Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 07:33

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 21:59 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
Many will recognise the acronym COAST - it has been used, and defined, in many places on this forum. And it's good stuff.

However, it has reminded me of another acronym that was used by Hendon Police Driving School - ACOST. This is very similar to COAST except the 'A' primarily refers to ATTITUDE. The positive and negative effects of the driver's attitude.

And that started me thinking about attitude in a bit more depth.......

Firstly, it can add an enormous dimension to our road safety - either for the good, or bad. To me, its relevance is magnified because it can carry a negative value.
For example, you can't drive with negative Space, or Time, or Observation, or Anticipation, or Concentration. You can only drive with varying degrees of it. (Some may argue "from zero upwards").
Also, I would suggest that +ve attitude cannot coexist with -ve attitude. Therefore, a driver with +ve attitude will be doubly safe because he will keep -ve attitudes at bay.
Similarly, take away +ve attitudes, and the -ve ones will be ready to sneak in. And once your attitude takes a -ve stance, it will affect all of your driving skills in a destructive way.

Now for the stinker - I believe that current Road Safety Policy can take away a drivers +ve attitude. And if I'm right, that's not good, is it?

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 03:10 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Attitudes are absolutely centre-stage in road safety and driver quality.

But surely we're a whole mess of attitudes. We have attitudes to law, attitudes to learning, attitudes to responsibility, attitudes to others, attitudes to safety and so on.

Any of these could be positive or negative. I suppose you could create a sort of aggregate attitude score, but I wouldn't want to be the chap who had to decide if a poor attitude to learning was equalled by someone else's poor attitude to responsibility.

But I cannot seee how modern policy could do any good to any of the attitude parameters, and absolutely certainly must be causing a substantial net loss.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 03:15 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
Firstly, it can add an enormous dimension to our road safety - either for the good, or bad. To me, its relevance is magnified because it can carry a negative value.
For example, you can't drive with negative Space, or Time, or Observation, or Anticipation, or Concentration.


I think this is a red herring. We could drive with more concentration than average or less concentration than average.

A negative attitude is one that is worse than <some reference level>.

I don't believe that attitude is 'special' in this ability to 'go negative' it's more a matter of definition or common usage than a matter of important difference.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:13 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
I agree, whilst you may still have '+ve concentration' it could be of such a low value that it is detrimental to your driving eg doing make-up in a read-view mirror.

Quote:
Now for the stinker - I believe that current Road Safety Policy can take away a drivers +ve attitude. And if I'm right, that's not good, is it?


I believe it also has the ability to detract from concentration, insomuch as concentration can be directed in such a way that it is detrimental to driving/safety.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:28 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 16:12
Posts: 1040
Location: West Midlands
I think Grumpy may be referring to the impact that measures such as traffic calming may have on driver attitude. It is something that I have recognised in myself in the past, and many others appear to be similarly affected...

You start off the journey in a good mood, feeling happy with the world and being considerate with other drivers. Unfortunately after a few red lights with unnecessary queues followed by a sequence of painful speed-bumps and pain in the backside chicanes, the traffic calming measures have had their unintended consequence: you are now in a state of barely controlled fury. How dare "they" treat you an idiot? You are perfectly capable of driving at a safe speed, and have a good record to prove it - why should "they" impose their painful, planet killing, car damaging, idiot f*****g measures.... etc.

The road from Stone to Leek is a perfect example where a good mood coming from the motorway turns to quiet fury after 10 miles and 20+ speed cameras most of which are partially hidden behind the speed limit signs or are on steep down slopes. Why am I not allowed to concentrate on driving safely, why must I be doing less than the limit as I past the limit start signs? Things then get worse with the speed bumps now widely introduced in Leek including turning zebra crossings into barely visible speed tables.

I expect it is worse in those that genuinely do suffer pain as a result from speed bumps - such as that I get from my old whiplash injury. Perversely going slower over the bumps is more painful because more movement is forced on you, while a quicker speed that allows the suspension to absorb most of the impact is relatively easily coped with by a brief tightening of the back & neck muscles.

I am a generally laid back person, am fully aware of the effect, and therefore avoid "calmed" roads where possible, but somehow the implied "we know better than you and you are too stupid to be trusted" attitude of the authorities really gets my back up and my positive starting attitude can quickly become a very negative one that is expressed verbally and in a changed driving style.

I cannot be the only person to experience this change of attitude - can I?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:31 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
SafeSpeed wrote:
I think this is a red herring. We could drive with more concentration than average or less concentration than average.

A negative attitude is one that is worse than <some reference level>.

I don't believe that attitude is 'special' in this ability to 'go negative' it's more a matter of definition or common usage than a matter of important difference.


Yes, I went round this loop several times before I posted! I resisted the temptation to 'forget about it' because I think that 'attitude' is very important and often overlooked.

In my deliberations, I concluded that attitude can manifest itself in many ways, but I could always define them as either negative or positive. The positive ones would work for me and the negative ones, against.
I can't agree that it is ever just degrees of attitude.
Nor can I agree that a compilation of various attitudes can exist, and result in one mean level of attitude. Most will suddenly switch between positive and negative feelings.

As an 'advanced motorcyclist', every time I go out on my bike, I need to have a positive attitude. Pride in what I do and the expectation of always learning. This attitude will always fight against the negative responses I might have, for instance, about the poor driving quality of other road users.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 13:29 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Ahh. We're really talking about different definitions of attitude. Or at least I think we are.

GOB's 'attitude' is similar to 'approach' as in 'a positive approach'.

My 'attitudes' are more like underlying value judgements or beliefs, as in 'he thinks he knows it all'.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 13:55 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
SafeSpeed wrote:
Ahh. We're really talking about different definitions of attitude. Or at least I think we are.

GOB's 'attitude' is similar to 'approach' as in 'a positive approach'.

My 'attitudes' are more like underlying value judgements or beliefs, as in 'he thinks he knows it all'.


Yes (and No). There is a distinct 'attitude' we have towards other road users based on the car type or stickers it may exhibit (see other posts). I suppose this is underlying value judgements?

I'm getting confused now. Maybe that's why Attitude was dropped in favour of Anticipation!

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 14:23 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
Rewolf wrote:
I cannot be the only person to experience this change of attitude - can I?


No, you're not.

However, I tend to find that my mood is swayed more by the behaviour of other motorists than anything else. I tend to find that (although it's taking longer and longer to get there) once I get angry I tend to stay angry for a good long time. Its something I try to work on, but sometimes I just ENJOY being angry... :grumpy:

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 14:29 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Ahh. We're really talking about different definitions of attitude. Or at least I think we are.

GOB's 'attitude' is similar to 'approach' as in 'a positive approach'.

My 'attitudes' are more like underlying value judgements or beliefs, as in 'he thinks he knows it all'.


Yes (and No). There is a distinct 'attitude' we have towards other road users based on the car type or stickers it may exhibit (see other posts). I suppose this is underlying value judgements?

I'm getting confused now. Maybe that's why Attitude was dropped in favour of Anticipation!


:yesyes: I think the strongest message coming through here is that 'attitude' is a dangerous word.

What would your first post say without that word? Care to re-write it?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 05:57 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
Related to this, is what can be done about attitudes, is there a way that road planners and legislators can work to improve the average disposition of drivers on the road.

Certainly removing traffic "calming" (a misnomer if ever there was one, I am certainly less calm after having negotiated your sodding obstacle course) would be a start, but I personally find that static road features are not the main cause of getting annoyed.

So what else can be done. I strongly doubt they will ever create an offence of "Driving in a manner likely to annoy other road users" and even if they did it would be impossible to enforce until someone invents the Twatso camera. (Perhaps they could fit cameras to the front of random cars hooked up to a blood pressure monitor on the driver or something, sorry I'm getting silly now)

I guess this is similar to the "frustration causes accidents" campaign that you (very) rarely see on the motorway matrix signs, but I bet you that the people who most need to take heed of this dont even notice it, or they read it and think "it's ok, I'm nice and relaxed" and carry on at 50mph in the middle lane oblivious to the queue of latent rage behind them.

In other words, I'm trying to say that the main cause of a bad attitude in a driver who is normally ok is the actions of other people and the best thing you can do is to be courteous to other road users and hope that everyone else follows suit, because when they dont it's a vicious circle.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.025s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]