

But if you accept that the electorate doesn't have to decide every single issue, how can you be sure that the majority agree with every speed limit reduction? How does the council decision supply evidence that the majority of the 'locals themselves' wanted it?

Of course you can't be sure of that, just as you can't be sure on every other issue the council decides on. No system is perfect, but if enough people (there needs to be a lot, not just a noisy minority) make it clear that they don't like something, then the councillors concerned will change it. If no such clamour of popular opinion is heard then the councilors will go with their best guess, or even with their personal prejudices if it comes to that.

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

So next time you are bhing about a local speed limit, you can be confident that the majority of the locals themselves wanted it, even if you didn't.

[singlecoil]

Dr Jekyll said:

singlecoil said:

So next time you are bhing about a local speed limit, you can be confident that the majority of the locals themselves wanted it, even if you didn't.

I daresay you are quoting that because you think I am being inconsistent, and I can see how it would look that way. But I didn't intend that to be taken literally.

Consider it rephrased that 'not enough of the locals disagree with it to do anything about it, and in all likelihood they approve because it's most unlikely that the council would have implemented it if they thought otherwise'.

[Digby]

Consider it rephrased to "not enough of them knew anything was happening".

And you are kind of sexy when you are angry.Rrrrrr.

[singlecoil]

Digby said:

Consider it rephrased to "not enough of them knew anything was happening".

If the council concerned had failed to follow the correct procedure, including the notifications, then it would be easy to get the order rescinded. What is more likely is that not enough of them took any interest in what was going on around them, and when they found out, either didn't care or actually approved.

I live in a village but fortunately not on the main road. If I did I would be quite happy to have quite a low speed limit on it.

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

Well, the public consultations seeking views from concerned parties that DVSA put out before implementing these initiatives, what was your input?

As regard the evaluated proposals that you've submitted, well you'll have to tell us what ideas you've submitted & how you've impact assessed them etc.

As regards your earlier observations, are you contesting that all these initiatives have added no benefit in relation to training, have made it better or have actually made everything worse?

The reason some people don't do well on the hazard perception is probably because they think they are a good driver & know it all, so they consequently don't look at what it's actually testing & how the test is structured. Instead they just think easy, do it, blow it & then say, well that's crap because I'm good. If you don't understand what's being tested & the way it works you aren't likely to do very well.

Are you saying there's no value in any of it?
The introduction of a has added nothing?
Pass plus is a waste of time?
etc etc.

I'm not sure which consultations you are refering to as there are many.Not that it matters however, because my input was zero.You knew this anyway, hence you asked the Q.It's all the regular playground type stuff you have used many times before.I may be able to get copies of feedback from numerous courses and other work related questionnaires etc if this helps and also may still have emails relating to conversations with local councils over road layout related matters.As we are a market leader in our field, I should also be able to find input from those higher up the ladder, although many transport related consultations are available online (minus specific names of course) if you are desperate to read some input before the lunchtime bell goes.As a rule, however, despite industry concerns, ultimately it makes/ made little difference.

The reason there was no input for many, of course, is because you rarely get to hear about any of this till after the event (unless you go looking for this type of stuff).The CPC course which developed from the EU directive was, by their own admission, lacking in the information department from the very start.Most of us woke up to find that despite paying a lot of money to be tested to be able to drive a large vehicle and despite many having done so for decades, you now had to pay again to be allowed to continue to do so.Possibly the most laughable part of this news was that you could do the same test / module (I use the term "test" in the broadest sense of the word as you are never actually tested) five times over and that was enough to satisfy those who had the idea in the first place.They had your money, so you could then do what you liked.


As for whether things are better or worse for these initiatives, well, they are certainly not worse for those making a profit from it all. E.U meddling is all I see resulting in great expense for an already struggling industry and even the powers that be seem to agree it all needs a good shake-up.It is all rather pointless imho and to top it all, unless things have changed, it was only UK drivers who would be fined, end up in court and lose their right to drive commercially if they didn't partake in the scheme (or left it too late to do so).Foreign drivers face / faced very little in the way of punishment.

And please don't tell me to write to my M.P to change it all.It rarely makes any difference once money is involved.In fact I work in an industry where the voices of concerned locals regularly fall on deaf ears once big players are involved or 'perks' can be written in to a contract.Any "wins" for the common man mostly relate to being able to save the odd tree or get a building moved a foot further back etc.Everything still goes ahead as planned otherwise.The situation was much the same when the M20 cameras were installed and I doubt that situation is unique.

The consultations for changes to training & testing of course.
Of course there are many because there have been lots of changes, which is the point I was making originally.

So you offered nothing in relation to any of them?

Rather than addressing all of the initiatives I mentioned (including fleet training, pass plus etc) you focus on one & say it's a benefit to those running it financially.

Rather than dismissively looking at one, I ask again are we better off for having the whole breadth of those changes (including the the introduction of fleet, pass plus, changes to the ADI standards check, changes to the driving test etc) or not?

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

The reason some people don't do well on the hazard perception is probably because they think they are a good driver & know it all, so they consequently don't look at what it's actually testing & how the test is structured. Instead they just think easy, do it, blow it & then say, well that's crap because I'm good. If you don't understand what's being tested & the way it works you aren't likely to do very well.

Not even sure where to begin with this one.You seem to agree that the test isn't especially good, but find it easier to blame anyone who suggests this or finds out the hard way (like so many have and still do).You are honestly saying that a part of a test that can be failed by ADI's etc is purely down to them being "know it alls" and due to them not having the ability to understand a very simple instruction? It's a test which can punish you for being too observant, punish you for not having the brightness set high enough on the monitor, punish you due to camera angles chosen for certain sections of video or those filmed in the dark...

This was yet another example of those in charge at the test centres explaining to myself that this was all rather pointless.I was asked if I had driven to the test centre and when I replied that I had, I was told that this was enough for me to have 'passed' in their eyes and, like many drivers before me, not to feel too despondent if I failed because so many did fail.Still, you get to pay again (and again and again...) if you fail to click correctly, so someone wins.Funny that..

I find it astonishing that you can now be classed as a competent driver because you can click a mouse at a very specific moment and because you have the ability to sit in a classroom where all you have to achieve is to turn up and stay awake.

It's not a test that punishes you for being too observant, that fundamentally demonstrates a misunderstanding of what it's testing. It's not about spotting hazards, it's about spotting the developing hazards.

The videos have just recent;y been changed (another change) to make them better still.

Nobody is classed as competent as a result of passing the hazard perception test, it's only a first stepping stone & is better than none which is what existed before. It's hardly the fault of the test if people don't listen to what it's looking for/testing & do their own thing.

[Digby]

singlecoil said:

What is more likely is that not enough of them took any interest in what was going on around them, and when they found out, either didn't care or actually approved.

How would any of them have known? I had no idea they were spending millions on cameras a mile from my home until the framework went up.I had no idea a national speed limit road (a road I used for 12 years) was dropped to 40 mph untill I drove over the freshly painted characters on the tarmac and saw the new sign.Most of us had no idea there was to be a new rail link until some houses were demolished.

It wouldn't be too hard for councils to send information to people and hear their opinions, but it seems they mostly don't want that to happen.Instead, as with the motorway cameras, a tiny snippet may appear somewhere online or in a paper, due to this, a select bunch of people (who nobody seems to know) cast their votes, a few backs get scratched, a pie chart appears on a web page and that's that.We tend to find out a decision has been made when the story then appears in a local rag.

I was once going to ask you if you lived in a village as I thought that could explain a great deal.

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

It's not a test that punishes you for being too observant, that fundamentally demonstrates a misunderstanding of what it's testing. It's not about spotting hazards, it's about spotting the developing hazards.

Everyone who has taken it knows that.But you can spot a car pulling out some way in the distance, click the mouse to acknowledge it and fail.The difference between you passing and failing is that you should have clicked a second later because you spotted a developing hazard too early.It's about as far removed from real driving as you can get.It's a computer game, nothing more.

vonhosen said:

The videos have just recent;y been changed (another change) to make them better still.

Oh, because they punished you for being too observant etc?

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

It's not a test that punishes you for being too observant, that fundamentally demonstrates a misunderstanding of what it's testing. It's not about spotting hazards, it's about spotting the developing hazards.

Everyone who has taken it knows that.But you can spot a car pulling out some way in the distance, click the mouse to acknowledge it and fail.The difference between you passing and failing is that you should have clicked a second later because you spotted a developing hazard too early.It's about as far removed from real driving as you can get.It's a computer game, nothing more.

I still think you are misunderstanding the instructions.

If it's so far ahead you aren't going to have to do anything then it's not a hazard

If it's closer than that & you will have to act, it is your developing hazard. You don't have to click only once though, so even if you anticipated it & clicked before it developed the next click would be in the high scoring zone.

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

The videos have just recent;y been changed (another change) to make them better still.

Oh, because they punished you for being too observant etc?

No for greater variety, clarity of view etc.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 6th February 18:57

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

Rather than addressing all of the initiatives I mentioned (including fleet training, pass plus etc) you focus on one & say it's a benefit to those running it financially.

Rather than dismissively looking at one, I ask again are we better off for having the whole breadth of those changes (including the the introduction of fleet, pass plus, changes to the ADI standards check, changes to the driving test etc) or not?

Are there stats regarding their necessity and the impact they have made to road safety?

I would also ask why most of the pass plus modules are not covered during regular lessons? And for those that cannot be passed on the road, you are back to sitting in a classroom again! It seems most are only interested in getting their insurance premiums down, nothing more.Win win for insurance companies and driving instructors.All seems money related to me.


As for becoming a Fleet Trainer, a friend of a friend did this (I will have to see if they still do as this was a while ago).I seem to remember it costing approx £500 and iirc, much like the CBT con, runs out after a few years? He said most were only interested in booking this because it offered advice on fuel saving and the reason they wanted to save fuel was due to them being taxed up the arse for it.It all seems money related to me yet again.

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

Again you are misunderstanding the instructions, if that's your developing hazard you don't have to click once...

If you are in a vehicle, you don't have to click at all.Computer games will never be able to replace your TRUE hazard perception and awareness.If you see something half a mile away (often because you have driven safely for decades) how can a computer game decide that it's a little too early to be recognising it?

If this debate were the other way round and I was suggesting removing drivers from the road and sitting them in front of an Xbox as part of their test, you would have laughed me off the forums.Once again, you are simply toeing the line.

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

Again you are misunderstanding the instructions, if that's your developing hazard you don't have to click once...

If you are in a vehicle, you don't have to click at all.Computer games will never be able to replace your TRUE hazard perception and awareness.If you see something half a mile away (often because you have driven safely for decades) how can a computer game decide that it's a little too early to be recognising it?

If this debate were the other way round and I was suggesting removing drivers from the road and sitting them in front of an Xbox as part of their test, you would have laughed me off the forums.Once again, you are simply toeing the line.

No, because there is value in simulators prior to 'live' assessment. It's done in aviation & other areas of vehicle training.