Safe Speed Forums

Can't see this anywhere else....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/6335491.stm

Great to know that the police are still on the case, and not been replaced by speed cameras.
But CARELESS? It seems to imply that you CAN shave, as long as it does not affect your driving!

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

I'm pretty worried that the courts are making judgements of careless driving based apparently on what drivers are doing with their hands.

It's eyes and brain that matters every time. If the hands are evidence of a mental distraction, then that's fine. But this vital step seems to be missing in many, if not all, judgments.

It seems to be founded on a fundamental mis-assessment of the driving process. Because the mental activity is largely subconscious and hidden we (society) seems to be defaulting to defining standards of driving by reference to fairly insignificant 'physical' behaviour.

We get the absurd 'what ifs' to justify the view - what if a tyre blew out?; what if an animal ran out? These 'what ifs' are largely a nonsensical construction intended to paper over the cracks of the original false assumption.

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

Agreed.
This judgement just seemed a bit wonky - probably the way in which it was handed down - I have no doubt his driving should be penalised... but tell the right message first!!

What if?
What if somebody running to put out a fire tripped and landed head first in the bucket of water they were carrying, and drowned?
You're right - it's THAT degree of stupidity in SO many cases!!

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

If someone is engaged in an activity that is diverting their eyes from the road and their hands from the wheel then there is a fair chance that some of their congnitive processes will also be occupied, but by how much. How does a police officer assess or quantify the effect that a secondary activity is having on the ability of an individual to cope mentaly with the process of driving? Do they just ignore someone who is, for example, talking into a dictaphone because they aren't in the process of crashing at the time?
The 'what ifs' only sound ridiculous if you try to quantify them; you can make them sound as daft as you like. What if you discovered that the pilot of your Airbus to the sun had whipped out his butty box on finals and was chowing down on a beef and mustard sarnie whilst guiding the jet down on to the runway at the same time? Be pretty shocked I'm sure!

[flippant]Most jets can land themselves nowadays, it's only H&S that require them to land by hand[/flippant]

Following on from Ernest and Paul's comments, isn't this why we now have a new raft of motoring offences coming in?[/quote]

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

Precisely, but I'll bet many passengers would still be shocked that their pilot wasn't paying full attention to the landing.

This was the most telling argument for me - glancing in the mirror while one eye watches ahead is one thing, but checking your shave???

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

Actually there is no such requirement, provided the airport you are landing at has a suitable ILS. You would be surprised how often the autopilot is the one landing the aircraft. It is normally indicated by a firm 'arrival', due to the fact that the AP disengages on touchdown, in case a go-around is necessary, and you wouldn't want a skimmed landing to leave the aircraft balooning through 500' with throttles closed/reversed and noone in control.

A certain military heavy lifter of some vintage has actually been 'banned' from using the autoland function of the AP at it's home airfield, since it was so accurate that every aircraft was touching it's wheels at exactly the same point, causing undue wear to the tarmac!

Showed your ass there RP. Nice bit of 'well, actually that's what I meant all along...'.

It wouldn't have worried me in the slightest, even after the 'shocking sarnie' scenario was exposed as I'm perfectly aware of what ILS is capable of. Don't try and scaremonger!! It isn't becoming (unless you are a loonie left environmentalist!)

Not many years ago the Police used to look also for erratic driving. Who remembers the Police, Camera, Action clip where they have been following a small 4x4 with the driver on the phone... It's when he bumps up the kerb to pass a vehicle waiting to turn right that a Police Officer say: "That's what we needed"?

I do agree that the comments about looking in the mirror to check the shave might well be 'proper grounds', but I was making a general point about careless driving offences. I can't comment much on this case because I've only got one little press report to go on.

I would assert that any significant degree of distraction in the 'eyes or brain' should be more or less immediately visible from outside the vehicle. At the very least we'd get a bit of steering drift.



No, I'm absolutely certain that the 'what ifs' are absurd in the real world contexts of behaviour, reactions and crash statistics. The 'what ifs' are inextricably founded in a 'physics' model of crash causation when we know that the physics model cannot describe real world rates of crash frequency or real world severity ratios. Essentially for the 'what ifs' to work we have to magically materialise a hazard at exactly the wrong distance ahead.

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

There seams to be an lot of dubious evidence here! there is no evidence to state that his driving actually suffered enough to deserve a 6 month ban. How much could the officers observe from driving in the other direction? and then after turning round they observed that he rubbed his chin. I havent tried it but I am sure that I could shave without actually thinking or looking away from the road. I normally shave without a mirror, just as I can usually find my mouth whilst eating with out a mirror.

What is next? We saw you look at a wonderbra bill board, we deduce you were thinking about sex and not the road. How dare you proceed down the road after looking at the billboard?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

What I meant was the 'what if' scenarios are largely unquantifiable, trying to quantify them can become a matter of permitting our imaginations to run wild.




Don't be daft, I'm not scaremongering at all YOU may be perfectly well aware of what ILS can do, I'll wager 90% of the passenegers wouldn't have a clue OR would be mortified just at the thought of their pilot not paying attention during a critical phase of the flight.

Besides, thats not the point. There is always a problem when using an analogy that repsonendents will engage with the minutae of the analogy and miss the point. Sorry

Sorry, but whats your point? I also remember another PCA where a car, oncoming to the police vehicle, collided with a stationary car parked at the roadside. This was the first and only indication that something was wrong! The driver admitted she had been tuning the radio at the time. Are the police supposed to wait until a pre-occupied driver displays some evidence that they are being distracted, i.e. by clipping a kerb or worse, crashing into something. I don't think so!



See above, the first indication that their driving is being affected may be a collision. Or they may be fine whilst the copper is watching but crash as they are left to go on their way at the next junction due to one of the unquantifiable 'what if' scenarios arising. Surely the best message to send out to drivers is that they should be engaged in the process of controlling their vehicle and nothing else? As a foundation it seems like a pretty good idea to me. Anyone observed doing something else which is pre-occupying them and taking some of their attention from their driving should face the consequences.





The 'what ifs' are perhaps absurd at times, but they convey a simple concern. If we start ignoring 'dodgy' behaviour behind the wheel of a car just because it doesn't result in a crash in that instance, then we send out entirely the wrong message to drivers. The message should be*, as stated above, just drive your car, leave the ablutions, snacks, phone conversations, letter writing, reading to the appropriate time and place.


Question: Are you fundamentally opposed to drivers facing prosecution for anything other than actions which directly result in a crash for which they are found to be responsible? Or even that? Do you think drivers should never be prosecuted?

Edit * One of the messages, not the ONLY message of course.

I haven't got time to do this justice - I'm dashing out, but...



I am absolutely determined that risky behaviours should be prosecuted, in every possible case where the prosecution might lead to an improvement in safety.

But that's very far away from what we are presently achieving, and one key problem is that we have become seriously crap at telling the difference between risky behaviour and perfectly normal safe driving.

And I also believe that they key to road safety is 'education, inducement and information to manage driver quality', with enforcement playing a smaller role.

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

so much for this being a road safety site. Not only do we have people claiming that they can hold an in-depth conversation on a mobile phone and maintain perfect concentration on the road but now we're being told that there's absolutely no problem with shaving while driving! FFS, what next? Is it ok with you if I read a newpaper while bombing up the m1 at 100mph if I can manage to keep an eye on the road at the same time?

actually the point I was trying to make was that the sentence of a 6 month ban was disproportionate.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Yup. That's spot on.

Only yesterday I tied my hands behind my back and negotiated the M5 by thought.

I would say that's a slippery slope fallacy. You're assuming that steering with one hand is 50% as safe as with two hands and that no hands is 0% as safe. By that extension, driving with four hands on the wheel must be twice as safe as two. Not a reasonable assumption, as steering when driving on a motorway in light traffic may only require one hand.

In real life it may be more like 100% with four hands, 100% two hands, 95% one hand, 0% no hands, i.e. non-linear.

What I do think is a valid argument is that he was shaving while overtaking, which definitely sounds careless to me as other vehicles must have been very close by.

or perhaps it just that other penalties are inadequate? The possibility of a 6 month ban for mobile phone use might make a few people question whether their call really is a matter of national security.

no, a valid argument for anyone with the slightest trace of common sense left is that he was shaving while driving on a public road.