ADUK demise/links with BRAKE.
Discussion
Guys,
It would appear that ADUK has been sold to a driver training company and it has caused some unrest from what I've read. The new owners company supports Brake who are well known for some odd recommendations such as 'don't overtake'
I've no idea what affect this may have as I have no experience of Brake but it seems a break away forum has started with the main contributors from ADUK at www.advanceddrivinghub.com
Is Brake all that bad?
It would appear that ADUK has been sold to a driver training company and it has caused some unrest from what I've read. The new owners company supports Brake who are well known for some odd recommendations such as 'don't overtake'
I've no idea what affect this may have as I have no experience of Brake but it seems a break away forum has started with the main contributors from ADUK at www.advanceddrivinghub.com
Is Brake all that bad?
Edited by drivingood on Tuesday 29th September 17:43
Edited by drivingood on Tuesday 29th September 17:52
Depends on what you mean by 'bad' and who you ask.
ADUK is chocked full of people who are enthusiastic about driving and many of the people who are members of the forum are highly accomplished drivers of all sorts. Many have turned road driving into a sort of art form and this is something BRAKE cannot comprehend.
So when someone comes along and tries to argue that overtaking should be prohibited, that 20mph should be more widespread, that motorway speed limits should decrease and that politicians need to do more to save the lives of people who can, without any training beyond that of almost always remaining upright while on two wheels, some said highly accomplished drivers tend to get a bit twitchy. Mainly because the effects will be dumbing down the abilities of people who could do better by lobbyists who hide behind 'safety' as if it is their sole remit and nobody else's.
Are BRAKE a force for good? Not in my opinion, No. They are a collective of anti-motoring lobbyists whose ideals are seemingly fundamentally opposed to anything invented post industrial revolution. They lack balance and credibility.
Quite how the new owner of ADUK will square their conflicts of interests will be something to behold.
ADUK is chocked full of people who are enthusiastic about driving and many of the people who are members of the forum are highly accomplished drivers of all sorts. Many have turned road driving into a sort of art form and this is something BRAKE cannot comprehend.
So when someone comes along and tries to argue that overtaking should be prohibited, that 20mph should be more widespread, that motorway speed limits should decrease and that politicians need to do more to save the lives of people who can, without any training beyond that of almost always remaining upright while on two wheels, some said highly accomplished drivers tend to get a bit twitchy. Mainly because the effects will be dumbing down the abilities of people who could do better by lobbyists who hide behind 'safety' as if it is their sole remit and nobody else's.
Are BRAKE a force for good? Not in my opinion, No. They are a collective of anti-motoring lobbyists whose ideals are seemingly fundamentally opposed to anything invented post industrial revolution. They lack balance and credibility.
Quite how the new owner of ADUK will square their conflicts of interests will be something to behold.
Rick448 said:
Oh dear. I don't post that much on ADUK any more but that will cease totally if they are associated with that bunch of ill informed busy bodies.
I'm sure there are already plans to form another group for displaced ex ADUK members to chew the AD cud but before chucking it all in, maybe sit back and watch it unravel into something else. This is just the initial reaction to members not being involved in the change process, not lights out. It could well be that an ADUKesque Facebook page might rise from the ashes to allow the social aspect to continue unabated. Or some other Internet forum. Some people have reacted rather angrily and have already walked away in protest but I think many will stick with it. It's going to be like the next instalment of Lord of the rings when ADUK meets BRAKE, if the twain ever meet. If that happens, I suspect that once the thin veil of deceit has been lifted from the true ideology of BRAKE; an event likely to be like watching a room full of surgeons meticulously dissect a lab rat, that their involvement in ADUK will fade, save for a few warriors who will doggedly bang their evangelical drum of dogma forevermore. Ya cannae reason with an unreasonable person and sometimes they need to walk their path to realise it for themselves. When they come face to face with the pro-pull/push fanatics, I'm sure they'll be given their own section of the forum in which to bang their heads together like budgies do to mirrors and peace will once more prevail in the safer parts of the ADUK Shire. I'm being flippant but I hope you get my gist?
I hope it's nothing more than growing pains but if nothing else, ADUK could do with a bit of a shakeup. As much as I respect many of its members for their knowledge and never ending generosity, maybe a new lease of life will help it grow in proportion to its real purpose. Some people don't deal with real democracy very well and maybe, as a result of daring to tangle with the ADUK clan, BRAKE will be seen for what it really is.
Watch that space. I'd like to see a real discussion on ADUK about BRAKE, not just intermittent slag-offs.
Its a bit like Mumsnet in the fact that some of the rank and file members get a bit 'clicky' and having ruffled the feathers of one or two I tended to find it difficult to get my point across without one of the aforementioned trying to derail my posting.
I enjoyed the driving days and everyone I met was very nice, don't have the much time for it these days and my ROADAR group was over run with Brake mindest ADIs anyway.
I enjoyed the driving days and everyone I met was very nice, don't have the much time for it these days and my ROADAR group was over run with Brake mindest ADIs anyway.
I used to be a member of HPC but relinquished my membership after a while. It seems like driving is the thing above all else that people can't agree on. I now carry out training with people who's skills I respect and do my own thing rather than trying to please an assessor interpreting a certain organisations rules. What I am certain of however is that I'll never agree with the arguments BRAKE come up with and I'd not waste my time arguing about it either as I have no desire to converse with such narrow minded folk.
kwaka jack said:
The new owner has suggested inviting a few people from brake to have discussions on the forum about what they stand for etc...went down like a lead balloon.
IIRC the Bristol IAM group invited BRAKE to attend one of their group meetings to present their ideas and enter into discussion with AD people, but the invitation was rejected.Conclusion: Rather than discussing the issues, promoting a better understanding, and seeking agreement, BRAKE simply want to impose their ideas without taking any account of other approaches to the task of improving road safety.
[quote=drivingood
Is Brake all that bad?
[/quote]
Simply, yes. BRAKE has nothing to do with road safety - they present as a bunch of crypto-fascist control freaks with no qualification to constructively engage with any aspect of transport or road safety. Their only talent appears to be for self-publicity and their agenda one of simply banning any firm of transport or behaviour that fails to fit their blinkered and terrified view of the world.
I'm not that keen on them,
Is Brake all that bad?
Edited by drivingood on Tuesday 29th September 17:43
Edited by drivingood on Tuesday 29th September 17:52
[/quote]
Simply, yes. BRAKE has nothing to do with road safety - they present as a bunch of crypto-fascist control freaks with no qualification to constructively engage with any aspect of transport or road safety. Their only talent appears to be for self-publicity and their agenda one of simply banning any firm of transport or behaviour that fails to fit their blinkered and terrified view of the world.
I'm not that keen on them,
I've got mixed feelings about BRAKE, but just to enliven the debate a bit, I'll take a contrary position and give a couple of examples of good work that they do.
Firstly, support for bereaved families and people seriously injured in road accidents. They offer a support service which differs from normal bereavement and injury support services in that it is specific to road traffic accidents. They produce some excellent support material and run a helpline which, I'm in no doubt, helps many people at the lowest point in their lives. I've had a read through some of their information for bereaved families and it's absolutely spot-on; non-patronising, to the point, factual but understanding and as someone who's been through (and supported many families through) a similar experience, I couldn't write better material myself.
Secondly, road safety training for children. When I was a child we used to have regular visits from the local road safety police officer (PC Pickles! I always thought it was a made up name till I worked with him many years later. Geoff Pickles!). There were also numerous road safety messages broadcast for kids - remember the Tufty club? These days, it just doesn't happen - tightening police budgets would make Geoff Pickles an expensive luxury these days and kids would rather use twitter or facebook than watch Tufty or Charley the cat.
BRAKE promote and provide road safety training for children of all ages. At a time when almost all the responsibility for road safety is being forced onto drivers, it's refreshing to see an organisation taking a more holistic approach to road safety and equipping our more vulnerable road users with skills which could, and probably do, save their lives.
As for their driving advice, yes, I agree that, for driving enthusiasts and those of us who profess (or kid ourselves) that we're "advanced" or "better" drivers, much of their advice is far too simplistic and perhaps even unrealistic. But having said that, I don't believe it's aimed at us - it's aimed at the 90-95% of drivers on the road who see driving as another chore to endure or another activity they give very little thought to. I can't argue with BRAKE's position on alcohol & drugs and driving, or their position on the use of mobile phones, and on eyesight & regular eyesight tests, all of which are well aimed at the thoughtless masses. If a small percentages of those thoughtless masses changed their behaviour as a result of a BRAKE campaign, then the roads will be a slightly safer place.
I watched an interesting documentary last night on one of the BBC channels called "The Do Gooders". Presented by Ian Hislop, last nights episode looked at alcohol and prostitution and the British Victorian abstinence campaigners. The BRAKE road safety "pledge" is extremely similar to a sobriety pledge introduced to the Temperence movement by Joseph Livesey in Preston in the 1830s. Livesey was a vociferous campaigner for teetotalism and abstinance and there is no doubt that his intentions were good and based on his observations of the evils of excessive alcohol consumtion at the time. Within a short space of time his movement gathered momentum and over 40,000 people signed the abstinence pledge.
Did it stop people from drinking? Not really, but a few people did and their lives were likely improved as a result. Did his movement have a long-lasting effects on people's drinking habits? No, of course not, but, again, I'm sure his campaign saved a few lives.
So, for all these reasons, I'm trying not to be too negative about BRAKE - they're the modern equivalent of the Victorain do-gooders and they're trying to make the roads safer for everyone, which isn't such a bad thing, is it? I don't agree with all their advice for drivers, but I suppose I'm doing something about that by writing my own advice for enthusiastic drivers.
We're all reasonably well educated these days aren't we? That should mean we're able to pick and choose what advice we take and what advice we ignore. Please don't dismiss BRAKE solely on the basis of one or two lines from their advice for drivers. Take a look at the organisation as a whole and look at everything they do before making a judgement.
Firstly, support for bereaved families and people seriously injured in road accidents. They offer a support service which differs from normal bereavement and injury support services in that it is specific to road traffic accidents. They produce some excellent support material and run a helpline which, I'm in no doubt, helps many people at the lowest point in their lives. I've had a read through some of their information for bereaved families and it's absolutely spot-on; non-patronising, to the point, factual but understanding and as someone who's been through (and supported many families through) a similar experience, I couldn't write better material myself.
Secondly, road safety training for children. When I was a child we used to have regular visits from the local road safety police officer (PC Pickles! I always thought it was a made up name till I worked with him many years later. Geoff Pickles!). There were also numerous road safety messages broadcast for kids - remember the Tufty club? These days, it just doesn't happen - tightening police budgets would make Geoff Pickles an expensive luxury these days and kids would rather use twitter or facebook than watch Tufty or Charley the cat.
BRAKE promote and provide road safety training for children of all ages. At a time when almost all the responsibility for road safety is being forced onto drivers, it's refreshing to see an organisation taking a more holistic approach to road safety and equipping our more vulnerable road users with skills which could, and probably do, save their lives.
As for their driving advice, yes, I agree that, for driving enthusiasts and those of us who profess (or kid ourselves) that we're "advanced" or "better" drivers, much of their advice is far too simplistic and perhaps even unrealistic. But having said that, I don't believe it's aimed at us - it's aimed at the 90-95% of drivers on the road who see driving as another chore to endure or another activity they give very little thought to. I can't argue with BRAKE's position on alcohol & drugs and driving, or their position on the use of mobile phones, and on eyesight & regular eyesight tests, all of which are well aimed at the thoughtless masses. If a small percentages of those thoughtless masses changed their behaviour as a result of a BRAKE campaign, then the roads will be a slightly safer place.
I watched an interesting documentary last night on one of the BBC channels called "The Do Gooders". Presented by Ian Hislop, last nights episode looked at alcohol and prostitution and the British Victorian abstinence campaigners. The BRAKE road safety "pledge" is extremely similar to a sobriety pledge introduced to the Temperence movement by Joseph Livesey in Preston in the 1830s. Livesey was a vociferous campaigner for teetotalism and abstinance and there is no doubt that his intentions were good and based on his observations of the evils of excessive alcohol consumtion at the time. Within a short space of time his movement gathered momentum and over 40,000 people signed the abstinence pledge.
Did it stop people from drinking? Not really, but a few people did and their lives were likely improved as a result. Did his movement have a long-lasting effects on people's drinking habits? No, of course not, but, again, I'm sure his campaign saved a few lives.
So, for all these reasons, I'm trying not to be too negative about BRAKE - they're the modern equivalent of the Victorain do-gooders and they're trying to make the roads safer for everyone, which isn't such a bad thing, is it? I don't agree with all their advice for drivers, but I suppose I'm doing something about that by writing my own advice for enthusiastic drivers.
We're all reasonably well educated these days aren't we? That should mean we're able to pick and choose what advice we take and what advice we ignore. Please don't dismiss BRAKE solely on the basis of one or two lines from their advice for drivers. Take a look at the organisation as a whole and look at everything they do before making a judgement.
p1esk said:
IIRC the Bristol IAM group invited BRAKE to attend one of their group meetings to present their ideas and enter into discussion with AD people, but the invitation was rejected.
Conclusion: Rather than discussing the issues, promoting a better understanding, and seeking agreement, BRAKE simply want to impose their ideas without taking any account of other approaches to the task of improving road safety.
It would seem to be that BRAKE and AD are on a collision course that not even Bruce Willis could avert. It's just a matter of time. I'm quite thankful for it but I wouldn't conclude anything from a member of BRAKE not going along to an IAM meeting. They're hardly scintillating events.... I'm generalising. Conclusion: Rather than discussing the issues, promoting a better understanding, and seeking agreement, BRAKE simply want to impose their ideas without taking any account of other approaches to the task of improving road safety.
What I have found is that people with fixed fallacious views eg BRAKE members, tend to erroneously state, avoid or hide the evident flaws in their arguments. The most constructive way by which it is possible to engage with people with such views, is not to throw a blanket of scorn and derision over their beliefs, but to demonstrate to them that their beliefs simply do not exist to the exaggerated levels they have decided to think they do. Gradual exposure which is increased in intensity with consent and not by force sometimes helps. Most often, this will not have any effect whatsoever. You can lead a horse to water....
Of course another method would be to laugh evangelical BRAKEites off the face of the Earth, same as for evangelical ADers who cannot accept that driving isn't every car owners 'thing'. But, to get a bit Goddists about this for a moment, who among us is so perfect that we could do so without opening ourselves up to question? Fighting is easy. Contradicting is easy. Ridicule is easy. Helping someone to change requires either cooperation or torture. You choose.
What I know is that the future of oil-based motoring in cars which are not autonomous, is very limited, so all of this is a bit pointless anyway.
ZedLeppelin said:
...removes lots of interesting bits...
What I know is that the future of oil-based motoring in cars which are not autonomous, is very limited, so all of this is a bit pointless anyway.
sits in corner, fingers in ears, gently rocking singing la la la and muttering 'not possible, no thankyou'What I know is that the future of oil-based motoring in cars which are not autonomous, is very limited, so all of this is a bit pointless anyway.
How to bring rural roads to a near standstill:-
"Don’t overtake
Overtaking on single carriageways is incredibly risky and should be avoided. It is impossible to accurately judge the speed of approaching traffic, or the length of empty road in front of you, and when overtaking this can be fatal. The gap between you and oncoming traffic disappears surprisingly fast. If you and an oncoming vehicle are both driving at 60mph, the gap between you is closing at 120mph, or 60 metres a second. So a small error of judgement can easily result in multiple deaths.
That’s why it isn’t worth the risk. Often overtaking makes little difference to your arrival time, but could mean you and someone else never arriving at all. So never overtake on single carriageways unless absolutely essential, such as because you need to pass a stationary or extremely slow moving vehicle. Only then do so if certain there’s enough space to get past without speeding and with no risk of someone coming the other way. Otherwise just hang back and relax."
These people are insane!
"Don’t overtake
Overtaking on single carriageways is incredibly risky and should be avoided. It is impossible to accurately judge the speed of approaching traffic, or the length of empty road in front of you, and when overtaking this can be fatal. The gap between you and oncoming traffic disappears surprisingly fast. If you and an oncoming vehicle are both driving at 60mph, the gap between you is closing at 120mph, or 60 metres a second. So a small error of judgement can easily result in multiple deaths.
That’s why it isn’t worth the risk. Often overtaking makes little difference to your arrival time, but could mean you and someone else never arriving at all. So never overtake on single carriageways unless absolutely essential, such as because you need to pass a stationary or extremely slow moving vehicle. Only then do so if certain there’s enough space to get past without speeding and with no risk of someone coming the other way. Otherwise just hang back and relax."
These people are insane!
ORD said:
If you and an oncoming vehicle are both driving at 60mph, the gap between you is closing at 120mph, or 60 metres a second. So a small error of judgement can easily result in multiple deaths.
Do these peoples heads explode if they have to drive on a single track road? On a well sighted single track road you'll regularly see vehicles meeting at 120+ mph closing speeds without any drama. Do their cars have brakes made of cheese?p1esk said:
IIRC the Bristol IAM group invited BRAKE to attend one of their group meetings to present their ideas and enter into discussion with AD people, but the invitation was rejected.
Conclusion: Rather than discussing the issues, promoting a better understanding, and seeking agreement, BRAKE simply want to impose their ideas without taking any account of other approaches to the task of improving road safety.
It would seem to be that BRAKE and AD are on a collision course that not even Bruce Willis could avert. It's just a matter of time. I'm quite thankful for it but I wouldn't conclude anything from a member of BRAKE not going along to an IAM meeting. They're hardly scintillating events.... I'm generalising. Conclusion: Rather than discussing the issues, promoting a better understanding, and seeking agreement, BRAKE simply want to impose their ideas without taking any account of other approaches to the task of improving road safety.
What I have found is that people with fixed fallacious views eg BRAKE members, tend to erroneously state, avoid or hide the evident flaws in their arguments. The most constructive way by which it is possible to engage with people with such views, is not to throw a blanket of scorn and derision over their beliefs, but to demonstrate to them that their beliefs simply do not exist to the exaggerated levels they have decided to think they do. Gradual exposure which is increased in intensity with consent and not by force sometimes helps. Most often, this will not have any effect whatsoever. You can lead a horse to water....
Of course another method would be to laugh evangelical BRAKEites off the face of the Earth, same as for evangelical ADers who cannot accept that driving isn't every car owners 'thing'. But, to get a bit Goddists about this for a moment, who among us is so perfect that we could do so without opening ourselves up to question? Fighting is easy. Contradicting is easy. Ridicule is easy. Helping someone to change requires either cooperation or torture. You choose.
What I know is that the future of oil-based motoring in cars which are not autonomous, is very limited, so all of this is a bit pointless anyway.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff