Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 08:40

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 150 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Have you eaten a sandwich while driving?
Yes, I have and I expect to do it again 70%  70%  [ 45 ]
No, I never have and never will 16%  16%  [ 10 ]
I have in the past, but I won't in the future 13%  13%  [ 8 ]
I never have, but I might in the future 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 64
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 14:07 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
RobinXe wrote:

We should not focus our efforts on prohibiting activities that might be risky, everything is! Unfortunately this is the way H&S and a litigious socialogical paradigm has shifted things. We should be focussing on prohibiting activities that actually are dangerous. The rules, whomsoever they apply to, should be for the real benefit of society; not some intuative gutshot that some politician thinks might improve road safety.


I have read this thread with some interest and I think your point above is perhaps one of the most pertinent made so far.

Just my opinion of course.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 14:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
When I drive around, I'm constantly making assessments and predictions about other drivers' state of control. Often I know in just 5 seconds of observation if another vehicle is likely to be unpredictable.


But you are only concerned with what another driver is doing whilst they are in your immediate proximity, i.e. where their behaviour can affect you directly. A police officer has to make an assessment based upon what he sees the driver doing and determine, not only whether that person appears to be in control at that moment in time, but also whether their behaviour has the potential to cause a problem around the next corner. And of course drivers change their behaviour when they see a police car, the police officer may just see a dictaphone ebing hastily chucked to one side.


You seem to be heading off into 'punishment before the offence' territory there. If we aren't keeping up with punishment of real offences (we aren't) then I don't see how we could possibly justify resources intended to punish those who might commit offences.

Crimes and road dangers really are 'here and now' things.

I agree with 'crime prevention' but we need accurate prediction methods, and I don't see them here.

Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
As far as messages go, I think things like: 'You're responsible' and 'driving requires concentration' go a million miles further than 'don't eat a sandwich'.


Which is partially why I've repeatedly said that the message should not or could not be 'don't eat a sandwhich' or anything else that specific because some fuckwit will assume that exclusion of another activity (painting a copy of the Mona Lisa) means its OK to do it.
The message should be, "driving requires concentration, make driving you car your first priority". A sub message would explain that engaging in some other actvity compromises ones ability to achieve that task leaves you liable to prosecution.


We're in 100% agreement there - although we might have a haggle about the exact definitions in the last sentence. In fact I suppose we have been having that haggle.

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 14:15 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Rigpig wrote:
I'm sorry Robin, but again you are postulating a specious argument. We know we undertake tasks that carry inherent risks, driving, flying, crossing the road etc. So there is no need to add to the risk by doing something extra, it is totally unecessary.
Sure, if someone hit my car by dint of some error of judgement I'd be pretty miffed but have to accept it. I'd be even more miffed if the last thing I saw when I glanced in my mirror before being rear-ended was some prat flinging a burger aside as he/she tried to avoid a collision.

Whilst we agree that the police should be left to make the judgement, I'm more than happy to see someone pulling a razor over their faced prosectuted even though they appeared to still be in control of the vehicle at the time. Its their poor attitude thats being slammed IMHO, not just the act itself.


Mate, you keep accusing me of specious arguments, but what comparison can I draw to get through to you that everything we do carries some risk, but some are so small that the overall increase in risk is negligible.

If some prat is piling up your backside because he is eating, then he shouldn't have been eating there and then. This does not mean that eating at the wheel is always dangerous. If I grab the bare ends of a cable thats plugged into the mains, I get electrocuted. That doesn't mean that touching the bare ends of cables is always dangerous!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 14:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rigpig wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
We may see additional tasks as unnecessary, but how much in life is, and how many calculated risks are we willing to take to conduct such tasks to improve our quality of life. Of course you'd be miffed is someone hit your car whilst undertaking an ancilliary task, but what if that ancilliary task was the very act of driving? People taking short journeys, who could have planned their time better and walked, statistically increase the risk to you on the road merely by their presence. Flying carries a risk, so why take holidays? They're hardly a necessity!


I'm sorry Robin, but again you are postulating a specious argument. We know we undertake tasks that carry inherent risks, driving, flying, crossing the road etc. So there is no need to add to the risk by doing something extra, it is totally unecessary.
Sure, if someone hit my car by dint of some error of judgement I'd be pretty miffed but have to accept it. I'd be even more miffed if the last thing I saw when I glanced in my mirror before being rear-ended was some prat flinging a burger aside as he/she tried to avoid a collision.

Whilst we agree that the police should be left to make the judgement, I'm more than happy to see someone pulling a razor over their faced prosectuted even though they appeared to still be in control of the vehicle at the time. Its their poor attitude thats being slammed IMHO, not just the act itself.


Ahhh. I think I've got a proper grip on this discussion at last!

It's about the numbers...

Perhaps we could agree that eating a sandwich nominally adds say, 5% to crash risk.

But over the course of a journey crash risk very likely varies by at least 1000:1 or 100,000%. (i.e. from second to second - most situations aren't risky at all.)

Robin and I are essentially saying, why worry about 5% when we could be worrying about 100,000% situations.

Rigpig is saying it's 5% for nothing, we might as well have it.

I'm saying that if we put any resources at all into the 5% sandwich risk we're actually neglecting much bigger risks.

Does that help?

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


Last edited by SafeSpeed on Thu Mar 15, 2007 15:05, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 14:44 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
RobinXe wrote:
Mate, you keep accusing me of specious arguments, but what comparison can I draw to get through to you that everything we do carries some risk, but some are so small that the overall increase in risk is negligible.


And what can I do to get it through to you that there are risks that are within our capability to control and minimise and those that are outwith it.
Eating a sarnie is within our ability to control. It is within another drivers ability to control. Just don't do it.
When we going flying, unless we go mad and try to wrench the cabin door op-en, the risks are outwith our ability to control, well for the majority of us anyway :lol:
If someone piles in to the back of me because of some other human failing, well thats one of those random risks that happens. They may or may not have been able to reduce the risk.

RobinXe wrote:
If some prat is piling up your backside because he is eating, then he shouldn't have been eating there and then. This does not mean that eating at the wheel is always dangerous.


No it doesn't, but the prat who piles into the back of me probably thought it wasn't dangerous at the time. He may have passed a copper half a mile or so back up the road who saw what he was doing and decided he was perfectly safe at that snapshot in time. A few minuts later the scenario changes, its unsafe and I suffer.
So the copper should have pulled him when he first saw him; if that means folks get pulled for eating who appear to be quite safe at the time...tough! thats what societies are all about, the rules apply equally to all.

Safespeed wrote:
You seem to be heading off into 'punishment before the offence' territory there.


Surely road safety is about preventing crashes from happening, which means intervening in events before they happen. It means dissuading people from engaging in uneccessary risk taking behaviour. It means that society has to draw a line in the sand somewhere which means 'just do as you're damned well told or else'.

I really should be getting on with some work now but these targets are just too easy to hit :lol: I'd almost go so far as to say you've all lost the argument comprehensively :wink:

Nobody is EVER going to convince me that it is necessary to elevate the risks associated with driving by turning a blind eye to people who eat, phone, write, shave, etch a small brass plaque etc whilst they are driving a motor vehicle.
If you do it and get caught, irresective how safe you think you are at the time..tough I'm afraid. At least the correct message is being sent out to those less capable who may be of a mind to do something similar and are les capable of making the correct risk assessment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 14:45 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
RobinXe wrote:
If some prat is piling up your backside because he is eating, then he shouldn't have been eating there and then. This does not mean that eating at the wheel is always dangerous.

I think this boils down to what I said earlier, i.e. I only do something when it is safe to do so.

I know every time I go out on my bike for a blast, I might not come home again. But that's life. I know there are risks. But I minimise those risks.

This is all about driver education/mindsets/attitudes and not about 'rules'.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 14:54 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rigpig wrote:
Safespeed wrote:
You seem to be heading off into 'punishment before the offence' territory there.


Surely road safety is about preventing crashes from happening, which means intervening in events before they happen. It means dissuading people from engaging in uneccessary risk taking behaviour. It means that society has to draw a line in the sand somewhere which means 'just do as you're damned well told or else'.


Steady on with the selective quoting... I answered those points before you replied.

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 15:02 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
Rigpig wrote:
[...] thats what societies are all about, the rules apply equally to all.

What about nonsensical rules and rules not based on science?

Should we blindly adhere to those?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 15:40 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
Steady on with the selective quoting... I answered those points before you replied.


Well actually you addressed the points as I was replying, I was dipping in and out as I was doing something else.

However, I don't see that we need to invest huge amounts of resources into sandwich eating beahaviour. We already have coppers on the streets, put more of them out there and let them do their job. Unfortunately this many mean some 'safe' sandwich eaters get nailed...tough I'm afraid.

Bottyburp wrote:
What about nonsensical rules and rules not based on science?

Should we blindly adhere to those?


You of course will do whatever you want, however I think I've stated my case quite clearly.

I'll bet most of us would like to be able to drive down a town or city road where pedestrians don't just step out into our path even though there is a crossing 50 yards up the street? So it might be worth considering then why pedestrian behaviour in Germany is so much more ordered and careful than it is over here. I'll tell you why BB, its because the Germans obey the rules for crossing the road thats why. It means they wait for the green man at the crossing even though there may be no vehicles approaching :o Good heavens, what weak willed, lilly livered surrender monkeys those Germans are, fancy waiting for a green man when its soooo obviously safe to cross the road.
Road safety is a state of mind, and they are of a mind to obey the rules which makes the system as a whole better for all. But we're just too damned smart over here for all that malarky aren't we? We want the end result, but not the process that goes with it because we belligerent Brits can all think for ourselves and know better don't we? :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 16:02 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Steady on with the selective quoting... I answered those points before you replied.


Well actually you addressed the points as I was replying...


I didn't as it happens. <see here> But no offence and no problem. I know you didn't mean to ignore or twist my words.

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 16:09 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
Rigpig wrote:
I'll bet most of us would like to be able to drive down a town or city road where pedestrians don't just step out into our path even though there is a crossing 50 yards up the street? So it might be worth considering then why pedestrian behaviour in Germany is so much more ordered and careful than it is over here. I'll tell you why BB, its because the Germans obey the rules for crossing the road thats why. It means they wait for the green man at the crossing even though there may be no vehicles approaching :o Good heavens, what weak willed, lilly livered surrender monkeys those Germans are, fancy waiting for a green man when its soooo obviously safe to cross the road.
Road safety is a state of mind, and they are of a mind to obey the rules which makes the system as a whole better for all. But we're just too damned smart over here for all that malarky aren't we? We want the end result, but not the process that goes with it because we belligerent Brits can all think for ourselves and know better don't we? :wink:

I'll tell you what I want...

I want a society where everyone takes responsibility for their own actions.

I want a society where drivers are educated into driving using COAST and not just being given a book of rules.

I want a society where we don't keep inventing rules (as in the proverbial shutting of the door after the horse has bolted)... More and more (usually daft) rules dumb down drivers. Education is the key.

Inventing/creating rules weaken existing rules and eventually lead to the erosion of respect for most rules...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 17:12 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Rigpig wrote:
So it might be worth considering then why pedestrian behaviour in Germany is so much more ordered and careful than it is over here. I'll tell you why BB, its because the Germans obey the rules for crossing the road thats why.


Good point, so why don't British drivers obey the rules to an equal degree? Could it be that the German road safety policy is grounded on facts and realism? Knowing the German mindset, of this I have no doubt. They have not squandered the credibility of their traffic laws by introducing policies based on the gut feeling of someone in power, unsubstantiated by fact. As we see in this thread, opinion on them is highly divided; those to whom it also feels right are willing to accept it without any proof, others are not.

The fact remains that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no scientific proof that eating whilst driving increases risk by one jot. Likewise mobile phones, but thats another thread. So basing laws, yet again, on foundations of nothing more than conjecture further erodes the credibility of all motoring law, criminalises safe drivers, diverts resources away from policing factually more dangerous offences and further strains the police/public relationship.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 17:49 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
BottyBurp wrote:
I'll tell you what I want...

I want a society where everyone takes responsibility for their own actions.


I'll drink to that!

RobingXE wrote:
Good point, so why don't British drivers obey the rules to an equal degree? Could it be that the German road safety policy is grounded on facts and realism? Knowing the German mindset, of this I have no doubt.


German road safety policy is based on more rules than you are I ever have to observe Robin. But in Germany the rules sit in the background, observing them is a matter of routine. They only become an issue when someone comes along who doesn't want to play the game.
The problem in the UK is that we are experiencing an attempt to retrofit new rules into a society where the predominant culture is to do as we please. Similarly we have enforcement of existing rules where non-compliance has become the norm.
If we were to introduce some of the German rules and bylaws into the UK, the whining would shatter every window in the country :lol:

RobinXE wrote:
As we see in this thread, opinion on them is highly divided; those to whom it also feels right are willing to accept it without any proof, others are not.


I sense an attempt to belittle the thought processes of those who do not share your view.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 19:14 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Rigpig wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
As we see in this thread, opinion on them is highly divided; those to whom it also feels right are willing to accept it without any proof, others are not.


I sense an attempt to belittle the thought processes of those who do not share your view.


It wasn't intended as such, I stand to be corrected on the utter absence of any proof that eating at the wheel is dangerous. It would only be belittling if you are of the opinion that accepting road safety messages on faith and feeling rather than solid evidence is somehow inferior.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 02:29 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
It seems to me that if we had the police manpower, and they were adequately trained, we would not need ANY motoring laws, other than all keep to the same side of the road for the direction you are travelling in except when passing, and make sure your driving is up to scratch.

If you break the second law, then clearly something is wrong... except it's not always that clear to the witness as to whether an offenders driving is dangerous or not!

Clearly abilities differ between drivers, and perceptions differ too.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 03:23 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 01:48
Posts: 526
Location: Netherlands
To all who appear to support the
"ban risky actions that are unnecessary whilst driving" campaign:
Would you be happy if I rephrased it:
"ban actions that may , if carried out irresponsibly, increase the risk, and that are unnecessary whilst driving"?

If so, then do you agree that some form of risk/benefit quantification analysis needs to take place before legislation is introduced?

Is it not SAFER to BAN in-car entertainment systems?
Is it not SAFER to BAN the presence of maps in the passenger area (in case some irresponsible driver is tempted to use one whilst driving)?
Is it not SAFER to BAN roadside advertising (that may distract those of an easily distractable nature)?
Is it not SAFER to BAN talking to the driver in cars (This used to be discouraged on buses I seem to remember)?
Is it not SAFER to BAN the removal of a hand from the steering wheel when not changing gear or operating a dashboard control?
Is it not SAFER to BAN smoking whilst driving?

Where does driver responsibility come into consideration?
Where does quality of life come into consideration?

Please, try and convince me that the ban on eating whilst driving is a well-considered piece of legislation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 03:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rigpig wrote:
BottyBurp wrote:
I'll tell you what I want...

I want a society where everyone takes responsibility for their own actions.


I'll drink to that!


I think we all would.

But to get responsible behaviour you have to bestow responsibility.

Too many rules, and especially the wrong rules, take responsibility away.

Do you really disagree with these two sentences?

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:54 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
SafeSpeed wrote:
Rigpig wrote:
BottyBurp wrote:
I'll tell you what I want...

I want a society where everyone takes responsibility for their own actions.


I'll drink to that!


I think we all would.

But to get responsible behaviour you have to bestow responsibility.

Too many rules, and especially the wrong rules, take responsibility away.

Do you really disagree with these two sentences?

Is this question to me? No, I don't disagree.

I think I may be perceived as a bit of an anarchist on this site, but I'm not!

I, rightly or wrongly, believe that spending time inventing rules/laws that punish after the event are the wrong approach to road safety.

I'm a believer in tackling problems at source, the root cause, not the symptoms. Maybe I take a too simplistic view on life and society, but trotting out ban this, ban that, rather than educating drivers in the first instance is a waste of effort.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 13:17 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
But to get responsible behaviour you have to bestow responsibility.

Too many rules, and especially the wrong rules, take responsibility away.

Do you really disagree with these two sentences?


Yes.

The Germans have a very rule based system.

Many of their rules make no more or no less sense than some of ours.

The rules are enforced with more zeal than ours - try crossing at a German pelican with the little man showing red....

Are you saying the Germans lack a sense of responsibility?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 13:59 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
But to get responsible behaviour you have to bestow responsibility.

Too many rules, and especially the wrong rules, take responsibility away.

Do you really disagree with these two sentences?


Yes.

The Germans have a very rule based system.

Many of their rules make no more or no less sense than some of ours.

The rules are enforced with more zeal than ours - try crossing at a German pelican with the little man showing red....

Are you saying the Germans lack a sense of responsibility?


Interesting question - but let me throw this into the mix...

Before the changes in both countries (reunification there, funny road safety policy here) our roads were more than twice as safe as theirs.

Irrespective of the reunification changes, Germany's road safety improvements have continued as expected, while ours have stalled.

I can also offer an anecdote from my last trip to Germany, about 20 years ago. I was visiting an exhibition, and had equipment in the boot for a stand. I was directed to the public car park where car park attendants were directing cars into rows. I really didn't want to park on the end of the row because the equipment was too heavy to carry that sort of distance.

I didn't expect to be able to explain my problem to the attendant because I didn't speak German. So I pointed where I wanted to go. In the UK I would have expected the car park attendant to stand in my way and force me into the row or at least into a discussion. In Germany, the car park attendant TRUSTED ME to have a good reason and waved me through with a smile.

_________________
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 150 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.324s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]