Safe Speed Forums

Fascinating. Really.

There really are gaps between:

1) What best practice (and Police driver training) recommends
2) What really matters
3) What seems to be important if you don't think about it too much

But I do think there's huge value in the best practice recommendations. In this case, it's not so much that two hands on the wheel at all times is very important. Instead the two-hands-on-the-wheel-at-all-times is an excellent attitude proxy. It tells us to take driving a car seriously.

That's not to say that two hands on the wheel isn't useful in itself, it is useful and it does aid precision and sensitivity. But I'm quite sure the attitude proxy thing is by far the greatest benefit.

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

I accept the point about priorities, but I think it underlines a key point about being unnecessarily distracted from the driving task.

Eating an apple may not cause a huge amount of distraction, but it must cause some, and people really shouldn't be doing that kind of thing when driving.

If you're doing something that takes your eyes off the road (e.g. changing radio stations) it should be brief and predictable in duration.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Not sure if this is "a devil's advocate too far", but lets take the analogy a step further...

Regarding the "foot away from brake pedal" scenario, accepted wisdom would say this is acceptable because we cover the brake at times of high potential hazard. So can we wind this one back to say that it is analagous to driving one-handed, but putting the other back in times of need (or possible sudden need)?

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Chicken egg. Egg chicken.

If the Police hadn't done it the media couldn't have reported it.

More seriously, I think the media really is mirroring public perception, and I'm positive that public perception is being mismanaged and undermined by oversimplified policy.

15 years ago, I don't think any of it would have happened - or if it had, at least it wouldn't have been so commonplace. And whatever way you look at it now, it's been yet another public relations disaster for the police.

And when the police have a public relations disaster there's another little dent in their ability to communicate road safety.

There's another Police PR disaster coming along in the morning.

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

You're right.

I'm getting oversensitive to crap information. I'm sure there's some element of truth in most of the crappy messages.

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

Yes, "Don't eat when driving" is obviously well down the list in terms of priority road safety messages, but it's not per se an invalid message.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Well known from my little tiff on PH that I am against mobile phone use.

I do not have a lot of sympathy for the woman in the case on the "what if " basis. I am a person who does not need to munch whilst driving - and I guess this is more down to personal style, self -discipline and responsibilities.

However, if the cop thought her driving was safe and the only fault with it was that she had eaten a apple, and thus drove momentarily one handed - and if the lawyer is to be believed about the escalation after a journalist's report - then we have a problem and a precedent which could affect each driver in the country.

I have experimented,like IG, in the drive way. I have the takes from our family and pals. All agree that holding half a small apple whilst steering did not compromise their control a car in second gear turning into a driveway, (angles varying 45 to 90 degrees ) nor did it compromise controls reversing out of the driveway.

On that basis - she should have been warned over the dangers.


Thus an over-reaction on noth sides and the CPS come out as idiots-especially given the front page of today's "Daily Mail" which claimed that very few serious crimes are actually prosecuted - which begs the question as to why they spent so much time and effrot on a triviality - which bent the rules, but which did not cause any harm to anybody else at the time!

Only reason which stands out - is the fact of the negative criticism!

OK- tabloid press are given to some sensationalism and a some zappy journalese - but there has to be the bare bones of truth - and these bare bones wer re-iterated across the media!
Had the driving been erratic and proven to be so - then we have a different matter.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

I don't know. But then again, I don't why you are asking me the question - I cannot see what it is about my post that suggests I am either for or against eating apples, smoking or whatever in cars.

Okay, fair point. Still, nothig I read about it actually indicated whether or not her driving was below standard as a result. If it was then the police were right to act, though I have a hard time believeing that she was such a huge danger that it justified getting the aircraft out.

PR cock-up, unquestionably. 15 years ago it would have been dealt with very differently. Back then it would likely have been lecture from prop shaped bloke from Hendon, and maybe a ticket only if the driver got lippy. This whole episode smacks a bit of the "if it moves fine it" policy that we've been stuck with.

However, I do still think that eating while driving, although not inherently dangerous, is an indicator of attitude. The question is, is that an attitude that should be discouraged. FWIW my tuppence worth is that should be. We all want to promote sensible, responsible and safe motoring, and a driver's attitude is part of that. I'm having trouble expressing this properly. It's kind of like the 85th percentile group I think. They not safe because they're driving at the 85th %ile, they're driving at the 85th %ile because they're safe, right? Similar thing. Safe drivers who don't eat at the wheel aren't safer because they're not eating, they're not eating because they're safer drivers.


I think that's a sperate problem, but in part it's caused the others. The whole "speed kills" crap has already knocked our confidence in TPTB and their way of managing road safety. So when they do make a genuine point that eating and driving might not be so bright, albeit made in a half arsed and heavy handed way, the message is misunderstood. Or rather, the media never asked the right questions.

What was the other PR disaster BTW?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Excellent points, Gatsobait.



Front page of the Daily Express:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1659

I have the paper and will scan the full article as soon as I get time.

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

Just came across that thread. Also the one about the ticket issued to the blue badge holder becasue the parking pillock couldn't see it properly through the frost on the windscreen. Hey ho, two in one day.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Do you suppose that it would be legal to eat an apple while driving if it is fitted into a kind of "hands-free" kit?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Oh please , as a former police officer yourself do you think I wouldn't look into the validity of his claim . Yes he had a sandwich (mostly eaten), and I asked him if he was willing to show me his mobile 'last calls record' (thereby negating property interferance) which showed he was not using his mobile.

WHEN YOU ARE DRIVING, DRIVE.

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

They probably don't want to see a 2000% increase in road rage incidents.

Regards
Peter

Apart from putting the car into a 180 degree spin ?!?!?!?!

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

I don't think anyone here would argue with that. But if driving safely requires less than 100% of your concentration, would you still argue that a driver shouldn't then be allowed to multitask? Do you believe a driver, alone in a car, should pull over and stop before adjusting any controls that aren't safety-critical in nature, or do you think it's acceptable for them to adjust those controls whilst still in motion, provided they do so at a time when they don't need to concentrate fully on the act of driving?

I've no problem with this sort of thing twister, as it is not an offence. However eating at the wheel is. I use the radio etc in my car, and still have control over my car, and the ability to respond to an emergency. I would argue that eating does not fall into a driving 'norm' practice, and should therefore be done seperately from driving.

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

Is this included in the 3500 road deaths.

If a police car is speeding with blue lights on is it classed as a speeding related death.

If so it could seriously bias the causation stats.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

I don't quite understand your stance here. Taking a quick sip of a drink, or a quick bite of food, is no more distracting than adjusting non-critical controls - indeed, in some cases it may even be less distracting - and provided you're not driving around with one hand permanently filled with food/drink, there should be no reduction in your ability to control the vehicle. So if you really believe in the "when you are driving, drive" message, how can you have no problem in performing an action which has at least as much potential to take your attention away from driving, simply because the action is legal?

Apologies if it sounds like I'm on the offensive here, I'm really just trying to understand.