Brake director, Julie Townsnd, doesn't drive !!!

[robinessex]

Brake director, appearing on BBC TV this morning, as a now, self appointed 'expert' on car safety, when asked when was the last time she checked and fixed a fault with her car, admitted she doesn't drive any more, as she's adequately supplied with public transport!!! So how does this women, with virtually no, everyday, in depth, experience of actually taking part in that which she tries to insert influence, justify her stance ? Or maybe she's such a crap driver, it's better she stays bashing her computer keyboard. Talk about paper expert.

[Rawwr]

I know an oncologist who doesn't have cancer. What an idiot.

[roboxm3]

Rawwr said:

I know an oncologist who doesn't have cancer. What an idiot.

But he / she (the oncologist) will deal with treating cancer every day, for which experience of having the disease isn't necessary.

Being in a position of influence re. road safety and not even driving regularly is probably not the best angle to come from, nor will it endear her to regular drivers (not that she's too bothered I wouldn't think).

I'm not overly surprised, nor do I really care. Just sayin'.

[kambites]

I don't see why the car is special, there are plenty of other ways to use the roads.

The vast majority of research into road safety (and indeed almost anything else of that nature) is by analysis of statistical data anyway. It tends to give far more accurate results than the relatively small sample that personal experience gives. In fact I suppose one could argue that not having one's opinions clouded by statistically irrelevant personal experience is a positive thing. You hear far too many people saying things like "I've been doing this for 30 years and haven't crashed so it must be perfectly safe" when cold analysis of statistics shows it to be anything but.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 22 January 09:07

[robinessex]

Rawwr said:

I know an oncologist who doesn't have cancer. What an idiot.

You have just won this years PH award for the quickest stupid response to a posting. Are you really say all doctors have to be suffering from the illnesses they are treating ?

[Rawwr]

robinessex said:

You have just won this years PH award for the quickest stupid response to a posting. Are you really say all doctors have to be suffering from the illnesses they are treating ?

You're entirely right, someone doesn't need first-hand experience of something they deal with.

[stevensdrs]

She is being as safe as she can be, won't have an accident if she doesn't drive. Ideal representative of the nonsense organisation that BRAKE is.

[teamHOLDENracing]

robinessex said:

Rawwr said:

I know an oncologist who doesn't have cancer. What an idiot.

You have just won this years PH award for the quickest stupid response to a posting. Are you really say all doctors have to be suffering from the illnesses they are treating ?

You have just won this year's PH award for failure to spot sarcasm...

[robinessex]

kambites said:

I don't see why the car is special, there are plenty of other ways to use the roads.

The vast majority of research into road safety (and indeed almost anything else of that nature) is by analysis of statistical data anyway. It tends to give far more accurate results than the relatively small sample that personal experience gives. In fact I suppose one could argue that not having one's opinions clouded by statistically irrelevant personal experience is a positive thing.

Edited by kambites on Thursday 22 January 09:05

I would say driving for 50yrs, covering circa 750,000 miles does give one an advantage when discussing driving and road safety, than someone who isn't in at the deep end, but just reads and blindly accepts so some so called 'safety report(s)', many of which are complete b******s. My views of driving and road safety are the results of seeing daily what happens in front of my eyes. Experience isn't to be dismissed.

Edited by robinessex on Thursday 22 January 09:17

[xRIEx]

robinessex said:

Rawwr said:

I know an oncologist who doesn't have cancer. What an idiot.

You have just won this years PH award for the quickest stupid response to a posting. Are you really say all doctors have to be suffering from the illnesses they are treating ?

I found it very amusing, even more so that you completely missed the point and added to the hilarity.

[robinessex]

teamHOLDENracing said:

robinessex said:

Rawwr said:

I know an oncologist who doesn't have cancer. What an idiot.

You have just won this years PH award for the quickest stupid response to a posting. Are you really say all doctors have to be suffering from the illnesses they are treating ?

You have just won this year's PH award for failure to spot sarcasm...

That was a 50/50 reply, so I didn't give it the benefit of the doubt. There are PH'ers here who would actually think that was a requirement!!! Defo a good one tho............9/10.!!

[kambites]

robinessex said:

I would say driving for 50yrs, covering circa 750,000 miles does give one an advantage when discussing driving and road safety, than someone who isn't in at the deep end, but just reads and blindly accepts so some so called 'safety report(s)', many of which are complete b******s. My views of driving and road safety are the results of seeing daily what happens in front of my eyes. Experience isn't to be dismissed.

I think that shows a very poor understanding of how large a sample you need to form a statistically viable conclusion. I'm sure there are plenty of people who've done that sort of mileage while drunk and would tell you that it shows that drink driving is obviously perfectly safe... to get a reasonable idea of what effects road safety, you need experience of hundreds of millions of miles.

I'm not saying brake do, they're clearly complete idiots, but I don't think that's anything to do with whether they drive or not.

[robinessex]

kambites said:

robinessex said:

I would say driving for 50yrs, covering circa 750,000 miles does give one an advantage when discussing driving and road safety, than someone who isn't in at the deep end, but just reads and blindly accepts so some so called 'safety report(s)', many of which are complete b******s. My views of driving and road safety are the results of seeing daily what happens in front of my eyes. Experience isn't to be dismissed.

I think that shows a very poor understanding of how large a sample you need to form a statistically viable conclusion. I'm sure there are plenty of people who've done that sort of mileage while drunk and would tell you that it shows that drink driving is obviously perfectly safe...

Know I know why you've managed 42,000 postings ...........!!! Try this. Go into a pub, spout that you are an expert on road safety, and then tell them all you don't drive................!!

Edited by robinessex on Thursday 22 January 09:27

[kambites]

Apologies for being a bored mathematician.

[xRIEx]

kambites said:

robinessex said:

I would say driving for 50yrs, covering circa 750,000 miles does give one an advantage when discussing driving and road safety,

I think that shows a very poor understanding of how large a sample you need to form a statistically viable conclusion.

Indeed. Apparently in 2013, 303.7 billion vehicle miles were travelled. Assuming the 750k of the hypothetical driver was spread evenly across the 50 years, their 15k miles a year represents 0.0004939085%. 0.1% would be statistically insignificant, 0.0005% is subatomic.

[TheAllSeeingPie]

xRIEx said:

Indeed. Apparently in 2013, 303.7 billion vehicle miles were travelled. Assuming the 750k of the hypothetical driver was spread evenly across the 50 years, their 15k miles a year represents 0.0004939085%. 0.1% would be statistically insignificant, 0.0005% is subatomic.

I wouldn't bother with statistics and reasoning. It appears the questions posed in the opening postcard rhetorical and anyone replying is either wrong or stupid according to the OP.

[Dr Jekyll]

The point is that there is statistical evidence that experienced drivers tend generally to have fewer accidents than inexperienced ones. So it's reasonable to think that an experienced driver probably have a better insight and will make better decisions than an inexperienced one. Just as you wouldn't expect someone to make sensible road safety decisions while 5 times over the drink drive limit.

Ideally objectivity would require finding someone who never uses the roads at all, failing that someone who uses as many methods of road transport as possible. Not that Brake are interested in objective statistical analysis anyway, it's all policy based evidence making from them.

[kambites]

Yes, no-one is denying that experienced drivers are better drivers. I doubt even Brake would deny that (although you never know with them, if it suits their agenda).

That's not the same as knowing more about road safety, though.

[robinessex]

TheAllSeeingPie said:

xRIEx said:

Indeed. Apparently in 2013, 303.7 billion vehicle miles were travelled. Assuming the 750k of the hypothetical driver was spread evenly across the 50 years, their 15k miles a year represents 0.0004939085%. 0.1% would be statistically insignificant, 0.0005% is subatomic.

I wouldn't bother with statistics and reasoning. It appears the questions posed in the opening postcard rhetorical and anyone replying is either wrong or stupid according to the OP.

I've never said "anyone replying is either wrong or stupid". I've neither claimed my accumulated driving mileage has any statistical basis. But, having driven this mileage, having once qualified as a driving instructor with BSM, and done a police advanced driving course, I think I've gathered a reasonable understanding of 'driving', and I’m certainly able to read so called safety reports, and draw my own conclusions on them. ABD and Safe Speed has done a pretty good demolition of many of them for the accuracy and statistical content. And, back on topic, BRAKE is just an anti-car organisation not worthy of serious consideration.

[Jasandjules]

kambites said:

That's not the same as knowing more about road safety, though.

However, understanding about observation (particularly hazards and forward planning), understanding about driver's attention waning if they are driving too slowly, understanding about the general condition of the road, understanding about the different handling characteristics in differing weather conditions and so on all affect whether or rigid adherence to an arbitrary number is safe.