Fighting the "lowest common denominator" syndrome
Discussion
There have been several posts recently about the perceived (or even real) futility of challenging a police officer who has pulled one over for alleged bad driving. These posts have often then shifted to discuss the wider issues, much debated on this forum, about how driving standards are set to and judged using a “lowest common denominator” approach.
I have always found this lowest common denominator approach to be anathema. But as many of us have found, arguing against “it” – in all “its” forms – is no easy task. Whilst I respect VH’s views and consistency a great deal, I find those same views sickeningly weak and inadequate when assessed in the context of striving to improve our society, or more specifically when thinking about what could really be achieved from a road safety perspective if Government and its appointed enforcers took the hard, tough road of striving to improve standards, not just adjust enforcement to allow for ever decreasing standards. VH and those who share his views may say they are being realistic. Perhaps so. But to me it is capitulating to a steady trend of lost freedoms that will only end in tears. I’d rather fight this reality – a view clearly shared by many on this site.
To return to the micro level example of whether to challenge a police officer who has pulled one over for alleged bad driving, I find the idea of acquiescing to ignorant judgement abhorrent. Without wishing to personalise this, I know I am a good judge of what represents safe driving – I’ve done the courses, been assessed by the best Class 1s in the land and have extensive experience on road, track and in hundreds of different cars. Many on this forum will have just the same level of training and competence. We may be a minority, but that does not make us wrong. Irrespective of whether it is imprudent, I just could not bring myself to accept a dressing down from someone who believes they are in the right, but actually have applied their own misguided prejudices to a situation. In short, I would argue my point, because to do otherwise is to give in to the lowest common denominator syndrome.
At a macro level, I can only applaud the efforts of bodies like SafeSpeed, who become increasingly more cogent in their arguments. My resolution for 2007 is to help such organisations more; to write to my MP more about this issue of standards; and to engage as many people as I can (friends and family) in a debate on how to raise driving standards. I realise it is almost a vain struggle – VH has relied many times on the argument of the “majority rules” – but not to try is surely the greater crime.
As we enter a New Year, I can only hope that our Opposition parties seize the opportunity to fight against Government’s trend to legislate to control, to bring everything down to the same depressingly low level, and rather seek to inspire and lead us to a society where personal responsibility, making a contribution and striving for excellence are rewarded, not stymied at every turn.
Kind regards
Steve
I have always found this lowest common denominator approach to be anathema. But as many of us have found, arguing against “it” – in all “its” forms – is no easy task. Whilst I respect VH’s views and consistency a great deal, I find those same views sickeningly weak and inadequate when assessed in the context of striving to improve our society, or more specifically when thinking about what could really be achieved from a road safety perspective if Government and its appointed enforcers took the hard, tough road of striving to improve standards, not just adjust enforcement to allow for ever decreasing standards. VH and those who share his views may say they are being realistic. Perhaps so. But to me it is capitulating to a steady trend of lost freedoms that will only end in tears. I’d rather fight this reality – a view clearly shared by many on this site.
To return to the micro level example of whether to challenge a police officer who has pulled one over for alleged bad driving, I find the idea of acquiescing to ignorant judgement abhorrent. Without wishing to personalise this, I know I am a good judge of what represents safe driving – I’ve done the courses, been assessed by the best Class 1s in the land and have extensive experience on road, track and in hundreds of different cars. Many on this forum will have just the same level of training and competence. We may be a minority, but that does not make us wrong. Irrespective of whether it is imprudent, I just could not bring myself to accept a dressing down from someone who believes they are in the right, but actually have applied their own misguided prejudices to a situation. In short, I would argue my point, because to do otherwise is to give in to the lowest common denominator syndrome.
At a macro level, I can only applaud the efforts of bodies like SafeSpeed, who become increasingly more cogent in their arguments. My resolution for 2007 is to help such organisations more; to write to my MP more about this issue of standards; and to engage as many people as I can (friends and family) in a debate on how to raise driving standards. I realise it is almost a vain struggle – VH has relied many times on the argument of the “majority rules” – but not to try is surely the greater crime.
As we enter a New Year, I can only hope that our Opposition parties seize the opportunity to fight against Government’s trend to legislate to control, to bring everything down to the same depressingly low level, and rather seek to inspire and lead us to a society where personal responsibility, making a contribution and striving for excellence are rewarded, not stymied at every turn.
Kind regards
Steve
stefan1 said:
As we enter a New Year, I can only hope that our Opposition parties seize the opportunity to fight against Government’s trend to legislate to control, to bring everything down to the same depressingly low level, and rather seek to inspire and lead us to a society where personal responsibility, making a contribution and striving for excellence are rewarded, not stymied at every turn.
Here here.
stefan1 said:
At a macro level, I can only applaud the efforts of bodies like SafeSpeed, who become increasingly more cogent in their arguments. My resolution for 2007 is to help such organisations more; to write to my MP more about this issue of standards; and to engage as many people as I can (friends and family) in a debate on how to raise driving standards. I realise it is almost a vain struggle – VH has relied many times on the argument of the “majority rules” – but not to try is surely the greater crime.
As we enter a New Year, I can only hope that our Opposition parties seize the opportunity to fight against Government’s trend to legislate to control, to bring everything down to the same depressingly low level, and rather seek to inspire and lead us to a society where personal responsibility, making a contribution and striving for excellence are rewarded, not stymied at every turn.
Well said - esp the SafeSpeed bit. Sadly I see no hope of any of our political parties doing what you have expressed so well as "a society where personal responsibility, making a contribution and striving for excellence are rewarded, not stymied at every turn". Funnily enough even Karl Marx said "to each according to their need from each according to their ability" - the second half of this is ignored by all three main parties as far as I can see!
Meanwhile, back in the real-world...
Sorry to be rude...I do actually agree with you. But you'll NEVER get modern politicians acting like that - they don't need to, as the majority of the country don't think that deeply and are won over by soundbites and simplistic generalisations. I am increasingly of the opinion that suffrage should be tied to some sort of IQ/EQ test...
Sorry to be rude...I do actually agree with you. But you'll NEVER get modern politicians acting like that - they don't need to, as the majority of the country don't think that deeply and are won over by soundbites and simplistic generalisations. I am increasingly of the opinion that suffrage should be tied to some sort of IQ/EQ test...
havoc said:
Meanwhile, back in the real-world...
Sorry to be rude...I do actually agree with you. But you'll NEVER get modern politicians acting like that - they don't need to, as the majority of the country don't think that deeply and are won over by soundbites and simplistic generalisations. I am increasingly of the opinion that suffrage should be tied to some sort of IQ/EQ test...
Sorry to be rude...I do actually agree with you. But you'll NEVER get modern politicians acting like that - they don't need to, as the majority of the country don't think that deeply and are won over by soundbites and simplistic generalisations. I am increasingly of the opinion that suffrage should be tied to some sort of IQ/EQ test...
We have politics aimed at the "lowest common denominator" voter then?
Prof Beard said:
We have politics aimed at the "lowest common denominator" voter then?
Have had for years...I think Maggie started it off. Look at the way recent campaigns have been run by the big two (three?):-
- scaremongering through slating the opposition
- scaremongering about security/terrorist threats
- campaigning using 'general' items, not specific policies, e.g. "we'll improve schools/NHS"
When was the last flyer/advert/broadcast/interview you read/heard/watched which went into specifics, reasons and details? When was the last time you heard a politician say 'I got that wrong, sorry', or 'The opposition have a good point there'?!?
Yet something like 2/3 or more of the active voters keep voting for the same party, year-in, year-out, regardless of policy/action/inaction. We've bred a bunch of sheep in this country...
A lot of things are based on the lowest common denominator, eg dangerous driving where the test is that of a reasonable driver ( not an expert), and juries themselves. Like it or not that is the way of the world. Almost every thing in life and law is a compromise. I'm not saying that is how it should be but that is the reality. You only have to look at offences beginning 'without reasonable excuse'.....what is reasonable?......The mythical Mr. Average decides.
stefan1 said:
[ ... ]
As we enter a New Year, I can only hope that our Opposition parties seize the opportunity to fight against Government’s trend to legislate to control, ...
"Opposition"? "Seize the opportunity"? "Fight against"? Not the current lot. No way! Haven't done so on anything meaningful yet, why should they start now? - Streaky As we enter a New Year, I can only hope that our Opposition parties seize the opportunity to fight against Government’s trend to legislate to control, ...
spokey said:
We may as well give up. The chavs, centrists, statists and fascists have won. There is no point in aspiring to be a better driver / worker / person, because that degrades the people around you.
Or you could emigrate, which is what I'm working on.
turbobloke said:
spokey said:
We may as well give up. The chavs, centrists, statists and fascists have won. There is no point in aspiring to be a better driver / worker / person, because that degrades the people around you.
Or you could emigrate, which is what I'm working on.
That's what they all say
Bet you're still here this time next year Prof Beard said:
turbobloke said:
spokey said:
We may as well give up. The chavs, centrists, statists and fascists have won. There is no point in aspiring to be a better driver / worker / person, because that degrades the people around you.
Or you could emigrate, which is what I'm working on.
That's what they all say
Bet you're still here this time next year That's right, but probably not in the way you think, and not 'at this time' probably - 20 to 25 deg C is a much better December proposition! The plan isn't to leave completely, I like the Cotswolds too much to go permanently, but all the requried benefits (definitely no pun intended) can be achieved by just spending enough time elsewhere, in the right places. There are two property deals in train, but no mad rush.
Sadly where would you go? Politians the world over seem to be the same, unless maybe we all go to Iran or North Korea? Maybe we will all carry on in the only way we are forced to live now which is to do as you like, try not to get caught and just say the right things at the appropriate times.
p490kvp said:
Sadly where would you go? Politians the world over seem to be the same, unless maybe we all go to Iran or North Korea? Maybe we will all carry on in the only way we are forced to live now which is to do as you like, try not to get caught and just say the right things at the appropriate times.
There are some places but it will surely be a matter of personal taste. If you're seriously interested start digging - for info that is, not to escape
turbobloke said:
p490kvp said:
Sadly where would you go? Politians the world over seem to be the same, unless maybe we all go to Iran or North Korea? Maybe we will all carry on in the only way we are forced to live now which is to do as you like, try not to get caught and just say the right things at the appropriate times.
There are some places but it will surely be a matter of personal taste. If you're seriously interested start digging - for info that is, not to escape
Ha - If I could stand the constant Bratworst mit brot I'd live next to the 'Ring!
said:
I believe that Constables who are permitted to perform moving vehicle stops will, generally, be trained to at least standard response standard, so one cannot state that such drivers are ignorant of what may or may not constitute bad driving.
I did not say this. Indeed, I generally have a high regard for our BiB and have had the pleasure of driving with many outstanding Class 1 and Advanced drivers who had a great attitude to boot. I merely commented that, as other posters have found, there are times when it appears (and indeed it may be so) that a police driver makes a bad call when pulling over a driver who is, in fact, doing nothing wrong. If I were ever is such a position - eg, I had performed a legal and entirely safe overtake, but was berated by a following policeman, I would fight my corner tooth and nail. To do otherwise is to give in, IMHO, to this lowest common denominator mentality - in other words, to give in to the ever increasing perception, in this example, that overtakes must be the work of the devil because "society" no longer deems them appropriate. I won't give in.
Kind regards
Steve
Edited by stefan1 on Wednesday 27th December 20:41
Edited by stefan1 on Wednesday 27th December 20:41
Edited by stefan1 on Wednesday 27th December 20:42
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff