RE: Numpties Confused?
Wednesday 23rd January 2002
Numpties Confused?
RAC Survey reveals confused attitudes towards speeding
Discussion
A personal observation on the causes of an accident that occurs frequently just outside my house:-
I live on a bend, just before a transition from a 30 zone to a 40. If it's been dry for a while, and then rains, there WILL be an accident. Guaranteed. It's always a front engined, rear wheel drive car. Usually a BMW. Sometimes two in a week. I could paint a target on the wall and they'd always score a bullseye, it's so predictable. The motoring majority don't appear to be aware of the effect of rain on grip, how their car behaves when it breaks away, or how to get it back once it's gone (opposite-lock, what's that?).
Just don't get me started on mobile phone users...
I live on a bend, just before a transition from a 30 zone to a 40. If it's been dry for a while, and then rains, there WILL be an accident. Guaranteed. It's always a front engined, rear wheel drive car. Usually a BMW. Sometimes two in a week. I could paint a target on the wall and they'd always score a bullseye, it's so predictable. The motoring majority don't appear to be aware of the effect of rain on grip, how their car behaves when it breaks away, or how to get it back once it's gone (opposite-lock, what's that?).
Just don't get me started on mobile phone users...
quote:
A personal observation on the causes of an accident that occurs frequently just outside my house:-
I live on a bend, just before a transition from a 30 zone to a 40. If it's been dry for a while, and then rains, there WILL be an accident. Guaranteed. It's always a front engined, rear wheel drive car. Usually a BMW. Sometimes two in a week. I could paint a target on the wall and they'd always score a bullseye, it's so predictable. The motoring majority don't appear to be aware of the effect of rain on grip, how their car behaves when it breaks away, or how to get it back once it's gone (opposite-lock, what's that?).
Just don't get me started on mobile phone users...
I think the reason as you point out is that most people only ever drive FWD cars , they get used to understeer and then graduate to something like a BMW and have no clue as to what to do when the RWD car gets out of shape, all comes back to driver training really
It is unfortunate that the most we hear about on accidents in the media is the extreme cases - "high speed smash kills 4" etc. That coupled with the aggressive advertising campaign is likely to change opinions.
The stupid thing is that the Motorways are the fastest (M25 excluded) roads in Britain but they are the safest. You are more likely to be injured or killed while on an A or major B road - that is totally down to conditions (RWD and FWD being a good example) and circumstances (overtaking on a blind corner etc). Correct that and it will be safer all over....
Flaming morons - I wonder if the people that make the decisions about road safety actually drive to work or take public transport? Incidentaly did anyone hear about the Assistant Chief of Police for Norfolk to be prosecuted for undue care and attention and / or reckless driving? Had a head-on crash on the A11 near Thetford and it was HIS fault.... guess what he does? He's the chairman for the Police groups for road safety policy. Strangely he has had to resign from that post....
Cheers,
Paul
The stupid thing is that the Motorways are the fastest (M25 excluded) roads in Britain but they are the safest. You are more likely to be injured or killed while on an A or major B road - that is totally down to conditions (RWD and FWD being a good example) and circumstances (overtaking on a blind corner etc). Correct that and it will be safer all over....
Flaming morons - I wonder if the people that make the decisions about road safety actually drive to work or take public transport? Incidentaly did anyone hear about the Assistant Chief of Police for Norfolk to be prosecuted for undue care and attention and / or reckless driving? Had a head-on crash on the A11 near Thetford and it was HIS fault.... guess what he does? He's the chairman for the Police groups for road safety policy. Strangely he has had to resign from that post....
Cheers,
Paul
quote:
seems like the propaganda is working. Downer !
Still 10 years of being drip-fed a lie is going to affect the public. Damn, it's even affected me to the point where I am scared, but that's camera-fear, not speed fear.
Like they say 'throw enough shit at the wall and some will stick!" All this sort of thing does is reinforce the governments evil plans...
The "GOOD NEWS FROM THE BBC" thread in the 'In The News' section has a lot about this...
Details on protesting and a few truths about the content of that RAC report...
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=5718&f=57&h=0
Details on protesting and a few truths about the content of that RAC report...
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=5718&f=57&h=0
Rather cynically perhaps, I believe that this issue is all down to money. In order to justify the proliferation of speed cameras/ speed traps etc. the government has got to create the illusion that cracking down on speed is in our best interests. With public support it’s amazing what can be justified in the name of the greater good.
If one considers other so-called ‘safety legislation’ like the mandatory wearing of seatbelts and crash-helmets for motorcyclists, the purpose here is not principally to save lives but to reduce the burden on the NHS resulting from serious accidents. The fact that lives are saved is purely incidental. It would be very naïve to think that the government passes such legislation because of a sudden surge of altruism.
With speeding the government’s true colours were demonstrated by the ‘zero-tolerance’ fiasco of recent times. Clamping down on the driver travelling 32mph in a 30mph zone is intended for nothing more than raising revenue – in some speed trap areas during the regime many hundreds of vehicles were caught in a single day but at no point were we furnished with details of how many fatal accidents had occurred previously in any particular area, in order for us to assess the significance of the ‘safety-element’ of the crackdown.
Someone made the important point that our motorways, the ‘fastest’ roads in the country, are also statistically the safest, a point apparently ignored in the general debate surrounding ‘speed’ on our roads. There is no doubt that excessive speed can contribute to a road-traffic-accident but it is very seldom the only, or even principal, cause. Those that would have us believe that ‘speed-kills’ will use statistics where speed may have been a factor in an accident and attribute the cause of the accident exclusively to that one factor.
Driver error is by far the biggest killer on our roads and speed, in many cases is purely incidental, at most exacerbating the final result of the accident. The emphasis should be on improving the quality of driving on Britain’s roads and a start would be to scrap the Driving Test and replace it with something that resembles reality. When learning to fly, for example, we would expect to be tutored on what to do if something went wrong – when learning to drive however the issue of skid control, cadence breaking, under/ over-steer et al never crops up. The ability to parallel park does not make someone a good driver!
If the government really wants to do something about reducing the number of accidents on our roads then it should address the root of the problem and not use a symptom of the problem as an excuse for raising revenue. At the very least insurance companies should be encouraged to take account of driving expertise such as advance-driving certificates, racing licences etc. thus making it more difficult for inexperienced drivers to have access to high-performance vehicles. Furthermore, manufacturers of high performance vehicles should be encouraged to offer tuition to customers (Caterham already insists on this for younger drivers).
If one considers other so-called ‘safety legislation’ like the mandatory wearing of seatbelts and crash-helmets for motorcyclists, the purpose here is not principally to save lives but to reduce the burden on the NHS resulting from serious accidents. The fact that lives are saved is purely incidental. It would be very naïve to think that the government passes such legislation because of a sudden surge of altruism.
With speeding the government’s true colours were demonstrated by the ‘zero-tolerance’ fiasco of recent times. Clamping down on the driver travelling 32mph in a 30mph zone is intended for nothing more than raising revenue – in some speed trap areas during the regime many hundreds of vehicles were caught in a single day but at no point were we furnished with details of how many fatal accidents had occurred previously in any particular area, in order for us to assess the significance of the ‘safety-element’ of the crackdown.
Someone made the important point that our motorways, the ‘fastest’ roads in the country, are also statistically the safest, a point apparently ignored in the general debate surrounding ‘speed’ on our roads. There is no doubt that excessive speed can contribute to a road-traffic-accident but it is very seldom the only, or even principal, cause. Those that would have us believe that ‘speed-kills’ will use statistics where speed may have been a factor in an accident and attribute the cause of the accident exclusively to that one factor.
Driver error is by far the biggest killer on our roads and speed, in many cases is purely incidental, at most exacerbating the final result of the accident. The emphasis should be on improving the quality of driving on Britain’s roads and a start would be to scrap the Driving Test and replace it with something that resembles reality. When learning to fly, for example, we would expect to be tutored on what to do if something went wrong – when learning to drive however the issue of skid control, cadence breaking, under/ over-steer et al never crops up. The ability to parallel park does not make someone a good driver!
If the government really wants to do something about reducing the number of accidents on our roads then it should address the root of the problem and not use a symptom of the problem as an excuse for raising revenue. At the very least insurance companies should be encouraged to take account of driving expertise such as advance-driving certificates, racing licences etc. thus making it more difficult for inexperienced drivers to have access to high-performance vehicles. Furthermore, manufacturers of high performance vehicles should be encouraged to offer tuition to customers (Caterham already insists on this for younger drivers).
Excellent post WestfieldSeven.
I think you have hit the nail on the head there likening driving to flying. All of this does seem to come down to training and we all know that this is the most sensible way forward.
However, I am sure that purely from a financial standpoint the government will be ignoring such obvious logic because it would cause them to spend money. Regardless of the fact that training would probably have the largest impact on making our roads safer for all they wont do it because they can get say 25% of the way towards lowering the accidents and make a load of cash at the same time.
It all comes down to perception. If the goverment can claim at the next election that they have lowered road accidents by 25% they look good. If they have done it without spending the money then all the better for them and it allows them to spend money on the NHS and public transport (ha ha!).
Unfortunately the public at large dont understand/are never told that the government by modifying the testing and training requirements they could reduce the accident statistics by 50% or 75% if they actually accepted that driving a car or bike is a serious business and should be taken extremely seriously and not just blanket taxed for those people who are capable of driving over the speed limit as and when it is safe to do so.
Matt.
I think you have hit the nail on the head there likening driving to flying. All of this does seem to come down to training and we all know that this is the most sensible way forward.
However, I am sure that purely from a financial standpoint the government will be ignoring such obvious logic because it would cause them to spend money. Regardless of the fact that training would probably have the largest impact on making our roads safer for all they wont do it because they can get say 25% of the way towards lowering the accidents and make a load of cash at the same time.
It all comes down to perception. If the goverment can claim at the next election that they have lowered road accidents by 25% they look good. If they have done it without spending the money then all the better for them and it allows them to spend money on the NHS and public transport (ha ha!).
Unfortunately the public at large dont understand/are never told that the government by modifying the testing and training requirements they could reduce the accident statistics by 50% or 75% if they actually accepted that driving a car or bike is a serious business and should be taken extremely seriously and not just blanket taxed for those people who are capable of driving over the speed limit as and when it is safe to do so.
Matt.
Cross-posted here....
Quote"
Research for the RAC Report on Motoring 2002 was undertaken by Sample Surveys who interviewed 1,354 regular motorists (those who drive at least once a month) in their homes in September and October 2001. Boosted samples of 100 company car drivers, 320 drivers who live in London and 311 teenagers aged 13-16 were also included. "
Lets see what this means!
Firstly 934 of them are NOT "regular drivers" Thats 69% of them ......... (1354 less 100 less 320=934!)
People who drive once a month i.e. 85 year-old metro drivers who drive to collect their pensions
100 company car drivers...possibly the only ones capable of commenting
320 london drivers....comment superfluous!
311 teenagers 13-16... no licences so how can they comment!!!
IMHO Lies, Damned lies and Statistics (again used to sell bullshit spin to Johnny Public to help the brainwashing by BLiar!)
Quote"
Research for the RAC Report on Motoring 2002 was undertaken by Sample Surveys who interviewed 1,354 regular motorists (those who drive at least once a month) in their homes in September and October 2001. Boosted samples of 100 company car drivers, 320 drivers who live in London and 311 teenagers aged 13-16 were also included. "
Lets see what this means!
Firstly 934 of them are NOT "regular drivers" Thats 69% of them ......... (1354 less 100 less 320=934!)
People who drive once a month i.e. 85 year-old metro drivers who drive to collect their pensions
100 company car drivers...possibly the only ones capable of commenting
320 london drivers....comment superfluous!
311 teenagers 13-16... no licences so how can they comment!!!
IMHO Lies, Damned lies and Statistics (again used to sell bullshit spin to Johnny Public to help the brainwashing by BLiar!)
Take a look at www.ringroad.org.uk where figures from the West Midlands accident reviews for 1999 and 2000 are available.
The 2000 figures show speeding to be the primary cause in 2.29% of non-pedestrian related accidents, and only 0.46% of accidents involving pedestrians.
Is this a useful set of figures that we can print off and send to our local rags? It's strange that there was no publicity re this report when it was issued.
The 2000 figures show speeding to be the primary cause in 2.29% of non-pedestrian related accidents, and only 0.46% of accidents involving pedestrians.
Is this a useful set of figures that we can print off and send to our local rags? It's strange that there was no publicity re this report when it was issued.
Something that seems to be missed is that modern cars are so much more refined... they FEEL safer and that they will do whatever you expect of them.
The number of times I see drivers skipping three lanes on a motorway to get to the sliproad - sometimes with tyres screetching is amazing... ten / fifteen years ago they'd have lost it, but modern cars (especially those with things like ESP) just do it...
At the end of the day it's ignorance in my humble opinion. I even spotted in Boots the other day a "driving day pack" where you get to "use ABS (Automatic Braking System)"... er? Pardon?
The number of times I see drivers skipping three lanes on a motorway to get to the sliproad - sometimes with tyres screetching is amazing... ten / fifteen years ago they'd have lost it, but modern cars (especially those with things like ESP) just do it...
At the end of the day it's ignorance in my humble opinion. I even spotted in Boots the other day a "driving day pack" where you get to "use ABS (Automatic Braking System)"... er? Pardon?
I've been trying to think through why so many people feel the need to present speed as the major cause of accidents when the facts so clearly refute it.
If you assume that they really do want to prevent RTA casualties then surely they would try to find and address the real causes. I'm sure that nobody who posts here would argue with making the roads safer - we all spend a lot of time out there and none of us wants to die (ok - maybe there's just a few "Death or Glory" types
) .
Are they just so stupid that they can't interpret the figures? That doesn't stack up either or there would be an equal number of people campaigning to have laws against driving while eating chocolate and stuff like that.
Perhaps more plausible is that speed is a simply measured and highly visible parameter - it's just taking the path of least resistance.
Is it (as a previous posting suggested) to do with the disproportionate coverage given to high speed accidents because they make for good press?
There certainly needs to be a distinction made between speed as the cause of accidents and speed as a factor in making accidents more serious. Maybe this is where the confusion arises. If you're going to stuff a car at 100mph there is four times as much energy to lose somewhere as there is at 50mph and things are going to get a lot more bent. There's no arguing with the physics. This sounds more likely to me. The numpties don't make the distinction.
This is rather sad, it assumes that we're all going to have lots of accidents so we should crawl around so that when we hit something nobody gets hurt. It denies the possibility of trying to avoid the accidents in the first place.
It's taxing my brain - what do people think?
If you assume that they really do want to prevent RTA casualties then surely they would try to find and address the real causes. I'm sure that nobody who posts here would argue with making the roads safer - we all spend a lot of time out there and none of us wants to die (ok - maybe there's just a few "Death or Glory" types
) . Are they just so stupid that they can't interpret the figures? That doesn't stack up either or there would be an equal number of people campaigning to have laws against driving while eating chocolate and stuff like that.
Perhaps more plausible is that speed is a simply measured and highly visible parameter - it's just taking the path of least resistance.
Is it (as a previous posting suggested) to do with the disproportionate coverage given to high speed accidents because they make for good press?
There certainly needs to be a distinction made between speed as the cause of accidents and speed as a factor in making accidents more serious. Maybe this is where the confusion arises. If you're going to stuff a car at 100mph there is four times as much energy to lose somewhere as there is at 50mph and things are going to get a lot more bent. There's no arguing with the physics. This sounds more likely to me. The numpties don't make the distinction.
This is rather sad, it assumes that we're all going to have lots of accidents so we should crawl around so that when we hit something nobody gets hurt. It denies the possibility of trying to avoid the accidents in the first place.
It's taxing my brain - what do people think?
An interesting thought: We already know that Motorways are the safest roads, I am wondering how many of the fatal RTAs on them are caused by excessive speed in poor conditions and how many are caused solely by excessive speed in clear, good conditions. Take weather into account and we could have a clear picture of whether 'speed kills' (of course we PHers already know the answer 
). I expect the number of fatal RTAs in good weather is very low indeed.I totally agree. My old man was a traffic-plod for 30 years and always said if he had to choose between nicking a guy in a Jag doing 120mph on a clear day, in the dry on an empty motorway or a muppet in a Metro doing 70 in the fog - well no prizes for guessing.
Speed is very seldom the issue - common sense or lack of it and down-right negligence usually are. He once told me of a rep who pulled up alongside of him one night on the motorway in thick fog. The rep was complaining that no temporary speed limits were in place and 'how was he supposed to drive at 70 in this weather?'
I rest my case. Speed doesn't kill - it doesn't have to with idiots like that out there!
By the way, my old-man nicked the guy for due care & attention!
Speed is very seldom the issue - common sense or lack of it and down-right negligence usually are. He once told me of a rep who pulled up alongside of him one night on the motorway in thick fog. The rep was complaining that no temporary speed limits were in place and 'how was he supposed to drive at 70 in this weather?'
I rest my case. Speed doesn't kill - it doesn't have to with idiots like that out there!
By the way, my old-man nicked the guy for due care & attention!
quote:
The number of times I see drivers skipping three lanes on a motorway to get to the sliproad - sometimes with tyres screetching is amazing... ten / fifteen years ago they'd have lost it, but modern cars (especially those with things like ESP) just do it...
I was driving the M5 when a Numpty in an ancient van decided to overtake the lorries in the inside and middle lanes by pulling straight across in front of me.He then missed a gear giving a speed differential of approx. 50 mph (and I wasn't trying hard) Foot hard on brake, shift down, pull into middle lane, blast out in front of van. If I'd tried that in an older M5 I'd have lost it, if I'd braked I'd have rear ended him, but the whole maneouvre was handled entirely without fuss (at least from the car, I was bricking it
). The problem with this is that it's made people who don't appreciate that every car has limits totally complacent. I've got no stats but I'd be willing to bet that the number of straight on through corners accidents has increased in recent years, simply because hot hatch drivers don't realise that their ESP, ABS etc. won't get them out of every situation.quote:
I've been trying to think through why so many people feel the need to present speed as the major cause of accidents when the facts so clearly refute it.
I actually think its because most drivers, and pedestrians, are simply irritated by people who speed. It is easy to spot someone who you think is going too fast and the complaints will quickly follow.
On another topic, how often have you been tooling along a nice fast A-road at a respectably illegal velocity to round a bend, after a long empty straight, and come across an Allegro, or similar retired persons vehicle, pootling along at 25mph? How the hell do they get there? There was no sign of them on the straight bit, no junctions or gateways, they just materialise out of thin air! It happens a lot to me
Steve Harrisson ... you are absolutely spot on. Bottom line is that the govt is obsessed with setting itself dim-witted numerical targets and then demonstrating that is is hitting them. This has two big impacts for motoring:-
(1) In order to be seen to be doing something, they rack up speeding convictions as they are very easy to prosecute.
(2) In order to reduce the fatalities and serious injuries (a laudable aim), they take the pathetically unambitious approach of NOT trying to reduce the total number of RTAs, but by reducing their seriousness by trying to make them happen at lower speeds.
There are moral arguments in favour of option 2. If you accept that most people are incurably crap drivers, there is little alternative. However it would seem obvious to most of us that your average driver can be forced to improve ...
a) make it socially unacceptable to drive like a numpty
b) fine and points for using phones handsets, parking in junctions and pedestrian crossings, not indicating, driving without correct lights, blown bulbs. And make this a priority for plod and CPS.
c) bollockings on the hard shoulder from plod, for bad lane discipline (middle lane tosspots), tailgating. If prosecution not possible, then inconvenience the driver by making making them turn up at the cop shop with their paperwork.
d)And while I'm venting my spleen, crack down on cyclists who don't obey traffic lights, one-way signs, ride on the pavement, don't have lights. Cyclists used to be disciplined, but this has totally slid in the last 10yrs.
(1) In order to be seen to be doing something, they rack up speeding convictions as they are very easy to prosecute.
(2) In order to reduce the fatalities and serious injuries (a laudable aim), they take the pathetically unambitious approach of NOT trying to reduce the total number of RTAs, but by reducing their seriousness by trying to make them happen at lower speeds.
There are moral arguments in favour of option 2. If you accept that most people are incurably crap drivers, there is little alternative. However it would seem obvious to most of us that your average driver can be forced to improve ...
a) make it socially unacceptable to drive like a numpty
b) fine and points for using phones handsets, parking in junctions and pedestrian crossings, not indicating, driving without correct lights, blown bulbs. And make this a priority for plod and CPS.
c) bollockings on the hard shoulder from plod, for bad lane discipline (middle lane tosspots), tailgating. If prosecution not possible, then inconvenience the driver by making making them turn up at the cop shop with their paperwork.
d)And while I'm venting my spleen, crack down on cyclists who don't obey traffic lights, one-way signs, ride on the pavement, don't have lights. Cyclists used to be disciplined, but this has totally slid in the last 10yrs.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff